Feminism

Hexartes

It comes up pretty often here. I figure it deserves its own thread. 

Obā-san

i, for one, think that girls are gross and have cooties


the minute we let them have equal wages and opportunities, mark my words you'll go to bed seemingly safe and sound and when you wake up




IT WILL BE TOO LATE

Imipolex G

mostly OK with it, a few of its supporters have been nutcases however

glennmagusharvey

> mostly OK with it, a few of its supporters have been nutcases however

every legitimate social movement ever

Imipolex G

no u

Obā-san

glennmagusharvey said:

> mostly OK with it, a few of its supporters have been nutcases however

every legitimate social movement ever

Tanya

Imipölex G said:

mostly OK with it, a few of its supporters have been nutcases however

Just like any cause really,

Don't want animals to be skinned alive? Oh you must be with that Peta organization.

and of course, because you have over enthusiastic people, you have people who use their radical viewpoints as discussion points to try to trivialize the stance overall.

ProfessorGator

If we want a serious discussion, it might be better to put this in the Talk category.

Anyhow, it's true that I've become disillusioned with the current state of the feminist movement recently. It's also true that a good part of this is because of the crazy drama that happens on tumblr. Another part of it is being exposed to perspectives that were both critical of feminism and surprisingly reasonable (and oddly, this was on tumblr too).

However, I nonetheless think that women being treated fairly by society is a wonderful goal, and it's something I'd like to see too. I'm also not jaded enough to judge all feminists by the extremists from both online and academic feminist communities.

What I do think is that the movement would benefit from the introduction of alternate perspectives on gender issues. I've said this before, but at this point in time, we need to look carefully at both men's and women's issues to achieve true gender equality. We also need to be inclusive of both sides in our research, so that we can draw better conclusions about what the problems are and how to address them.

I could elaborate more on what I think of a particular issue, if anyone's interested.

Hexartes

Go ahead.

Obā-san

ProfessorGator said:

If we want a serious discussion, it might be better to put this in the Talk category.

you're one of them aren't you




AREN'T YOU

Obā-san

I've said this before, but
at this point in time, we need to look carefully at both men's and
women's issues to achieve true gender equality.

here i feel it would be good to point out that i can't think of a single male-specific social issue that is not caused by how society treats women.

Fossilmaiden

Well, I guess there's the "NO EMOTIONS. EVER." thing, but it could be argued that stems from people seeing emotions as feminine, so!

Obā-san

Fossilmaiden said:

Well, I guess there's the "NO EMOTIONS. EVER." thing, but it could be argued that stems from people seeing emotions as feminine, so!

exactly what i'm getting at.

ProfessorGator

Naney: I was wondering if someone might point that out. This is actually something I've started to strongly disagree with recently.

It's a very common assumption that society always disadvantages women and advantages men. Or as some people put it, that our society is patriarchal (which I just realized is going to look really weird now that I've replaced "patriarchy" with "Dr. Robotnik" in Ponify). From this viewpoint, it seems like the reasonable conclusion is that all gender issues are based on women's disadvantages.

However, the feminists and egalitarians whose blogs I lurk on have proposed a different viewpoint that makes a lot of sense to me. The patriarchy isn't as black and white as we often make it out to be, at least not in the Western world. There are advantages that men have over women, of course, but likewise there are advantages that women have over men. To sum it up, women sacrifice power for security* in their traditional gender role, and vice versa for men. If someone of one gender wants the advantages that the other has, our traditional gender roles make it very difficult for them to switch over to the opposite role to gain them.

*A bold claim, I know, but it is nonetheless true that men are more likely to be victims of violence and accidental injury than women.

Obā-san

There are advantages that men have over women, of course, but
likewise there are advantages that women have over men. To sum it up,
women sacrifice power for security* in their traditional gender role,
and vice versa for men. If someone of one gender wants the advantages
that the other has, our traditional gender roles make it very difficult
for them to switch over to the opposite role to gain them.

*A
bold claim, I know, but it is nonetheless true that men are more likely
to be victims of violence and accidental injury than women.

i'm not disagreeing with this at all actually.

but the reason that this segregation exists and is also so difficult to traverse is due to the way society views and treats women.

Nearly all feminists would agree that the ultimate endgoal of feminism would to be to remove those separations between men and women's designated roles in society, which would solve these issues.

ProfessorGator

Naney said:

Fossilmaiden said:

Well, I guess there's the "NO EMOTIONS. EVER." thing, but it could be argued that stems from people seeing emotions as feminine, so!

exactly what i'm getting at.

I agree with everything but the conclusion you've made. Of course, men being told not to display weakness or emotion is frowned upon because those things are traditionally feminine. But I don't think that's because feminine is seen as the lesser gender role. Just something that only women are allowed to have.

