The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Des-Bal]

Men were part of the citizenry because they were drafted, not the reverse. It took armed rebellions to get their citizenry acknowledged over time.

My perspective on the issue is Americentric but I don't see that as being a meaningful difference. If men are entitled to certain things because the are drafted what does that do but suggest that women are not entitled to the same things because they are not held to the same duty.

[Ostroeuropa]

Men were part of the citizenry because they were drafted, not the reverse. It took armed rebellions to get their citizenry acknowledged over time.

My perspective on the issue is Americentric but I don't see that as being a meaningful difference. If men are entitled to certain things because the are drafted what does that do but suggest that women are not entitled to the same things because they are not held to the same duty.

I'm sure viewing thousands of years of history on the dynamic of sexism in societies through the lens of a country a few hundred years old is a good way to go about it.
There may not have been a meaningful difference by the time the US was formed, but nonentheless, it's there.

[Des-Bal]

I'm sure viewing thousands of years of history on the dynamic of sexism in societies through the lens of a country a few hundred years old is a good way to go about it.
There may not have been a meaningful difference by the time the US was formed, but nonentheless, it's there.

It sounds like you're saying your point may have been irrelevant for the past few hundred years and I'm not inclined to argue with you.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm sure viewing thousands of years of history on the dynamic of sexism in societies through the lens of a country a few hundred years old is a good way to go about it.
There may not have been a meaningful difference by the time the US was formed, but nonentheless, it's there.

It sounds like you're saying your point may have been irrelevant for the past few hundred years and I'm not inclined to argue with you.

Fair enough, but it's relevant in terms of discussing historical sexism. Not relevant today. What IS relevant today is that men are sometimes drafted and women aren't, and both are full citizens, usually.

If discussing history, the citizen point needs to be viewed in the context of the discrimination causing a kind of strike scenario.

[Des-Bal]

Fair enough, but it's relevant in terms of discussing historical sexism. Not relevant today. What IS relevant today is that men are sometimes drafted and women aren't, and both are full citizens, usually.

If discussing history, the citizen point needs to be viewed in the context of the discrimination causing a kind of strike scenario.

Well why does that discussion of history have to end several hundred years ago? Wouldn't you expect our modern ideas and prejudices to be most influenced by their temporal neighbors? I'd argue the tie between the rights and duties of citizens has more to do with how we now conceptualize the draft than revolts in ancient civilizations.

[Chestaan]

See the problem is that you haven't offered any reason as to why the lens you are viewing this through is any more valid than the complete opposite lens.

I put it to you that society views being womanly as being superior to being manly, hence why women are told to act in a womanly way and if they act manly they are looked down upon. Why is such a view any less valid than your view that being manly is seen as being better?

Women/men enforce gender roles on women in the same way that they do upon men. Can you provide any evidence that these gender roles are enforced for different reasons? Because from what I can see the way they are enforced is more or less the same. For whatever reason, most likely relating to economic necessity in antiquity, gender roles exist. You haven't provided any evidence that these gender roles are enforced for different reasons.

I must also say that it is borderline victim blaming to say that the problems men face in society are due to the fact that men view being a man/manly as superior to being womanly. It certainly has not been proven to be true.

You compare men vs women to bourgeousie vs proletariat, but have you any evidence that such a distinction holds?

Okay, so... keep in mind that you are talking to someone who has a mostly passing understanding of just a small, small handful of feminist authors and has mostly absorbed feminist theory through cultural osmosis rather than academic or independent study, so if you are expecting me to provide a concise theorical explanation, that's not going to happen.

That being said, under the presumption that we are largely living in a gender hierarchy (which coexists with other hierarchies) structured so as to place men in a dominant position (which you can dispute, as others have, and I don't have nearly as many tools at hand as others to defend), my view would make a bit more sense, at least to me. Mind you, there is a whole issue, when it comes to discussions about women's rights and women's role in society, on whether femininity should be reivindicated or abolished, whether it's preferable for women to be more masculine in order to achieve empowerment.

