historical roles vs female submission

[Yesspleasse]

That's absurd. It's not possible. It allows every man at that conference to feel like his work is over, and every one thinking about it like they must be in a state of enlightenment perfection to be there.

I kid you not. As I recall, it had to do with being a 'male ally'.

My main gripe is not that Feminism doesn't have a multitude of valid concerns, but that they are addressed myopically, by and large. Even when males are seen as not being privileged, it is often attributed to the 'patriarchal miasma', which, of course, it sometimes is.

Anyhow, it's way past my bedtime here. It's been a long, tough, male week (kidding). I apologise if my reasonable good humour gland temporarily malfunctioned.

Night night. Gotta go.

Nice airing these thought with you. :]

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's absurd. It's not possible. It allows every man at that conference to feel like his work is over, and every one thinking about it like they must be in a state of enlightenment perfection to be there.

No, it means that the men can not make the issues be about them. They don't get to stand up and defensively talk about how men get raped too, and they don't get to talk about women raping men in the context of society at large. Feminist male privilege means that men assume their answers are authoritative and must be heard right now-- and that they have magical insights that have never been thought of by "myopic" women. And that women must be grateful and welcoming, and nice. It means that women who are angry should moderate their tone because, after all, the guys is a feminist, and it's all about him.

Asking men to check their privilege at the door means their work has just begun, honestly. It's a really, REALLY tough thing to do.

 

[eastern sun]

Wow.

I'm so busy rebelling against my mother's "50's girl" feminism - in which she demanded her rights to be everything she wished she wasn't, simply by being a single woman who had to earn enough money to support her children before it was politically viable -

while I completely take for granted my right to choose my husband - against my parents' wishes -

that I only just now learned the dinner thing.

In my profound state of confusion, I climbed into the cavegirl camp. It's simplicity is breathtaking (even if it is outdated).

 

[Netzach]

No, it means that the men can not make the issues be about them. They don't get to stand up and defensively talk about how men get raped too, and they don't get to talk about women raping men in the context of society at large. Feminist male privilege means that men assume their answers are authoritative and must be heard right now-- and that they have magical insights that have never been thought of by "myopic" women. And that women must be grateful and welcoming, and nice. It means that women who are angry should moderate their tone because, after all, the guys is a feminist, and it's all about him.

Asking men to check their privilege at the door means their work has just begun, honestly. It's a really, REALLY tough thing to do.

I just call that not being a douche. And yes, a lot of guys put in this context are douchey, you get no disagreement there. But it's not just them clamoring for airtime of the pain and suffering - there's plenty of privlege to check. Also it's just not that simple to me - men were boys at one point and children are part of the disenfranchised, and there's really no one dialoguing about them outside of feminism in meaningful ways - as beings with rights and vulnerabilities that are preyed on.

Like the middle class white feminists who want to make it all about THEM are less toxic?

 

[YourCaptor]

Dude, first of all, sorry for flipping out. I’ve just had it with the whole, our way is the best way and the natural way so everyone else is a crazy criminal, and that coupled with the ignorance insult is just too much.

My generalizations are statistically significant. The vast majority of people adapt far more to their living situation then we may assume sometimes. All the “individualism”, and “non conformism”, it’s like a drop of water in the ocean of possible human expression. Yet we are all almost identical anyway, like it or not, we all try to fit in, even if we say we don’t. Even biologically driven differences, such as homosexuality are estimated at about .1% – 10% of the human population, most people guestimating about 1%. So even the highest estimates of homosexuality are not significant in most research when compared to the whole, and so homosexual marriage would not factor into the picture of marriage as a whole. We see spousal abuse, and gay marriages, and shotgun marriages, etc, so vividly only because they are novel. The majority of human behavior is basically that dead boring norm we wish it wasn’t.

So my point, arranged marriages are often more satisfying then choice marriages, is a generalization, that even a mathematician would consider acceptable.