However, I will fully admit that I can't explain my line of reasoning very well here. Certain tumblrs have explained it much better than I ever could.

Bunny

Naney said:

There are advantages that men have over women, of course, but
likewise there are advantages that women have over men. To sum it up,
women sacrifice power for security* in their traditional gender role,
and vice versa for men. If someone of one gender wants the advantages
that the other has, our traditional gender roles make it very difficult
for them to switch over to the opposite role to gain them.

*A
bold claim, I know, but it is nonetheless true that men are more likely
to be victims of violence and accidental injury than women.

i'm not disagreeing with this at all actually.

but the reason that this segregation exists and is also so difficult to traverse is due to the way society views and treats women.

Nearly all feminists would agree that the ultimate endgoal of feminism would to be to remove those separations between men and women's designated roles in society, which would solve these issues.

I'd just like to pop in here and add on to this by saying that it's only recently that you could argue men and women get comparable benefits

If you jump back in the past you'll see that a lot of this bullshit stems from treatment of women

Hexartes

Fossilmaiden said:

Well, I guess there's the "NO EMOTIONS. EVER." thing, but it could be argued that stems from people seeing emotions as feminine, so!

True, but it works the other way around as well. Women are capable of perpetuating feminine stereotypes.

Also, if you think girls don't insult boys for exhibiting feminine traits you've never been to high school.

Obā-san

Of course, men being told not to display weakness or emotion is frowned
upon because those things are traditionally feminine. But I don't think
that's because feminine is seen as the lesser gender role. Just
something that only women are allowed to have.

stop crying like a bitch

stop being such a fucking pussy, man up

you cunt, you're a man, fucking act like one

Beholder

Feminism is not a unified movement, and never was. Personally, I fully support women's rights and gender equality, and think that society has a lot of room to improve in both areas. It does not mean that I agree with every single feminist. But I do agree with many of their ideas, and do not think that it is something one needs to apologise for.

As for feminism and men's issues - I do believe that they are indeed part of the same coin. Nice wall of text about it here:

jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy

"Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy."

ProfessorGator

Naney and Deathonabun: I'm not in the least bit disagreeing that women had it rough until the twentieth century. Feminism was a necessary movement to improve things.

Though if I may ask: how exactly does it stem from treatment of women? This is not meant to be rudely dismissive. I've only seen a detailed thought process for the side I'm presenting, so I think it would only be fair for me to make any final judgments if I saw a similarly detailed one for yours.

Beholder

Kexruct said:

Fossilmaiden said:

Well, I guess there's the "NO EMOTIONS. EVER." thing, but it could be argued that stems from people seeing emotions as feminine, so!

True, but it works the other way around as well. Women are capable of perpetuating feminine stereotypes.

Also, if you think girls don't insult boys for exhibiting feminine traits you've never been to high school.

Women do perpetuate gender stereotypes. As does everyone else. What feminists have a problem with is exactly the system that taught them to do so.

Hexartes

And all of that is true, and while I agree internalized sexism is probably a bigger problem for men than women, it still is a problem with women. The notion, for example, that women "had it coming" isn't something that would exist if some women helped perpetuate it.

The thing is, however, that even internalized sexism is a problem. It really doesn't matter who allows it to happen, because inevitably both genders play a part.

Obā-san

how exactly does it stem from treatment of women?

Men are expected to be strong and stoic because they need to support women, who are weak and overemotional

Single fathers are bad because only women can properly raise a child


and so on and so forth (*unfortunately i am a bit under the weather and my head is fuzzy and i'm also working on an english paper so sorry about that*)

Bunny

ProfessorGator said:

Naney and Deathonabun: I'm not in the least bit disagreeing that women had it rough until the twentieth century. Feminism was a necessary movement to improve things.

Though if I may ask: how exactly does it stem from treatment of women? This is not meant to be rudely dismissive. I've only seen a detailed thought process for the side I'm presenting, so I think it would only be fair for me to make any final judgments if I saw a similarly detailed one for yours.

It's a pretty simple thing, really

Because women were treated as, essentially, weak, unable to do a good number of things, and need to be protected, a man needs to be a man in order to do all that jazz. A man needs to be a protector, a man needs to be strong, a man can't show any weakness. A man that is any less is not worth a shit. And certainly, a man that acts like a woman is trash.

Really, it just all comes down to the assumption that women are weak and building a society based off of that

Obā-san

man the bunnybunster said what i was trying to say and said it better than meeeeee


(*melts into puddle of kittygoo*)

Hexartes

Naney said:

Single fathers are bad because only women can properly raise a child

I was under the impression that single fathers were almost universally seen as brave, because they weren't "stuck," so to speak, with their child.