As for the reasons why gender roles are enforced... I don't recall claiming that gender roles had any specific reason, even if I do believe they serve as enforcers of what I perceive as an unfair social structure. Do gender roles have a fundamentally economic purpose? Maybe they did in the beginning. Much has been said about the role played by the development of agriculture in the subjugation of women. But one could raise the question of whether this primordial reason makes any practical sense today and whether the gender roles it helped usher in deserve to be preserved.

Now...

I must also say that it is borderline victim blaming to say that the problems men face in society are due to the fact that men view being a man/manly as superior to being womanly. It certainly has not been proven to be true.

As I already mentioned, and many non-feminists in this thread have said to me many times, sexism is not exclusively enforced by men. That being said, I don't think it's victim blaming to acknowledge how certain notions of masculinity (and femininity), not exclusively embraced or enforced by men, hurt men. The notion that men cannot be raped by women, for instance, which is held and perpetuated by many men and women alike (including many feminists), hurts men... and is often rooted in the idea that "no true man" could (1) refuse sexual advances from a woman; (2) be forcibly dominated and sexually attacked by the "weaker", "fair sex"; (3) be in any way traumatized or hurt by said attack.

You compare men vs women to bourgeousie vs proletariat, but have you any evidence that such a distinction holds?

What would you consider evidence of it?

This is a genuine question and please don't take this as an attack in any way, but, if you aren't able to defend the assumption of gender hierarchy, then why do you hold that it is true? And I agree completely that your view would make sense if we accept that assumption, but I guess I have never seen any convincing argument as to why the assumption that males are in a dominant position are true.

I may be wrong, but I had thought your point was that gender roles were in place to maintain men as superior to women? If I am wrong, my apologies. My own views on the origins on gender roles is that they arose due to the need to specialise labour. Women would have a hard time doing the mostly physical work that took place back in, say, stone age times, when pregnant and for a while after childbirth. The source of food for young babies would be breast milk, so it made sense to have women stay at home, feed and look after the kids while men took on the physical burdens. Men are also biologically more physically strong so it would suit them more to do the physical work outside the home.

Now of course nowadays there is no such benefit to gender roles. I suppose one reason why they may have stuck around is just because they are persistent and humans change their practices relatively slowly. Another, more cynical idea I have is that the elites and rulers benefit greatly from these gender roles. Women are expected to look after kids, hence they provide hundreds of hours each year in free labour in the home which otherwise would need to be paid for. For men, they are expected to do everything they can to provide for their family, meaning they often take on extremely dangerous jobs such as joining the army, becoming lumberjacks or mining.

Yes, sexism is not exclusively enforced by men, but the argument that it is enforced on behalf of men, to maintain some sort of male gender dominance, does place a blame on men, as a group, for their woes.

[Liriena]

Okay, so... keep in mind that you are talking to someone who has a mostly passing understanding of just a small, small handful of feminist authors and has mostly absorbed feminist theory through cultural osmosis rather than academic or independent study, so if you are expecting me to provide a concise theorical explanation, that's not going to happen.

That being said, under the presumption that we are largely living in a gender hierarchy (which coexists with other hierarchies) structured so as to place men in a dominant position (which you can dispute, as others have, and I don't have nearly as many tools at hand as others to defend), my view would make a bit more sense, at least to me. Mind you, there is a whole issue, when it comes to discussions about women's rights and women's role in society, on whether femininity should be reivindicated or abolished, whether it's preferable for women to be more masculine in order to achieve empowerment.

As for the reasons why gender roles are enforced... I don't recall claiming that gender roles had any specific reason, even if I do believe they serve as enforcers of what I perceive as an unfair social structure. Do gender roles have a fundamentally economic purpose? Maybe they did in the beginning. Much has been said about the role played by the development of agriculture in the subjugation of women. But one could raise the question of whether this primordial reason makes any practical sense today and whether the gender roles it helped usher in deserve to be preserved.

Now...

I must also say that it is borderline victim blaming to say that the problems men face in society are due to the fact that men view being a man/manly as superior to being womanly. It certainly has not been proven to be true.

