The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Giovenith]

Cringe

I think they meant well, but yeah, not the best delivery. "Respects women" is a great quality to celebrate in men, no doubt, but they really are kinda stealing the spotlight from men and making it all about how they should be there to support women. This is a common gaff feminists make, and I say this as a feminist: It's not that encouraging respect for women in men is bad or unimportant (quite the opposite), but when trying to start a discussion about men's needs, we often wind up making that the center of the conversation. This is a bad habit we need to get a better grip on. "We need to encourage men to get more in tune with their emotions, because then they won't pick up toxic habits that hurt women!" Well... yes, but how about because they'll be mentally healthier as a result? And won't hurt themselves or commit suicide? "Oh, that too!"

When talking about helping men, we should be doing so because we want to see men happy, healthy, and living with dignity, not just because doing so will help women by extension. Again, it's not that treatment of women can't be a factor in the conversation, but when you're constantly pivoting back to that point the impression given is that you don't really care about men themselves, but rather you just see them as a tool for helping women. And that's a terrible way to make someone feel about themselves, something that women of all people should know given our history.

[Vassenor]

Cringe

I think they meant well, but yeah, not the best delivery. "Respects women" is a great quality to celebrate in men, no doubt, but they really are kinda stealing the spotlight from men and making it all about how they should be there to support women. This is a common gaff feminists make, and I say this as a feminist: It's not that encouraging respect for women in men is bad or unimportant (quite the opposite), but when trying to start a discussion about men's needs, we often wind up making that the center of the conversation. This is a bad habit we need to get a better grip on.

When talking about helping men, we should be doing so because we want to see men happy, healthy, and living with dignity, not just because doing so will help women by extension. Again, it's not that treatment of women can't be a factor in the conversation, but when you're constantly pivoting back to that point the impression given is that you don't really care about men themselves, but rather you just see them as a tool for helping women. And that's a terrible way to make someone feel about themselves, something that women of all people should know given our history.

Which is why IMD tends to be framed more as being about mental health and all the other problems that toxic masculinity tries to keep men from talking about.

[Giovenith]

Which is why IMD tends to be framed more as being about mental health and all the other problems that toxic masculinity tries to keep men from talking about.

Sure, when done right. The UN Twitter page kind of botched that though, as do others, often. And we need to call that out when it happens. Getting all defensive when other feminists and progressives fuck up, trying to get everyone to shut up about it, and deflecting back to "the good that we do" is not the proper reaction to when things like this happen, though that it all too often the response from feminists and progressives. People don't like this for the exact same reason that feminists don't like it when someone screams, "Not all men!!" when we're talking about abuse committed by men — because it's avoiding and distracting from the topic at hand with an obvious statement, and thus implies a lack of due care for said topic.

So when something like this fuck up happens, maybe instead of verbally rolling your eyes and snarking...

Maybe you should explain what you would've done differently then.

... we say something more like, "Wow, I agree that wasn't very good of them. Here's what I, as a feminist, would have done differently..."

It acknowledges the fuck up, validates the feelings of the people upset about it, and sets you apart from the people who made the fuck up. It's communication and a solution, not dismissing the issue out of hand and then acting like everyone else has no right to accuse you of not caring about the wider issue.

Maybe you didn't mean it to come across that way, but this is what I'm talking about: It's a bad habit that we need to be more conscious about.

[Galloism]

Cringe

I think they meant well, but yeah, not the best delivery. "Respects women" is a great quality to celebrate in men, no doubt, but they really are kinda stealing the spotlight from men and making it all about how they should be there to support women. This is a common gaff feminists make, and I say this as a feminist: It's not that encouraging respect for women in men is bad or unimportant (quite the opposite), but when trying to start a discussion about men's needs, we often wind up making that the center of the conversation. This is a bad habit we need to get a better grip on. "We need to encourage men to get more in tune with their emotions, because then they won't pick up toxic habits that hurt women!" Well... yes, but how about because they'll be mentally healthier as a result? And won't hurt themselves or commit suicide? "Oh, that too!"