ProfessorGator

Beholder: I've seen that article before. The premise could potentially be very good. However, I (and several other people) don't think it really explains well enough how the patriarchy upholds these roles. It's not really self-evident to any reader unfamiliar with the material. In addition, I have seen relatively few feminists discuss these issues compared to non-feminists.

And as unfair of me as it might be, the fact that a good number of Jezebel's writers and commenters have been incredibly insensitive to male rape and abuse victims in the past makes me wary of them as a source of information.

Kexruct: I think you bring up a good point. The more naive among the feminist movement seem to think think that only men uphold patriarchal roles and values, but it's important to note that women's attitudes also play a part.

That being said, I personally have never seen people say that a female victim of rape or abuse was "asking for it" aside from, if I may be blunt, creepy jerks and bitchety old crotches that no one listens to anyway. It could be that I'm just not looking in the right places, but I don't think it's particularly rampant.

Naney: No problem. I'd be willing to wait until your mind was less busy to come up with a new one.

ProfessorGator

Kexruct said:

Naney said:

Single fathers are bad because only women can properly raise a child

I was under the impression that single fathers were almost universally seen as brave, because they weren't "stuck," so to speak, with their child.

It varies a lot, really. I've heard of people who think all single fathers are child abusers and pedophiles.

Bunny

ProfessorGator said:

Kexruct said:

Naney said:

Single fathers are bad because only women can properly raise a child

I was under the impression that single fathers were almost universally seen as brave, because they weren't "stuck," so to speak, with their child.

It varies a lot, really. I've heard of people who think all single fathers are child abusers and pedophiles.

I've also heard some people who really pity the kids of single fathers

Which is kind of shitting all over the dude's parenting skills

Obā-san

Deathonabun said:

ProfessorGator said:

Kexruct said:

Naney said:

Single fathers are bad because only women can properly raise a child

I was under the impression that single fathers were almost universally seen as brave, because they weren't "stuck," so to speak, with their child.

It varies a lot, really. I've heard of people who think all single fathers are child abusers and pedophiles.

I've also heard some people who really pity the kids of single fathers

Which is kind of shitting all over the dude's parenting skills

And a lot of the time in order for the dad to even get custody the mom has to be really, really, really awful.

Obā-san

I personally have never seen people say that a female victim of rape or
abuse was "asking for it" aside from, if I may be blunt, creepy jerks
and bitchety old crotches that no one listens to anyway. It could be
that I'm just not looking in the right places, but I don't think it's
particularly rampant.

hoooooooo boy

yeah you ain't looking in the right places.

ProfessorGator

Naney: I should've guessed. This raises the question of whether the right places are representative of society as a whole. That I have the feeling we may disagree on.

Also, the issue of dads never getting custody could be said to be a disadvantage that men face in an area where femininity is seen as superior.

Bunny

ProfessorGator said:

Also, the issue of dads never getting custody could be said to be a disadvantage that men face in an area where femininity is seen as superior.

Yes

we are not arguing against this

(well, I'm not, at least)

Obā-san

he issue of dads never getting custody could be said to be a
disadvantage that men face in an area where femininity is seen as
superior.

yes.

Which goes to further prove that current gender roles are problematic.

And as i said earlier the ultimate endgoal of feminism would to be to stop this sort of stupid gender-role related thing from happening.

Tanya

If you collapse female gender roles, then male gender roles will surely collapse as well, I don't think you need to expand the topics you address to all of them in order to try and fix things.

Feminism the ideology is already fret with many different viewpoints, but it's general goal can be inferred just a little bit from just a basic look behind the definition of the term, I think trying to expand itself to gender roles in general and male induced sexism would just further obscure any long-term goals.

ProfessorGator

Naney and Deathonabun: We agree on this, then. Sorry for the confusion.

But I feel I should point out that it is also the goal of MRAs (by which I mean the reasonable ones, not the nutters from the bowels of Reddit) and egalitarians to stop this sort of stupid gender-role related thing from happening.

The ideal situation would be for all three groups to cooperate, and have feminists deal with women's issues and MRAs deal with men's issues. Unfortunately, the vocal crazies have soured both groups' opinions of each other, and this is not a problem that can easily be solved.

ProfessorGator

Cynicalclock said:

If you collapse female gender roles, then male gender roles will surely collapse as well, 

I disagree with this. I think male gender roles need to be directly addressed as well. That's just the thing about social problems: they don't go away unless someone directly addresses them. Trying to go about it indirectly like that is no better than just ignoring them.

But you sort of ninja'd me, though perhaps not in the way you expected. I agree that forcing feminism to address men's issues would not be the most efficient way of solving the problem.