Another thing, arranged marriages are not shotgun marriages. The people who fills the role of matchmaker selects a couple, and people can give their opinion on the selection. While the selected couple may experience a lot of pressure at times, such as if one of the families has a lot of power or money, but the couples themselves have to give consent. This isn’t 1384, it’s 2010. Fuck even e-harmony could be considered matchmaking under some definitions.

And do you really think you’re the first people to ever consider that people may lie on a questionnaire. There are many ways to design a questionnaire to detect everything from straight out liars to people answering in a way that doesn’t really reflect their situation. No researcher with two brain cells is ever gonna ask, are you satisfied with your marriage, except maybe to catch liars.

 

[YourCaptor]

but why must it be one or the other...independence, or forced dependence? as someone who has never had the capacity for independence, nor seen the value in it as some universal human virtue, the message i have always received from feminism is "you are defective, you don't belong in society."

Hey OSG, have you or your SO ever considered living in a collectivist culture for a while?

It may suit you a little bit better.

I can totally see it now, the black couple living in the Chinese country side.



It'd be sweet.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm of the tough noogies school of feminism. Being asked to share privilege always divisive to the privileged.

I'm of the practical school of feminism.

I'm also chuckling about the fact that you zero in on male privilege.... and then complain about men who want to "make the issues be about them."

 

[JMohegan]

There's no feminist baptism, Naomi Wolf is not the pope of feminism, and basically it boils down to "this is how I'd like my sister or daughter to feel in the world, and everyone should be able to have that."

I've heard the name, but never read anything by Wolf.

The sister, daughter, niece, female cousin, neighbor, friend thing - yes. It boils down to that, plus recognition of the fact that cutting off half the brains, creativity, and drive of a society just plain makes no sense.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I like having it both ways.

Being a male supremist in, say, Saudi Arabia, would just be generic.


Here I get to be a rebel. I like that.

 

[Netzach]

Dude, first of all, sorry for flipping out. I’ve just had it with the whole, our way is the best way and the natural way so everyone else is a crazy criminal, and that coupled with the ignorance insult is just too much.

My generalizations are statistically significant. The vast majority of people adapt far more to their living situation then we may assume sometimes. All the “individualism”, and “non conformism”, it’s like a drop of water in the ocean of possible human expression. Yet we are all almost identical anyway, like it or not, we all try to fit in, even if we say we don’t. Even biologically driven differences, such as homosexuality are estimated at about .1% – 10% of the human population, most people guestimating about 1%. So even the highest estimates of homosexuality are not significant in most research when compared to the whole, and so homosexual marriage would not factor into the picture of marriage as a whole. We see spousal abuse, and gay marriages, and shotgun marriages, etc, so vividly only because they are novel. The majority of human behavior is basically that dead boring norm we wish it wasn’t.

So my point, arranged marriages are often more satisfying then choice marriages, is a generalization, that even a mathematician would consider acceptable.

Another thing, arranged marriages are not shotgun marriages. The people who fills the role of matchmaker selects a couple, and people can give their opinion on the selection. While the selected couple may experience a lot of pressure at times, such as if one of the families has a lot of power or money, but the couples themselves have to give consent. This isn’t 1384, it’s 2010. Fuck even e-harmony could be considered matchmaking under some definitions.

And do you really think you’re the first people to ever consider that people may lie on a questionnaire. There are many ways to design a questionnaire to detect everything from straight out liars to people answering in a way that doesn’t really reflect their situation. No researcher with two brain cells is ever gonna ask, are you satisfied with your marriage, except maybe to catch liars.

Dude, I'm sorry for flipping out. I know you're into the statistical angle of this, but I think we're talking about that wildcard aspect of anthropology - which is how an individual *navigates* their cultural norms - and how few people are statistical median exactly. 2.5 kids SUV and golden retriever. I've sat patiently through a million iterations of "everything was great in the past" (not just osg and at least her past is so past that it's not really possible to debate it much) and I'm laughing my ass off.