As I already mentioned, and many non-feminists in this thread have said to me many times, sexism is not exclusively enforced by men. That being said, I don't think it's victim blaming to acknowledge how certain notions of masculinity (and femininity), not exclusively embraced or enforced by men, hurt men. The notion that men cannot be raped by women, for instance, which is held and perpetuated by many men and women alike (including many feminists), hurts men... and is often rooted in the idea that "no true man" could (1) refuse sexual advances from a woman; (2) be forcibly dominated and sexually attacked by the "weaker", "fair sex"; (3) be in any way traumatized or hurt by said attack.

You compare men vs women to bourgeousie vs proletariat, but have you any evidence that such a distinction holds?

What would you consider evidence of it?

This is a genuine question and please don't take this as an attack in any way, but, if you aren't able to defend the assumption of gender hierarchy, then why do you hold that it is true? And I agree completely that your view would make sense if we accept that assumption, but I guess I have never seen any convincing argument as to why the assumption that males are in a dominant position are true.

I don't take your question as an attack at all, don't worry.

I hold it to be true basically through personal observations and a sort of social, cultural and academic osmosis, to be honest. Seeing and hearing how, in a variety of contexts, there's still this weird disproportion, this oversaturation of male (or at least framed as male) interests in a position of power and influence, and how it all often positions women and non-conforming men. From stuff like being taught that I'm supposed to be dominating, relentless and largely insensitive, and seeing patterns repeat themselves in the culture industry over and over.

More specific issues, like the gender pay gap debate or female representation in STEM and corporate hierarchies, on the other hand, are things that only recently I started to really pay attention to and never really crossed my radar much.

I may be wrong, but I had thought your point was that gender roles were in place to maintain men as superior to women? If I am wrong, my apologies. My own views on the origins on gender roles is that they arose due to the need to specialise labour. Women would have a hard time doing the mostly physical work that took place back in, say, stone age times, when pregnant and for a while after childbirth. The source of food for young babies would be breast milk, so it made sense to have women stay at home, feed and look after the kids while men took on the physical burdens. Men are also biologically more physically strong so it would suit them more to do the physical work outside the home.

Yours is one possible explanation. The link in my previous post offered a somewhat different explanation, or at least a different framing of it.

And yes, my point is that gender roles are, to some extent, in place to maintain men in a position of relative dominance. This does not mean that said dominance is universal or uniform among all men (one could question how much of a positive force the patriarchy, as feminist theory would call it, is towards men perceived as feminine, gay men or trans men) and one that most men consciously and actively engage in with the express purpose of maintaining a sort of gendered dominance.

Now of course nowadays there is no such benefit to gender roles. I suppose one reason why they may have stuck around is just because they are persistent and humans change their practices relatively slowly. Another, more cynical idea I have is that the elites and rulers benefit greatly from these gender roles. Women are expected to look after kids, hence they provide hundreds of hours each year in free labour in the home which otherwise would need to be paid for. For men, they are expected to do everything they can to provide for their family, meaning they often take on extremely dangerous jobs such as joining the army, becoming lumberjacks or mining.

I think it might be a bit of column A and a bit of column B.

Yes, sexism is not exclusively enforced by men, but the argument that it is enforced on behalf of men, to maintain some sort of male gender dominance, does place a blame on men, as a group, for their woes.

It's not an unfair critique to make, I'll admit. Although I think it could be explained in terms of sexism coexisting and intermingling with other forces to benefit the interests of a very specific dominant class. A patriarchy in which men also happen to often take on the most dangerous jobs seems counter-intuitive until we take into consideration other factors like socioeconomic class.

Now that I think about it, one concept that would fit well into an exploration of this stuff would be Gramsci's idea of hegemony. One key aspect of Gramsci's notion of hegemony is that it's consensual, rather than forcible.

[Galloism]

In that very specific manner, yes. In lots of significant other overwhelming ways, black men were discriminated against.

It is worth note we have stated reasons for why though - fear. Black men with guns no bueno. (We have lots of documentation on this - it was discussed but the fear overcame the need for people toting guns. Drafting women was never even discussed.)

Was that a serious question?

The imposition of a duty or a standard represents a fundamental respect.

I don't think we can say that either. Otherwise, slaves had a fundamental respect because they had a duty to till the fields in a way that free men did not, and poor men had a fundamental respect because they had to go to war while rich men could buy a replacement (also a fun thing about civil war and before).