When talking about helping men, we should be doing so because we want to see men happy, healthy, and living with dignity, not just because doing so will help women by extension. Again, it's not that treatment of women can't be a factor in the conversation, but when you're constantly pivoting back to that point the impression given is that you don't really care about men themselves, but rather you just see them as a tool for helping women. And that's a terrible way to make someone feel about themselves, something that women of all people should know given our history.

Hit the nail on the head. I'll point out this goes far beyond just feminist rhetoric though - and invades things like the medical community.

Men who are suffering depression or anxiety are often told that they MUST get better so.... that they can support their wives or families. Not so they'll feel better, not because there's anything worthy about them worth fixing, not because they have intrinsic value, but because they have a duty of care and this is impacting their absolute and unswerving duty to serve.

It's exhausting. Let me tell you - as a man, it's utterly exhausting.

[Giovenith]

Hit the nail on the head. I'll point out this goes far beyond just feminist rhetoric though - and invades things like the medical community.

Men who are suffering depression or anxiety are often told that they MUST get better so.... that they can support their wives or families. Not so they'll feel better, not because there's anything worthy about them worth fixing, not because they have intrinsic value, but because they have a duty of care and this is impacting their absolute and unswerving duty to serve.

It's exhausting. Let me tell you - as a man, it's utterly exhausting.

Indeed. Sometimes women do receive this treatment too in other ways, but that just shows that we as a larger society really need to untangle ourselves from this pervasive "complementary" dynamic and assert that all people, men, women, non-binary, androgynous, anything, should live for themselves first and foremost (and that it is possible to do so without disrespecting or hurting anyone else).

[Galloism]

Hit the nail on the head. I'll point out this goes far beyond just feminist rhetoric though - and invades things like the medical community.

Men who are suffering depression or anxiety are often told that they MUST get better so.... that they can support their wives or families. Not so they'll feel better, not because there's anything worthy about them worth fixing, not because they have intrinsic value, but because they have a duty of care and this is impacting their absolute and unswerving duty to serve.

It's exhausting. Let me tell you - as a man, it's utterly exhausting.

Indeed. Sometimes women do receive this treatment too in other ways, but that just shows that we as a larger society really need to untangle ourselves from this pervasive "complementary" dynamic and assert that all people, men, women, non-binary, androgynous, anything, should live for themselves first and foremost (and that it is possible to do so without disrespecting or hurting anyone else).

Indeed, women also frequently get similar invocations for children. But men generally get them for both women and children.

[Giovenith]

Indeed. Sometimes women do receive this treatment too in other ways, but that just shows that we as a larger society really need to untangle ourselves from this pervasive "complementary" dynamic and assert that all people, men, women, non-binary, androgynous, anything, should live for themselves first and foremost (and that it is possible to do so without disrespecting or hurting anyone else).

Indeed, women also frequently get similar invocations for children. But men generally get them for both women and children.

I was thinking more about how in a lot of traditionalist/socially conservative circles (and among individual sexist men) there tends to be this unspoken tendency wherein a man ostensibly desires an accomplished, strong, intelligent woman, but doesn't want to have to deal with any of the realities of being with such a person (deferring to her judgment when she's right and he's wrong, having her be better at certain activities and subjects than him, her putting certain personal goals ahead of paying attention to and serving him, etc.), he more just wants the status that comes from being the sort of man that can obtain a "high quality" woman. i.e., Wants all the good implications about himself that come from being with an independent woman, but with all the ease and lack-of-challenge to his ego that comes from being with a submissive woman. Note, this is referring to a situation where the woman in question doesn't want to play a submissive role but the man demands it anyway, not a relationship where the woman chooses to be submissive in spite of her accomplishments.

But that's all a subject for another time.

[Shin-Mutsu]

Indeed, women also frequently get similar invocations for children. But men generally get them for both women and children.

