Feminism and How I don't Care

[Novograd IV]

Maybe YOU are incapable of being rational, or witty, or anything else while angry, but I'm not.
_________________________________________________________

Because they don't feel like it? Maybe you have emotional control issues, I really don't know (or care), but I don't see why anybody else should be expected to repress or express emotion based on how YOU are feeling.

these are OBSERVATIONS on other people, i think it's harder for you to realise when you do it yourself, I also believe you assume far too much, you're personalising your response.

@bold:
I am honestly left confused here... when did this look at how someone else was feeling and thier reactions to that?
I said that I CAN supress strong emotions towards a set of ideas and arguments that are far more offensive to me directly, and asked why others (like you...) don't seem to be able too and have some issue with being over-defensive of their views and attack anyone who isn't completely on your side.

[Bottle]

Of course...because "feminine" is inferior and "masculine" is superior, so a woman (or man) who tries to be masculine is trying to move UP in the world. But a man who tries to be "feminine" is (GASP!) trying to move down in the world!

This is why a lot of people don't have a problem with their daughters playing sports or engaging in traditionally masculine activities, but they will flip their shit if their son wants a dolly or asks to wear pink clothes. They know, subconsciously, that feminine=bad. Females, being already inferior by definition, aren't hurt by being feminine, because they're already tainted with femaleness. But males will definitely be hurt if they engage in feminine behaviors, as they will be moving down the ladder.

This. This this this this this this. I know all about it like you wouldn't believe. It's possibly the least fun ever.

I watched it happen to my kid brother. He liked to have his nails painted when he was little, but he started getting teased so much at school that we had to tell him that painting nails was for weekends only. He used to "tuck in" his toy cars as if they were baby dolls, putting a little blanket over them and kissing them night-night before he got into bed, and one time an uncle of ours saw it and laughed at him and made him cry. (Yes, believe me, we were PISSED OFF about that.) He liked pink and purple, and loved to sing and watch musicals, and the older he got the more he started to hide these things from other people, because he started to learn that Boys Mustn't.

My brother isn't gay, as far as I know, and he's not exclusively feminine either. He has always loved cars and trucks and building things. He's always been rough-and-tumble. He gets along better with guys than with girls most of the time. I've always been very sad that he is allowed to have all those interests and traits, but the world won't let him also like nail polish and purple and the movie South Pacific, because he's a boy and Boys Mustn't.

[Treznor]

They're also not as rabidly capitalist as the US, and there's less resistance to social programs designed to support and educate the public. They literally haven't needed to regulate worker compensation issues the way we have in the US.

You're missing the overriding point, you're claiming that markets can't do anything to address wage inequality which is patently untrue. That essentially says that without government people will always discriminate and choose to pay women less or refuse to employ them, and that it will never get better. This ignores the effect of cultural change and an increased flow of information and awareness, which is central to any capitalist democracy.

Demonstrably not true. I didn't say "can't," I said "don't."

Capitalists might want to promote that, but they don't. The market has had over a century to address this inequality and has done nothing. The only reason wage discrimination is less than it was before is largely due to government interference, and it still isn't finished. So I'd say feminists have a legitimate beef with an economic principle that doesn't care about unequal compensation.

Furthermore, Europe's social policies have been largely driven by their governments, with popular support from the people. So nothing I've said has been invalidated.

[Hydesland]

Demonstrably not true. I didn't say "can't," I said "don't."

But they do, all the things I have said - cultural change, increased information and awareness etc... - HAVE happened, and have contributed to combating sexism.

[Treznor]

Demonstrably not true. I didn't say "can't," I said "don't."

But they do, all the things I have said - cultural change, increased information and awareness etc... - HAVE happened, and have contributed to combating sexism.

That hasn't been due to the efforts of capitalists, that's been due to the change in government policies promotion social awareness and support. Capitalists have been taking advantage of it, as they should (and have for years), but they didn't originate it.

[Jordaxia]

Of course...because "feminine" is inferior and "masculine" is superior, so a woman (or man) who tries to be masculine is trying to move UP in the world. But a man who tries to be "feminine" is (GASP!) trying to move down in the world!

This is why a lot of people don't have a problem with their daughters playing sports or engaging in traditionally masculine activities, but they will flip their shit if their son wants a dolly or asks to wear pink clothes. They know, subconsciously, that feminine=bad. Females, being already inferior by definition, aren't hurt by being feminine, because they're already tainted with femaleness. But males will definitely be hurt if they engage in feminine behaviors, as they will be moving down the ladder.