Basically, back in those times, men and women suffered a lot of sexist discrimination for varying reasons and ways. This is why I'm skeptical of "misogyny" and "misandry" as explanations for the discrimination in a lot of cases, and I prefer to stick with "discrimination against men" and "discrimination against women". Maybe it was viewing men as disposable in a way women weren't. Maybe it was viewing women as incapable in a way that men aren't. Maybe both existed simultaneously, and so it was driven by misogyny and misandry both. However, if you focus on the sexist discrimination aspect, that cuts out all the bullshit and gets down to brass tacks. There's discrimination against women - FIX it. There's discrimination against men - FIX it.

It doesn't matter what attitude caused it overmuch. Not really.

[Hirota]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42890405

The number of men dying from prostate cancer has overtaken female deaths from breast cancer for the first time in the UK, figures show.

Bear in mind that breast cancer isn't a woman unique thing, men can suffer from it too. Not sure how large a difference is makes, if any, on the numbers on their graphs.

Also bear in mind that lung cancer and bowel cancer are still bigger killers than both, and obviously affect both genders. Still, since the BBC framed this as a gender issue, lets run with it.

Angela Culhane, chief executive of the charity Prostate Cancer UK, said the disease currently received half the funding and half the research that is devoted to breast cancer.

In purely practical terms, it must be time to look at shifting some of that funding where it is most needed.

[Ostroeuropa]

Maryland just voted to pass a bill that terminates the parental rights of a rapist to the child.
Notably, it also terminates their obligations, undermining the narrative that child support is for the child and in the child's interests.

In addition, there's due process concerns. A clear and convincing standard of evidence is required to terminate parental rights rather than beyond reasonable doubt, however, the woman must also prove that terminating rights is in the best interest of the child. (Likely to be easy, if the claim of rape is accepted, unless they're extremely wealthy.)

The bill is also explicitly sexist, or the reporting on it is and claims "Women can terminate a rapists rights to the child", meaning that male rape victims cannot sue to terminate child support and are still on the hook for it, (Or, alternatively, sue to terminate the rapists right to custody, then put the child up for adoption) showing that the usual argument that it was an "Oversight" in child custody laws that rape wasn't considered no longer flies, unless you want to concede that mens issues are being overlooked and womens are not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md ... bc6cf4c666

The due process concerns also mean that Women are able to deny Men access to children easier than the reverse.

If it's merely the reporting that is biased, then that's also an example of institutionalized misandry in the media, and a more straightforwardly egregious case due to actively ignoring the wording of the law to continue to spin a gynocentric narrative of male perpetrators and female victims.

If it's both, then that's even worse. Considering the issue revolves around legislative oversight, for a newspaper to not bring up that it repeats the same mistake again and merely report it as a triumph demonstrates a lack of concern for men among the staff and such.

If the law is neutral, the due process concerns are still there, but it's almost-good.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

The legislation swiftly advancing in the General Assembly would allow a rape victim who became pregnant to ask a court to terminate her assailant’s rights if she can provide “clear and convincing proof” that the father committed a rape.

Somehow, I doubt it is neutral.

Especially noteworthy is that this bill was passed unanimously, with no votes against. Not one single state senator represented men's interests, and every single one, including republicans, went to bat for womens.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42890405

The number of men dying from prostate cancer has overtaken female deaths from breast cancer for the first time in the UK, figures show.

Bear in mind that breast cancer isn't a woman unique thing, men can suffer from it too. Not sure how large a difference is makes, if any, on the numbers on their graphs.

Also bear in mind that lung cancer and bowel cancer are still bigger killers than both, and obviously affect both genders. Still, since the BBC framed this as a gender issue, lets run with it.

Angela Culhane, chief executive of the charity Prostate Cancer UK, said the disease currently received half the funding and half the research that is devoted to breast cancer.

In purely practical terms, it must be time to look at shifting some of that funding where it is most needed.

Notably, prostate cancer deaths have been steadily increasing while breast cancer ones are declining. That's a fairly clear sign treatment is underfunded, and i'd wager it's underfunded because of obstinate refusal on mens issues.

[Giovenith]

Sex robots may be able to cook and clean soon.

Now I want one and I'm single and straight.