I'm talking about the kind of matchmaker matchmaker shit that was still going on in the 40's among various ethnic whites. She may have gotten knocked up, which would explain some of it, but I'm uncertain that's the case.

I hear and see a LOT of people talking about how great everything was in the fifties and what great marriages their grandparents and parents had because divorce just wasn't an option and feminism ruined everything and I call horseshit on it. Some people may have been fine - but you're right about human behavior, most people are conformists, most people are fairly unhappy and most people wouldn't know quality of life if it bit them on the ass, so how could they chase it?

I feel worse for him than for her - he's the one in the ground now. But it was patriarchal collectivist headfuckery that put him there, that's the irony of it. He never felt like he had a choice but to allow her to drag everyone into her "I'm so dependent and helpless" stance. He has to provide for her, take care of her, and ultimately buy into her deranged reality or admit that his wife is crazy and crazy people in your family is too marginalizing and he'd have to take care of 3 children if she was treated in any way, and that wasn't going to happen for a second because men don't do that. So goes the trap.

I think about how things could have been for my grandpa if he'd had a minute with a woman suited to his personality and capable of getting out of her own suffering and being *nice* to him for a second, which I'm unsure I ever saw her do.

I wonder how my grandmother would have done with someone who had had a little more backbone and a little less enabling passivity but who also had confidence in her intelligence and could have built her up some - something I never saw him do.

I never sensed attraction, I never sensed friendship, I never sensed anything other than sinking into routine. She could have been his beard for all the lack of attraction we're talking about. But "we've been married for 20 years" they would say, like they just ran a 50 k. Wow, aren't those old fashioned marriages great. People gauge them on lack of overt complaint - I'm pointing out that this was a culture where such complaints simply *could not be made.*

 

[Netzach]

I like having it both ways.

Being a male supremist in, say, Saudi Arabia, would just be generic.


Here I get to be a rebel. I like that.

This is why the fantasy of female supremacy planet leaves me totally utterly ho-hum. If there's no special snowflake quality about it it's just missionary sex. I'd probably try submission just to be that asshole. It's not the sum total of the appeal of my sexuality, but it's a part of it.

 

[rosco rathbone]

This is why the fantasy of female supremacy planet leaves me totally utterly ho-hum. If there's no special snowflake quality about it it's just missionary sex. I'd probably try submission just to be that asshole. It's not the sum total of the appeal of my sexuality, but it's a part of it.

Contrarians (backwards R) Us

 

[Yesspleasse]

No, it means that the men can not make the issues be about them. They don't get to stand up and defensively talk about how men get raped too, and they don't get to talk about women raping men in the context of society at large. Feminist male privilege means that men assume their answers are authoritative and must be heard right now-- and that they have magical insights that have never been thought of by "myopic" women. And that women must be grateful and welcoming, and nice. It means that women who are angry should moderate their tone because, after all, the guys is a feminist, and it's all about him.

Asking men to check their privilege at the door means their work has just begun, honestly. It's a really, REALLY tough thing to do.

As the person who may have introduced the word myopic to the thread, I'm wondering how it got transformed from feminism often being myopic when addressing its valid concerns to "Myopic" (complete with quotation marks) women.

And what's all this about 'the men this' and 'men that'. You're not homogenizing the genders are you? :]

Let's face it. Privilege isn't and never was just male, or patriarchal. Nor was lack of privilege always due to patriarchal structures (as in men suffering from patriarchy). Sure, some of it was. But on the other hand, there are advantages and disadvantages to being male or female in every species of plant or animal on the planet, and I don't think we're totally removed from that just because of a fairly thick cortex. :]

 

[Stella_Omega]

Netzach is saying things better than I seem to be able to-- thank goodness!