Bunny

Dwarven Vow #1: Let's all work together for a peaceful world

Obā-san

But I feel I should point out that it is also the
goal of MRAs (by which I mean the reasonable ones, not the nutters from
the bowels of Reddit) and egalitarians to stop this sort of stupid
gender-role related thing from happening.

See, what we have here is a problem of terminology.

y'see, the goals of reasonable "MRAs" are, in fact, feminist goals and in an ideal reality they would describe themselves as feminist and we would have no problem.


What has happened is that a small group of misogynistic men made use of contemporary activist paradigms to split up reasonable people into two "competing" groups that really have the same ideas.


Basically, whereas there are a few crazy feminists, they have developed from a benign movement. On the other hand, the MRA movement was founded by a fringe element (pretty much the bowels of Reddit dudes) that lied about their intentions to dupe members who really agree about most everything with people on the "other" side.

Fun Fact: if you use the Wayback Machine to see really early versions of various key MRA websites you will see that they were originally very openly misogynistic.

Obā-san

and yes i know that what i just said there sounds like tinfoil hat material, if i hadn't seen it for myself i wouldn't have believed it.

Obā-san

also i am trying to remember the specific websites so i can link them....


aaaaaahhhh why is my memory so fucking shiiiit

glennmagusharvey

I think that the term "feminism" is in some ways the wrong term for this, as the term emphasizes one gender over the other.

I think calling this "gender equality" or "gender respect" may be better.

ProfessorGator

Naney: That is actually not true. The reasonable part of the men's right movement did not start from fringe sites on the internet. It was actually started by former feminist leaders who became disillusioned with certain aspects of their movement.

Two in particular are often mentioned among them. One is Dr. Warren Farrell, who noticed that researchers of rape and domestic abuse in his department weren't inclusive of male victims. He voiced his concerns that this would lead to unfair results, but those concerns went unanswered. (Unrelatedly, there are rumors of his condoning rape, but those are quite false. They're based on out-of-context parts of a passage in one of his books where he describes what he thinks is the psychological state that leads someone to rape another person. The rest of the passage makes it quite clear that he does not think it's justified.)

The other is Erin Pizzey, who actively performed charity work at battered women's shelters. However, she noticed that some of the visitors of the shelter were just as abusive, if not more so, than their partners. Thus, she tried to start a battered men's shelter, but was like Dr. Farrell was faced with opposition. Unfortunately, the vocal minority of radical feminists threatened her personally with violence, which is one of the things that has soured reasonable MRAs' view of feminism.

Obā-san

ok then.


I guess i mean more "MRAs on the internet" then, because i'm serious i really have seen these things and they really hurt my opinion of anyone i see who considers themselves to be an MRA and make me suspicious of the movement as a whole.

ProfessorGator

I'm not doubting that, and I can see how that would hurt someone's view of the men's rights movement.

If you want somewhere to look that's less nutters, I highly recommend Genderratic. It is admittedly openly critical of feminism, but it's nonetheless a place where feminists and MRAs get together and discuss gender issues. They're some of the people who convinced me that MRAs could actually be reasonable. But this is getting a little off topic.

And to clarify, I don't identify as either feminist or MRA.

Yarrun XIX

We should have, like, Skype debates where respected MRAs and Feminists argue about their points of view.

Show the best of both sides and let the internet decide.

Sredni Vashtar

The more that I read about the early roots of men's rights activism, the more bitterly ironic the rampant misogyny of many quarters of its more extreme quarters (and often its less extreme quarters) seems to me. The homophobia and transphobia, too, given early men's liberation's connections to gender constructs and queer theory.

ProfessorGator

Sredni: I'm having a little trouble understanding what you mean by rampant misogyny in the less extreme quarters. Do you mean how some of them are bitter towards women? I have seen some of that, and I do think it's unwarranted.

I should also note that perhaps Paul Elam has more influence in the movement than he really should. I haven't read his works personally, but going by what I've heard that's a good thing. To put it in a way we can relate to, he's basically the Fast Eddie of the MRA site A Voice for Men.

Hexartes

ProfessorGator said:

Sredni: I'm having a little trouble understanding what you mean by rampant misogyny in the less extreme quarters. Do you mean how some of them are bitter towards women? I have seen some of that, and I do think it's unwarranted.

I should also note that perhaps Paul Elam has more influence in the movement than he really should. I haven't read his works personally, but going by what I've heard that's a good thing. To put it in a way we can relate to, he's basically the Fast Eddie of the MRA site A Voice for Men.

I'm not sure I understand. Fast Eddie wasn't misogynistic, just constantly stressed and thin skinned.

ProfessorGator

That's not the part I was comparing. I was comparing them in the sense that they're the head admin in charge of the site and also frequently stressed, bitter, and ill-tempered.