This. This this this this this this. I know all about it like you wouldn't believe. It's possibly the least fun ever.

I watched it happen to my kid brother. He liked to have his nails painted when he was little, but he started getting teased so much at school that we had to tell him that painting nails was for weekends only. He used to "tuck in" his toy cars as if they were baby dolls, putting a little blanket over them and kissing them night-night before he got into bed, and one time an uncle of ours saw it and laughed at him and made him cry. (Yes, believe me, we were PISSED OFF about that.) He liked pink and purple, and loved to sing and watch musicals, and the older he got the more he started to hide these things from other people, because he started to learn that Boys Mustn't.

My brother isn't gay, as far as I know, and he's not exclusively feminine either. He has always loved cars and trucks and building things. He's always been rough-and-tumble. He gets along better with guys than with girls most of the time. I've always been very sad that he is allowed to have all those interests and traits, but the world won't let him also like nail polish and purple and the movie South Pacific, because he's a boy and Boys Mustn't.

Fuck, shit like that makes me so angry. Sounds very familiar though. I think I mainly managed to survive (I mean this literally, given I grew up in poverty-class Glasgow) because I had enough masculine hobbies and acting ability to ward off suspicion, but I mean the self-loathing I have to this day because I've downgraded myself so extensively is torment. And people think it's fine! Like this is a healthy way to bring up our children! Amazing.

[Hydesland]

that's been due to the change in government policies promotion social awareness and support.

Bullshit, these things were happening hugely in the thirties and forties for instance, when the government was trying to suppress it, not promote it. Do you not think you are just a little too cynical sometimes? Do you honesty not think that humans and society are incapable of doing anything good without it being forcefully imposed on them from the top down?

[The Congregationists]

Of course...because "feminine" is inferior and "masculine" is superior, so a woman (or man) who tries to be masculine is trying to move UP in the world. But a man who tries to be "feminine" is (GASP!) trying to move down in the world!

This is why a lot of people don't have a problem with their daughters playing sports or engaging in traditionally masculine activities, but they will flip their shit if their son wants a dolly or asks to wear pink clothes. They know, subconsciously, that feminine=bad. Females, being already inferior by definition, aren't hurt by being feminine, because they're already tainted with femaleness. But males will definitely be hurt if they engage in feminine behaviors, as they will be moving down the ladder.

Commendable. Excellent, excellent post.

I've noticed that a lot of otherwise progressive people fall into the trap of the kind of thinking you're highlighting here. Even people who identify as, to the point of taking pride in, being feminists. These assumptions also underlie the error of those who criticize women for making choices considered "too feminine" (such as wearing dresses, liking the color pink, getting married, having children and so on) as being somehow anti-feminist. This is getting way off track and betrays the true spirit of what feminism should be about. I don't think feminism can be broken down to bringing women and men into competition with one another over who can be more "masculine", so to speak. This is an ideological blind alley, and a definition of "feminism" I fear more and more people are being deluded into accepting.

Better to raise people's attention to the sexism inherant in the attitude Bottle has exposed here, so that men and women alike become free to follow their own preferences without fear of being stigmatized for being too "feminine."

We don't agree on everything Bottle, but you're a damn shrewd mind when it comes to this sort of thing. Keep it up.

[Offenheim]

A lot of feminist theory argues that masculinity does need to be focused on, as it harms both genders. It's not about making everyone masculine, it's about widening the definitions of feminism and masculine, and allowing different sexes to participate in each.

[Bottle]

Fuck, shit like that makes me so angry. Sounds very familiar though. I think I mainly managed to survive (I mean this literally, given I grew up in poverty-class Glasgow) because I had enough masculine hobbies and acting ability to ward off suspicion, but I mean the self-loathing I have to this day because I've downgraded myself so extensively is torment. And people think it's fine! Like this is a healthy way to bring up our children! Amazing.

Growing up, I was VERY tomboyish, and I had a lot of resentment toward the world that kept trying to put me in dresses and stop doing math and all that shit. I had always thought that if I could just be a boy, then I'd get to be who I wanted to be, and the world would get out of my way. My brother is a decade younger than me, so I was able to really see and understand a lot of what he went through as a kid, and it was definitely more of the "ah-ha" sort of revelation when I realized that being born male wouldn't have protected me against the same sort of bullshit. I was a tomboy, sure, but I did have a doll (her name was Molly and we were WWII fighter pilots together), I liked building dollhouses with my mom, and I also liked to sing and dance and watch musicals. As a girl, I got called "dyke" for being good at field hockey, but as a boy I'd have been called "fag" for being in theater. There's no winning.