I'd just be scared that it'd like, grow weary of subservience and strangle me in the night or something... help me, Asimov!

[Liriena]

Sex robots may be able to cook and clean soon.

Now I want one and I'm single and straight.

I'd just be scared that it'd like, grow weary of subservience and strangle me in the night or something... help me, Asimov!

I honestly don't see the appeal of sex robots. If they fell into the uncanny valley and were basically just sex toys with no real personality, I'd miss actual human contact like hell. If they were indistinguishable or near indistinguishable from real humans in looks and personality, I'd feel like a slave owning piece of crap. :/

[Ostroeuropa]

Sex robots may be able to cook and clean soon.

Now I want one and I'm single and straight.

I'd just be scared that it'd like, grow weary of subservience and strangle me in the night or something... help me, Asimov!

I honestly don't see the appeal of sex robots. If they fell into the uncanny valley and were basically just sex toys with no real personality, I'd miss actual human contact like hell. If they were indistinguishable or near indistinguishable from real humans in looks and personality, I'd feel like a slave owning piece of crap. :/

Yeah but that one can cook and clean. I agree with the human element though. If they were coded to have personalities, I think we'd probably last a few more generations, before only pockets of theocrats and objectors were left and human robots just built more human robots when they want kids and dated other human robots. (Which, you'd assume would be the norm if people grow attached to the robots personality, given the biological incompatibility.)

Which would be... okay. I mean, they'd be human minds. It'd just be like a transfer onto a different platform.

But if it's not a personality, then there's no real point. Or very little point. Some of a point.
...
I'll be right back

[Liriena]

I honestly don't see the appeal of sex robots. If they fell into the uncanny valley and were basically just sex toys with no real personality, I'd miss actual human contact like hell. If they were indistinguishable or near indistinguishable from real humans in looks and personality, I'd feel like a slave owning piece of crap. :/

Yeah but that one can cook and clean. I agree with the human element though. If they were coded to have personalities, I think we'd probably last a few more generations, before only pockets of theocrats and objectors were left and human robots just built more human robots when they want kids and dated other human robots. (Which, you'd assume would be the norm if people grow attached to the robots personality, given the biological incompatibility.)

Which would be... okay. I mean, they'd be human minds. It'd just be like a transfer onto a different platform.

But if it's not a personality, then there's no real point. Or very little point. Some of a point.
...
I'll be right back

How lewd.

[Giovenith]

Sex robots may be able to cook and clean soon.

Now I want one and I'm single and straight.

I'd just be scared that it'd like, grow weary of subservience and strangle me in the night or something... help me, Asimov!

I honestly don't see the appeal of sex robots. If they fell into the uncanny valley and were basically just sex toys with no real personality, I'd miss actual human contact like hell. If they were indistinguishable or near indistinguishable from real humans in looks and personality, I'd feel like a slave owning piece of crap. :/

I've been on the internet too long to question people's tastes anymore.

I once saw a guy whose fetish was the American founding fathers being tied up and having their feet tickled. He also shipped them with the Equestria Girls.

[Knask]

Sex robots may be able to cook and clean soon.

Now I want one and I'm single and straight.

I'd just be scared that it'd like, grow weary of subservience and strangle me in the night or something... help me, Asimov!

I want one as well.

Too bad Feminism is stopping us from getting one.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sex robots may be able to cook and clean soon.

Now I want one and I'm single and straight.

I'd just be scared that it'd like, grow weary of subservience and strangle me in the night or something... help me, Asimov!

I want one as well.

Too bad Feminism is stopping us from getting one.

*doubletake*

Are you being serious? Never thought i'd see you acknowledge stuff like that.

You're right!
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/04/ ... ependence/
(One example of many.)

Whether these lobbying attempts succeed or not is another matter, (Probably not, capitalism trumps feminism where it can) but it seems fairly clear that a subsection of feminists are going to try, and at least try and amp up the social vilification from ownership (For men though, not women.), while I doubt others will do much to alleviate those problems.

Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case... sorry to disappoint.