I was thinking more about how in a lot of traditionalist/socially conservative circles (and among individual sexist men) there tends to be this unspoken tendency wherein a man ostensibly desires an accomplished, strong, intelligent woman, but doesn't want to have to deal with any of the realities of being with such a person (deferring to her judgment when she's right and he's wrong, having her be better at certain activities and subjects than him, her putting certain personal goals ahead of paying attention to and serving him, etc.), he more just wants the status that comes from being the sort of man that can obtain a "high quality" woman. i.e., Wants all the good implications about himself that come from being with an independent woman, but with all the ease and lack-of-challenge to his ego that comes from being with a submissive woman. Note, this is referring to a situation where the woman in question doesn't want to play a submissive role but the man demands it anyway, not a relationship where the woman chooses to be submissive in spite of her accomplishments.

But that's all a subject for another time.

There was a very good article from New York Times about how "overeducated" women in China are having difficulty finding a spouse for some of the same reasons you've listed.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

cringe to me, is for any gender, ideology or belief, to take precedence over logic, consideration, honesty or imagination.

all genders are bullshit outside of sex and pregnancy.
i don't understand people claiming pride or shame in any gender at all.

the soul has no gender, whatever physical form it may happen to occupy.
the soul, the mind, the self awareness, identity, et al.

based.

[Giovenith]

I was thinking more about how in a lot of traditionalist/socially conservative circles (and among individual sexist men) there tends to be this unspoken tendency wherein a man ostensibly desires an accomplished, strong, intelligent woman, but doesn't want to have to deal with any of the realities of being with such a person (deferring to her judgment when she's right and he's wrong, having her be better at certain activities and subjects than him, her putting certain personal goals ahead of paying attention to and serving him, etc.), he more just wants the status that comes from being the sort of man that can obtain a "high quality" woman. i.e., Wants all the good implications about himself that come from being with an independent woman, but with all the ease and lack-of-challenge to his ego that comes from being with a submissive woman. Note, this is referring to a situation where the woman in question doesn't want to play a submissive role but the man demands it anyway, not a relationship where the woman chooses to be submissive in spite of her accomplishments.

But that's all a subject for another time.

There was a very good article from New York Times about how "overeducated" women in China are having difficulty finding a spouse for some of the same reasons you've listed.

I'm sure. But honestly, it's better to be alone than to be with someone who doesn't value you for you in your entirety. A person who hates your strengths and accomplishments doesn't really love you, the love the idea of what you can do for them.

[Sundiata]

There was a very good article from New York Times about how "overeducated" women in China are having difficulty finding a spouse for some of the same reasons you've listed.

I'm sure. But honestly, it's better to be alone than to be with someone who doesn't value you for you in your entirety. A person who hates your strengths and accomplishments doesn't really love you, the love the idea of what you can do for them.

Yeah.

It's unfortunate that there aren't enough great men out there, men who are capable of meeting life's challenges and being a stable partner to a woman. I don't think that the world is tough enough on most men to tell you the truth, at least in developed countries. I've always had a harsh attitude towards men in this respect. Some might consider my attitude towards men sexist, but I don't really care. I'm not a politician. I'm not sugar-coating this. I sincerely think that men should be pushed hard, pressured to reach their limits, and expected to exceed them. In my anecdotal experience, I've encountered a lot of men who were essentially old infants. They're at the age of marriage, they should be capable of providing for a family, they should have certain skills, but they just don't. I think it's largely the parent's fault, the culture's fault as well.

[Galloism]

I'm sure. But honestly, it's better to be alone than to be with someone who doesn't value you for you in your entirety. A person who hates your strengths and accomplishments doesn't really love you, the love the idea of what you can do for them.

Yeah.