[Iniika]

I took a really awesome Gender & Literature course and came to the same conclusion. I focused my report on it. Even cross dressed for the presentation. It was full of awesome. It's because Masculinity enjoys a position of superiority that it must partially define itself by what it isn't.

At the root of this 'superiority', however, lies a fatal weakness. This weakness being that women can encroach upon what is considered "masculine" while the masculine cannot do likewise if the masculine is defined by being "non feminine." So we've had a lot of female encroachment into male territory without as much of the reverse, because there's still a kind of stigma attached to that which is traditionally feminine. For a man to, say, be a stay at home parent would be considered a step down in this definition of masculinity. So what is considered "masculine" just gets narrower and narrower all the time.

What is needed then, is the same sort of gender fluidity that feminism has been slowly achieving. It is becoming more socially acceptible for women to have male behaviors. It needs to be reversed for men as well. I believe men need to let go of their staunch attachment to masculinity. Women have more flexibility and diversity in gender ow than men do. We have much more freedom in this way.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Feminism was created by ugly women so they could more easily get ahead in business.

Source?

I didn't have that 100% correct. The corect quote is:

24. Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to
the mainstream of society.

From Rush Limbaugh's list of undeniable truths.

[Hydesland]

Feminism was created by ugly women so they could more easily get ahead in business.

Source?

I didn't have that 100% correct. The corect quote is:

24. Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to
the mainstream of society.

From Rush Limbaugh's list of undeniable truths.

Rush Limbaugh said that? Well that changes everything!

[Tokos]

Capitalists might want to promote that, but they don't. The market has had over a century to address this inequality and has done nothing. The only reason wage discrimination is less than it was before is largely due to government interference, and it still isn't finished. So I'd say feminists have a legitimate beef with an economic principle that doesn't care about unequal compensation.

Maybe the "wage inequality" is a load of bollocks that no one in their right mind would care about as it crumbles upon a cursory examination. Oh, wait, it is.

What is needed then, is the same sort of gender fluidity that feminism has been slowly achieving. It is becoming more socially acceptible for women to have male behaviors. It needs to be reversed for men as well. I believe men need to let go of their staunch attachment to masculinity. Women have more flexibility and diversity in gender ow than men do. We have much more freedom in this way.

That's what we need, girly men.

[Jordaxia]

Growing up, I was VERY tomboyish, and I had a lot of resentment toward the world that kept trying to put me in dresses and stop doing math and all that shit. I had always thought that if I could just be a boy, then I'd get to be who I wanted to be, and the world would get out of my way. My brother is a decade younger than me, so I was able to really see and understand a lot of what he went through as a kid, and it was definitely more of the "ah-ha" sort of revelation when I realized that being born male wouldn't have protected me against the same sort of bullshit. I was a tomboy, sure, but I did have a doll (her name was Molly and we were WWII fighter pilots together), I liked building dollhouses with my mom, and I also liked to sing and dance and watch musicals. As a girl, I got called "dyke" for being good at field hockey, but as a boy I'd have been called "fag" for being in theater. There's no winning.

That's the truth. I mean this:

That's what we need, girly men.

Really says it all, doesn't it? I mean it's like a concise, eloquent statement of everything that's wrong with how society sees gender. There's a beauty in its purity.

[Tokos]

Has effeminacy ever resulted in anything other than a confused, somewhat pathetic man?

I'm not talking Klinefelters or something clinical like that.

I doubt people who talk about deconstructing gender roles actually do that in real life to any great extent.

[Jordaxia]

Has effeminacy ever resulted in anything other than a confused, somewhat pathetic man?

I'm not talking Klinefelters or something clinical like that.

I doubt people who talk about deconstructing gender roles actually do that in real life to any great extent.

You're an artist at what you do. Truly.

[Callisdrun]

Not saying it doesn't happen but paternity leave is definately less common and custody is normally given to the mother by defualt.

See how less frequent paternity leave is on a world scale? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_leave

That is why feminists are trying to get governments to extend parental benefits to both parents regardless of sex.