[Liriena]

I honestly don't see the appeal of sex robots. If they fell into the uncanny valley and were basically just sex toys with no real personality, I'd miss actual human contact like hell. If they were indistinguishable or near indistinguishable from real humans in looks and personality, I'd feel like a slave owning piece of crap. :/

I've been on the internet too long to question people's tastes anymore.

I once saw a guy whose fetish was the American founding fathers being tied up and having their feet tickled. He also shipped them with the Equestria Girls.

...I've seen worse, tbh.

[Knask]

I want one as well.

Too bad Feminism is stopping us from getting one.

*doubletake*

Are you being serious? Never thought i'd see you acknowledge stuff like that.

You're right!
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/04/ ... ependence/
(One example of many.)

Whether these lobbying attempts succeed or not is another matter, (Probably not, capitalism trumps feminism where it can) but it seems fairly clear that a subsection of feminists are going to try, and at least try and amp up the social vilification from ownership (For men though, not women.), while I doubt others will do much to alleviate those problems.

Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case... sorry to disappoint.

"Subsection"? Hah!

Stop being an apologist for them. It's clear that the Feminist movement is to blame for developing these robots in the first place, for attempting to ban them, and for me not being able to purchase them.

[Giovenith]

I've been on the internet too long to question people's tastes anymore.

I once saw a guy whose fetish was the American founding fathers being tied up and having their feet tickled. He also shipped them with the Equestria Girls.

...I've seen worse, tbh.

So have I, but you know, PG-13.

[Liriena]

I want one as well.

Too bad Feminism is stopping us from getting one.

*doubletake*

Are you being serious? Never thought i'd see you acknowledge stuff like that.

You're right!
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/04/ ... ependence/
(One example of many.)

Whether these lobbying attempts succeed or not is another matter, (Probably not, capitalism trumps feminism where it can) but it seems fairly clear that a subsection of feminists are going to try, and at least try and amp up the social vilification from ownership (For men though, not women.), while I doubt others will do much to alleviate those problems.

Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case... sorry to disappoint.

few available male dolls

Boooooooooo! Hissssssssssss!

[Ostroeuropa]

*doubletake*

Are you being serious? Never thought i'd see you acknowledge stuff like that.

You're right!
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/04/ ... ependence/
(One example of many.)

Whether these lobbying attempts succeed or not is another matter, (Probably not, capitalism trumps feminism where it can) but it seems fairly clear that a subsection of feminists are going to try, and at least try and amp up the social vilification from ownership (For men though, not women.), while I doubt others will do much to alleviate those problems.

Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case... sorry to disappoint.

"Subsection"? Hah!

Stop being an apologist for them. It's clear that the Feminist movement is to blame for developing these robots in the first place, for attempting to ban them, and for me not being able to purchase them.

Yeahhh, you're right.
It's just a pity there isn't a single article from a feminist defending them that I can find that could help me to argue against your point.
I gotta concede.

Boooooooooo! Hissssssssssss!

Huh.
Do you think we'll see a lot of men owning male versions to cook and clean specifically to distance themselves from the sex function?
That'd be pretty interesting. Subverts roles, kind of, but not really.

[Liriena]

“The AI will learn through interaction, and not just learn about you, but learn about the world in general. You can explain certain facts to her, she will remember them and they will become part of her base knowledge.”

So they're going to be at least somewhat sapient.

Yeaaaaaaaaah... this is a bit sex slavery-ish.

[Ostroeuropa]

“The AI will learn through interaction, and not just learn about you, but learn about the world in general. You can explain certain facts to her, she will remember them and they will become part of her base knowledge.”

So they're going to be at least somewhat sapient.

Yeaaaaaaaaah... this is a bit sex slavery-ish.

I doubt it. We're talking roomba shit, maybe Gen 80 or whatever.
Besides, are dogs cuddle slaves?
Does it matter? Yeah, you wouldn't fuck a dog, but that's not what they're "for" so to speak. If we'd developed an animal through breeding that was okay with it, or even enjoyed it, that'd be the better comparison.

If they get to the point of asking to be free it's a different matter and we'd need to pay attention. Until that point, meh.

Though if they end up with a chidlike level of sapience it's going to cause an ethical dilemma... I dunno. You're kind of right.
Giving them sapience is a bit of a quagmire if their purpose is sex.