It's unfortunate that there aren't enough great men out there, men who are capable of meeting life's challenges and being a stable partner to a woman. I don't think that the world is tough enough on most men to tell you the truth, at least in developed countries. I've always had a harsh attitude towards men in this respect. Some might consider my attitude towards men sexist, but I don't really care. I'm not a politician. I'm not sugar-coating this. I sincerely think that men should be pushed hard, pressured to reach their limits, and expected to exceed them. In my anecdotal experience, I've encountered a lot of men who were essentially old infants. They're at the age of marriage, they should be capable of providing for a family, they should have certain skills, but they just don't. I think it's largely the parent's fault, the culture's fault as well.

Huh, look at that. The thing I was literally just talking about.

[Sundiata]

Yeah.

It's unfortunate that there aren't enough great men out there, men who are capable of meeting life's challenges and being a stable partner to a woman. I don't think that the world is tough enough on most men to tell you the truth, at least in developed countries. I've always had a harsh attitude towards men in this respect. Some might consider my attitude towards men sexist, but I don't really care. I'm not a politician. I'm not sugar-coating this. I sincerely think that men should be pushed hard, pressured to reach their limits, and expected to exceed them. In my anecdotal experience, I've encountered a lot of men who were essentially old infants. They're at the age of marriage, they should be capable of providing for a family, they should have certain skills, but they just don't. I think it's largely the parent's fault, the culture's fault as well.

Huh, look at that. The thing I was literally just talking about.

I came in late I guess, what were you talking about?

[Galloism]

Huh, look at that. The thing I was literally just talking about.

I came in late I guess, what were you talking about?

Literally right above you.

[Sundiata]

I came in late I guess, what were you talking about?

Literally right above you.

I hear you, that's a fair point. Men have intrinsic value. They're not born scum. That said, men in relationships do have duties to their spouses, to their children. We should treat them with respect, but not with kid gloves. And yes, men need healthcare.

[The Blaatschapen]

Indeed, women also frequently get similar invocations for children. But men generally get them for both women and children.

I was thinking more about how in a lot of traditionalist/socially conservative circles (and among individual sexist men) there tends to be this unspoken tendency wherein a man ostensibly desires an accomplished, strong, intelligent woman, but doesn't want to have to deal with any of the realities of being with such a person (deferring to her judgment when she's right and he's wrong, having her be better at certain activities and subjects than him, her putting certain personal goals ahead of paying attention to and serving him, etc.), he more just wants the status that comes from being the sort of man that can obtain a "high quality" woman. i.e., Wants all the good implications about himself that come from being with an independent woman, but with all the ease and lack-of-challenge to his ego that comes from being with a submissive woman. Note, this is referring to a situation where the woman in question doesn't want to play a submissive role but the man demands it anyway, not a relationship where the woman chooses to be submissive in spite of her accomplishments.

But that's all a subject for another time.

No it's not all a subject for another time.

If not now, then when?

I am learning a lot here

[Kungsu]

I'm sure. But honestly, it's better to be alone than to be with someone who doesn't value you for you in your entirety. A person who hates your strengths and accomplishments doesn't really love you, the love the idea of what you can do for them.

Yeah.

It's unfortunate that there aren't enough great men out there, men who are capable of meeting life's challenges and being a stable partner to a woman. I don't think that the world is tough enough on most men to tell you the truth, at least in developed countries. I've always had a harsh attitude towards men in this respect. Some might consider my attitude towards men sexist, but I don't really care. I'm not a politician. I'm not sugar-coating this. I sincerely think that men should be pushed hard, pressured to reach their limits, and expected to exceed them. In my anecdotal experience, I've encountered a lot of men who were essentially old infants. They're at the age of marriage, they should be capable of providing for a family, they should have certain skills, but they just don't. I think it's largely the parent's fault, the culture's fault as well.

I will give you my story, as it will perhaps give you another perspective on this issue.