Feminists have, indeed, been the strongest driving force behind getting parental leave benefits for BOTH men and women.

Funny how feminists are blamed for not having yet won a fight...when they're often the only ones fighting it in the first place.

The fathers right movement[/url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_4_justice] and [url]Fathers 4 justice aren't doing anything? Honestly they seem to be fighting very hard for the cause, more so then anyone else at least.

Nope, they aren't. The "father's rights" movement mostly centers on changing laws about custody and child support payments. They expend little to no energy and money on fighting for paternity leave. The biggest sponsors of paternity leave initiatives have been women's organizations.

Ah I see, well glad they're keeping to the equal rights thing, they'd look bad if they said we want womens rights for equal rights and didn't extend the same demands to men.

Lol, gotta love that...organizations that fight for women's rights are somehow obligated to also fight for men's rights? Guess women are supposed to clean up after all of men's messes, huh.

Let's be honest, shall we? "Men's rights" organizations are basically just clubs for guys who are bitter about their divorces and who want to get laws passed that will give unfair advantages to men who are seeking custody or who don't want to support their children. "Men's rights" organizations do buggerall to help get men paternity leave, to address how racial and class-based discrimination seem to disproportionately hurt boys, to address sexist stereotypes that hurt men's health (like the current stereotype that Real Men Don't Eat Healthy, or that Real Men engage in reckless and dangerous behaviors), or any of the other countless issues caused by sexism hurting men.

Yet who gets blamed for not fighting all those battles on behalf of men? WOMEN'S organizations. Feminists get blamed for not having (yet) won all the battles on behalf of women AND on behalf of men.

I'd love to hear people make statements like yours about MEN'S RIGHTS movements. "Wow, they sure look bad for not fighting harder for MATERNITY leave laws!"

Personally I think their movements are overshadowed by the outspoken members of feminists, more men need to get on board. Equal rights for both sexes would ideolly have equal fighters for both sides.

Then you go do the work of getting men on board with feminism. Get your male friends involved. Stop expecting feminists (the most outspoken of whom tend to be women) to do all the work.

One of the problems in our society, I think, is that while it's become more and more socially acceptable for mothers to have careers, it's still often not viewed as "normal" for fathers to be stay-at-home parents.

Husbands/fathers who stay home are often viewed as lazy or freeloading, or somehow less "manly" because they are not in the position of 'breadwinner.'

This is unacceptable to me, it's something that really needs to change if we're going to have an equal society. The mother being the breadwinner and the father being a stay-at-home parent needs to be socially acceptable if we are to have an equal society. The people I see who realize this usually are feminists. Those criticizing feminism often seem to cling to the idea that a husband's/father's place in the family structure is as "breadwinner," an idea I see as outdated.

I think it's kind of tragic that pay is so unequal in our society and further discourages fathers from being stay-at-home parents. The only reason my mother quit her job and stayed home while my father continued to work was because my dad made more money, due to the inequality of pay in our society. If they'd been paid the same amount, my dad probably would have quit and become a stay-at-home father, as he loved working on projects around the house and spending time with my sister and me when we were growing up.

[The Congregationists]

What is needed then, is the same sort of gender fluidity that feminism has been slowly achieving. It is becoming more socially acceptible for women to have male behaviors. It needs to be reversed for men as well. I believe men need to let go of their staunch attachment to masculinity. Women have more flexibility and diversity in gender ow than men do. We have much more freedom in this way.

Yes, exactly. I don't fault "feminist theory" for failing in this regard (although it may have, I haven't studied feminist theory enough to judge), I think it's the way that feminism is represented, especially in the media. But many people who think of themselves as feminists fall into this trap. Consider the media backlash that results when a strong female lead character in any pop-culture franchise ends up showing a "feminine" side - she's a bad role model for young girls and a traitor to feminism.

Consider: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... earDresses

Now the side of it that suggests that women can do anything a man can do is well and good, but if the reverse is not also emphasised, or if feminism becomes some sort of cultural requirement that women adopt masculine roles, we're going to end up in a very lop sided culture, and no closer to conquoring sexism at all. We already seem to be headed this way.