I was diagnosed with ADD as an adult, and it was bad enough that I did absolutely miserably when I was school. I could not for the life of me remember to do/turn in assignments on time, and not for lack of want or motivation. I took my failure hard and was desperate to succeed. I tried everything in my power to do so. But my father would still get almost psychotically enraged at my perceived "laziness" from lack of results and sling as much verbal filth as he could at me just out of sheer anger. Then, when my mother ultimately tried to shield me from this, he would turn on her 10x worse. I was led to believe that I was worthless, that I could never amount to anything, and that I was lazy and weak. Even after I was diagnosed I struggled to find any amount of self-worth in myself, and up until about a month ago I had become so depressed that my mind began to become interrupted with thoughts of killing myself. I didn't truly want to, but that just made these thoughts all the more terrifying.

Luckily I was able to get diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and am on medication now. But the stigma of "you must be successful for you future wife and kids" and, in failing, the label of being lazy and good-for-nothing almost destroyed me. It still lingers in the back of my mind. I am, and always have been, an extremely hard worker. But I have been disadvantaged by mental conditions, which has led to the perception that I was "just trying to get by" or didn't care. Instead of trying to figure out what the issue might be, I was railroaded down a path that was doing more harm than good.

It's not easy for me to share this, since I am still dealing with a lot of this today (including my definitely mentally unstable father). But I thought it would be important to show that lack of results does not equate to lack of effort. The stigma of ignoring the mental health of men is extremely harmful and sometimes even fatal, since almost nobody is willing to patch the holes in the leaky ship and would rather watch from the shore as the ship capsizes and sinks, wondering why the ship sunk "all of the sudden".

Are there men out there who are truly lazy and coasting through life? Sure. But some of those who appear to be lazy are honestly good people who are just trying to do their best despite their conditions.

[Adamede]

Literally right above you.

I hear you, that's a fair point. Men have intrinsic value. They're not born scum. That said, men in relationships do have duties to their spouses, to their children. We should treat them with respect, but not with kid gloves. And yes, men need healthcare.

As you own post shows the value of men, at least as far as people with mindsets not to far from your own and I’d argue society as a whole is dependent on what wealth they can provide or produce, much like how as a society we tend to value women mostly on their beauty.

And you speak of respect, yet your initial post isn’t exactly a great of example of it towards those men.

[Giovenith]

I was thinking more about how in a lot of traditionalist/socially conservative circles (and among individual sexist men) there tends to be this unspoken tendency wherein a man ostensibly desires an accomplished, strong, intelligent woman, but doesn't want to have to deal with any of the realities of being with such a person (deferring to her judgment when she's right and he's wrong, having her be better at certain activities and subjects than him, her putting certain personal goals ahead of paying attention to and serving him, etc.), he more just wants the status that comes from being the sort of man that can obtain a "high quality" woman. i.e., Wants all the good implications about himself that come from being with an independent woman, but with all the ease and lack-of-challenge to his ego that comes from being with a submissive woman. Note, this is referring to a situation where the woman in question doesn't want to play a submissive role but the man demands it anyway, not a relationship where the woman chooses to be submissive in spite of her accomplishments.

But that's all a subject for another time.

No it's not all a subject for another time.

If not now, then when?

I am learning a lot here

Well, it's not a universal feature, but it is something that you can see popping up every now and then. (Sorry for the long post.)

Just take the existence of finishing schools back in the day for example, academies where wealthy young ladies were taught skills like music, drawing, dancing, philosophical conversation. To what end? To become musicians, artists, dancers, or philosophers? No, to make them more attractive to potential suitors, to whom they would become housewives and their skills only shown off to visitors for the purpose of boosting their husband's reputation. That sort of tradition was carried on into the "MRS degree" and the expectation that women can have illustrious careers as long as they give them up upon marriage. For a lot of history, especially in the upper classes, there has been this sort of tendency to treat women like show dogs or fancy cars, where the more "features" they have and "tricks" they can do the luckier you are to own them, but they're still ultimately are a thing that you own, does what you say, and all the glory of what it can do goes to you.

Some may argue that this is at least better than the expectation that women be empty husks, and that it at least demonstrates an attraction to accomplishment. Sure, but it's a very shallow attraction at best that, like I said, has very little to do with respect for the woman herself and more for the prestige she brings her husband. Even among some sexist men, there is an understanding that getting with a dull, uninteresting, talentless woman is "easy" to do, and taking the easy route doesn't give glory, so they view a talented woman as like a shiny prize that will prove how worthy of a man they are to have obtained her. "See? Even smart, classy women can't resist me.~" However, because they are fundamentally disrespectful, sexist men, they also feel like they should just be handed over this privilege without any real sacrifice on their end (such as accepting the risk of being outshone by their woman or her having a life that doesn't revolve around him). This may seem contradictory, but this is just how having a sense of entitlement works in any person: Wanting all the rewards for none of the work, even if the reward is fundamentally dependent on the work that you do. All these wealthy gentlemen back in the day wanted educated, interesting wives, but god forbid those wives have any thoughts in their head that didn't revolve around pleasing him, god forbid they work outside the home or have an individual reputation, and god forbid he have to actually do anything to earn her outside of suck up to her parents in a culture that will essentially force her to be with him against her will.

Obviously this attitude is not as formalized now days as it used to be, but you can still see it in some circles and men, often being re-packaged as a sort of pseudo-egalitarianism ("I'm not sexist, BUT..."). We still have cultures that send their daughters off to America to become doctors at Harvard, yet expect them to become an obedient housewife to an arranged husband back in their home country. I've still come across men who say things like, "I'd love a woman with a very high IQ — preferably a few points lower than mine," "Fourth place? Very nice. I like women who are skilled but still know their place," "Don't get me wrong, strong women are great! I just don't like being told what to do."

You can see it in this Fox News article describing women who don't automatically defer to their husband on all choices as "alpha women are unable to love" and frames a husband actually listening to his wife's opinions or not cheating on her like it's some big, noble favor on his end, yet tries to deny the obvious implications by asserting "I'm not saying you should act like a mouse" and that men "love strong, feisty women." (I'm actually writing my own article in refutation to this one, hence why I won't go into too much detail here.) You can see it in a lot of movies and media, with the cliche of the hardass, career-minded leading lady who reluctantly falls hopelessly in love with the rugged hero who repeatedly bests her, usually culminating in some scene where she's all, "You might the most arrogant man I've ever met... *knowing smile, cut to sex scene*" It's been noted in anime, where as one of my favorite YouTubers once put it:

"There seems to be a trend in light novels lately of filling the main character’s harem with girls who would otherwise be the strongest characters in the story, if not for the main guy. The wish fulfillment aspect of this is obvious--you get to date all of the hottest, coolest, most powerful women around, while still outdoing all of them and keeping your position as an alpha dude. At the end of the day, when the chips are down, you get to swoop in and save the girls like the big hero that you are, but you don’t have to feel bad about being attracted to a damsel in distress, because she could totally kick anyone’s ass on a good day. It’s all about striking that balance between having so-called “strong female characters,” while also promoting the male power fantasy that young guys who watch this stuff are looking for."

Other quotes noting this attitude have been:

“The rule seemed to be that a great woman must either die unwed ... or find a still greater man to marry her. ... The great man, on the other hand, could marry where he liked, not being restricted to great women; indeed, it was often found sweet and commendable in him to choose a woman of no sort of greatness at all.” - Dorothy L. Sayers

“He'd always liked women who'd talk back to him just a little bit. "Girls with balls" were good. Women with an actual mind of their own who could prove him wrong in something were, of course, castrating bitches who should be drowned in bottomless wells.” - Warren Ellis


Despite what a person like this may say or even believe, he doesn't really like strong, talented women. If he appreciated strength and talent for strength and talent's sake, then there should be no limit to how impressed and proud he is of it, but there is a strict limit — up until it starts coming close to or surpassing him. He is putting himself, and men in general, automatically before her, in spite of her obvious merit. When you truly value merit, you don't sabotage or hide merit to protect less merited people's egos. So he isn't valuing her talent for her sake, he's valuing it for his own, to be able to nudge others looking on in awe and say, "Hey... I tapped that," so they can look on at him in awe too. Treating her like a dog, a car, a prize. An object.