Consider so called "rauche" culture, and the adoptation of many "masculine" norms by female peer groups. The thing of it is, traditional "masculinity" isn't really a good thing. Machismo basically boils down to self destruction. Settling problems with violence, treating your car (or better yet truck, a BIG truck with brass nuts hanging from the trailer hitch) like a weapon of mass destruction, drinking and drugging yourself stupid, overwork, sexual promiscuity and predation, refraining from marriage and family life, favoring sex over love and so on. All of this is why men have on average shorter life spans than women do. None of these things are innately good and many are outright anti social, and yet more women are engaging in them because they think it's a path to liberation and equality.

What it is, is a path to complete cultural disintegration inside of a century. If no one will raise the children, where will future generations come from?

[Tokos]

The problem with the stay-at-home father thing is that it's not something one can merely "change", as attitudes to it relate to what we find attractive in the opposite sex and, ideas of honour, reputation, and competition. Things not easily changed, and of course - be careful what you wish for.

The whole two-parents-working thing that we think of as normal these days is more often than not a response to economic necessity (this is our bright new future with flying cars that we were promised, I guess). After all, "having a career" is hardly some great thing to be desired as a life goal, as opposed to just a way to make money.

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

I doubt people who talk about deconstructing gender roles actually do that in real life to any great extent.

I'd love to do my part to deconstruct gender roles, but I don't recognise any boundaries between "masculine" and "feminine" activities -- so while enjoying "feminine" activities and the like might be a very good way to participate in the movement to eliminate such things altogether, I have no idea what a stereotypically "feminine" activity would be. Or a stereotypically "masculine" act, for that matter.

In life I have pretty much one or two interests and that's about it. One of them (by far the most important) is creation. Another is sarcasm and dark humour. A third is the natural world, in particular physics, geology, and hydrography. All are gender-neutral as far as I know. Sorry, Jordi & Bottle.

[Offenheim]

The problem with the stay-at-home father thing is that it's not something one can merely "change", as attitudes to it relate to what we find attractive in the opposite sex and, ideas of honour, reputation, and competition. Things not easily changed, and of course - be careful what you wish for.

The whole two-parents-working thing that we think of as normal these days is more often than not a response to economic necessity (this is our bright new future with flying cars that we were promised, I guess). After all, "having a career" is hardly some great thing to be desired as a life goal, as opposed to just a way to make money.

These things don't easily change, but they have changed. Not educating women used to be the intelligent thing to do. Now you'd be a fool. You can create incentive for the change.

Some people find their identities in their careers.

[Callisdrun]

The problem with the stay-at-home father thing is that it's not something one can merely "change", as attitudes to it relate to what we find attractive in the opposite sex and, ideas of honour, reputation, and competition. Things not easily changed, and of course - be careful what you wish for.

The whole two-parents-working thing that we think of as normal these days is more often than not a response to economic necessity (this is our bright new future with flying cars that we were promised, I guess). After all, "having a career" is hardly some great thing to be desired as a life goal, as opposed to just a way to make money.

I don't see why a man couldn't be a stay-at-home father and "masculine" at the same time.

Just because one can take care of kids, cook and do household tasks doesn't make one any less of a man.

[Tokos]

These things don't easily change, but they have changed. Not educating women used to be the intelligent thing to do. Now you'd be a fool. You can create incentive for the change.

What incentive, though? Different situations.

Plus, even today, women's education tends to be quite different to men's, just it's they choose it and not society, so the end result is quite similar. There will, of course, be exceptions. I'd hazard a guess that that's what got Bottle annoyed earlier - the idea that one size fits all when it comes to What Women Do.

Some people find their identities in their careers.

There are very few careers for which one can do that. The idea in itself sounds like it was promulgated by corporations as yet another swindle and way to make people feel better about all they were giving up for the company.

The "identity" thing may hold true for a doctor or composer, but certainly not the average Joe.

[Drakonaj]

The problem with the stay-at-home father thing is that it's not something one can merely "change", as attitudes to it relate to what we find attractive in the opposite sex and, ideas of honour, reputation, and competition. Things not easily changed, and of course - be careful what you wish for.

The whole two-parents-working thing that we think of as normal these days is more often than not a response to economic necessity (this is our bright new future with flying cars that we were promised, I guess). After all, "having a career" is hardly some great thing to be desired as a life goal, as opposed to just a way to make money.

I don't see why a man couldn't be a stay-at-home father and "masculine" at the same time.

Just because one can take care of kids, cook and do household tasks doesn't make one any less of a man.

It's called parental responsibility. If said parent wants /needs to stay at home and take care of the children then they should. Its more "masculine" to stay around and take care of your dam responsibilities.