A man (or woman, or anyone) who really values their partner as a person will not only be okay with however strong or talented their partner is, but will actively encourage it to the fullest extent. They may feel pride in being with that person, but they don't see their partner's accomplishments as solely existing for that purpose. They understand that "independence" isn't just some shiny word that marks a partner as more valuable, it is a trait that must be cooperated with and respected, which means not always being right, not always being the leader, not always being the one with the final say, and understanding that, as the book I'm reading puts it, "A man’s partner is not his child, and the freedoms he “grants” her are not credits to be spent like chips when the urge to control her arises."

[Giovenith]

Literally right above you.

I hear you, that's a fair point. Men have intrinsic value. They're not born scum. That said, men in relationships do have duties to their spouses, to their children. We should treat them with respect, but not with kid gloves. And yes, men need healthcare.

You're not acting like they have intrinsic value when all you ever emphasize as important about them is what they can, or rather should feel force to, do for other people.

You have a strong disconnect between your purported values and the values you actually demonstrate through what you choose to focus on and value in life.

[Anatoliyanskiy]

Literally right above you.

I hear you, that's a fair point. Men have intrinsic value. They're not born scum. That said, men in relationships do have duties to their spouses, to their children. We should treat them with respect, but not with kid gloves. And yes, men need healthcare.

You're also acting like women are born as perfect, completely incorruptible beings that are never wrong and should always be listened to. Like, this is why I have a particular hatred for rad-fems. Because they don't support equality, only misandry.

[Shin-Mutsu]

I hear you, that's a fair point. Men have intrinsic value. They're not born scum. That said, men in relationships do have duties to their spouses, to their children. We should treat them with respect, but not with kid gloves. And yes, men need healthcare.

You're also acting like women are born as perfect, completely incorruptible beings that are never wrong and should always be listened to. Like, this is why I have a particular hatred for rad-fems. Because they don't support equality, only misandry.

I would not classify Sundiata as a feminist.

[The Blaatschapen]

No it's not all a subject for another time.

If not now, then when?

I am learning a lot here

Well, it's not a universal feature, but it is something that you can see popping up every now and then. (Sorry for the long post.)

No need to be sorry. I asked for it.

[Albrenia]

Sundiata strikes me as an uncommonly good and decent person, although one who has an odd worship for the female gender based upon emulation of the Virgin Mary.

There's certainly worse things one can be passionate about though, but I doubt a real woman would find being treated thusly particularly attractive.

[Giovenith]

Sundiata strikes me as an uncommonly good and decent person, although one who has an odd worship for the female gender based upon emulation of the Virgin Mary.

There's certainly worse things one can be passionate about though, but I doubt a real woman would find being treated thusly particularly attractive.

The problem is that it's benevolent sexism. When you treat women like they're perfect and ought to be protected and worshiped at all costs, you are dehumanizing them, as flaws are a natural part of being human. Not only does this usually lead to enforced limitation of their experiences (think of how often locking women up in their houses while men run the world has been framed as men "protecting" and "honoring" them, such as in this statement standing against women's right to vote), but it usually winds up evolving into hostile sexism when women inevitably fail to live up to these unrealistically high expectations, leading to harsher punishment against them for normal mistakes and flaws than men would receive.

"The men are able to run the government and take care of the women. Do women have to
vote in order to receive the protection of man? Why, men have gone to war, endured every
privation and death itself in defense of woman. To man, woman is the dearest creature on
earth, and there is no extreme to which he would not go for his mother or sister. By keeping
woman in her exalted position man can be induced to do more for her than he could by
having her mix up in affairs that will cause him to lose respect and regard for her. Woman
does not have to vote to secure her rights. Man will go to any extreme to protect and
elevate her now. As long as woman is woman and keeps her place she will get more
protection and more consideration than man gets. When she abdicates her throne she
throws down the scepter of her power and loses her influence."
— that statement link I just gave you

Sound familiar?