But on the other hand, there are advantages and disadvantages to being male or female in every species of plant or animal on the planet, and I don't think we're totally removed from that just because of a fairly thick cortex. :]

Totally going off the track here, but I was at a Trans group last night.
The MTFs were saying that Estrogen made the whole world more colorful and nuanced. Food tasted better, emotions were more fun, and one woman put it.
The FTMs all agreed that testosterone made human society much easier to deal with. Legal issues were clearer, authority figures were less intimidating.

 

[where]

That wasn't at all how this thread was intended, I didn't mean to make anyone feel bad *hugs*

I was cracking a joke really,

Er, no, actually, feminism's agenda is biased in favour of only redressing inequalities which favour men, not inequalities which favour women. As such, it's not egalitarian.

For example, here, men have to work 5 years longer to get a pension from the State, yet they also live (approx 5 years) shorter lives, so retirement is a double whammy for men. Suicide rates are generally 3 to 4 times higher for men. Family Law/custody/alimony generally favours women. Men traditionally do the riskiest jobs, in terms of health/life risks and unemployment risks. I could go on. The point is not that these issues are any more or any less valid than any others, but that feminism doesn't generally address them. Which is fine. Women need an independent advocacy in a historically patriarchal world. But it is about equality 'for women' :]

I'm guessing you are in the UK, so you should know that there is now gender equality in terms of younger women hitting retirement age, and whilst women do live a bit longer in the uk (the gap is closing as well), they actually have longer term ill-health than men, so men may die sooner but they are healthier for longer. Also in the UK, a lot of the really risky male occupations are now no longer in existence since most of the mines and heavy industry have closed and moved to third world counties, where, incidently women often work alongside the men in these dangerous industries.

Whilst family law does favour women in terms of custody, it is usually because they have had prime responsibility for child raising. When women divorce they are nearly always much much worse off than men financially and if you know any divorced or separated mothers, you will know what a nighmare they have trying to get child support. And of course if they are left looking after the kids, then they have less chance of getting a decent job because women with kids are discriminated against.

As the person who may have introduced the word myopic to the thread, I'm wondering how it got transformed from feminism often being myopic when addressing its valid concerns to "Myopic" (complete with quotation marks) women.

And what's all this about 'the men this' and 'men that'. You're not homogenizing the genders are you? :]

Let's face it. Privilege isn't and never was just male, or patriarchal. Nor was lack of privilege always due to patriarchal structures (as in men suffering from patriarchy). Sure, some of it was. But on the other hand, there are advantages and disadvantages to being male or female in every species of plant or animal on the planet, and I don't think we're totally removed from that just because of a fairly thick cortex. :]

privilege isn't "just" male, but it largely is. throw race and class into the mix and the middle-to upper class white male is the most privileged person on the planet. Bringing plant or animal life into it, is creative, but pretty disingenuous

It's still a man's world out there, baby!

 

[Stella_Omega]

But it is about equality 'for women'

Which ought to mean equality for men as well, no?

 

[where]

Which ought to mean equality for men as well, no?

but is it us equalising up or them equalising down?

that I'm sure is why many men often feel very threatened by the idea of feminism.

 

[Yesspleasse]

It's still a man's world out there, baby!

Feminism is a philosophical rut. It's indefensively biased. Long live egalitarianism. It's the future for everyone!

Btw, please don't use infanticising languge to describe me. You're infringing my sense of self. :]

Actually, in all seriousness, I wouldn't entirely disagree with you. I tend to think that there are more ways in which you are right than the reverse. That's not my problem with feminism.

 

[where]

Feminism is a philosophical rut. It's indefensively biased. Long live egalitarianism. It's the future for everyone!

Btw, please don't use infanticising languge to describe me. You're infringing my sense of self. :]

Actually, in all seriousness, I wouldn't entirely disagree with you. I tend to think that there are more ways in which you are right than the reverse. That's not my problem with feminism.

feminism is no more biased than the current western hegemony. The whole point is, is that it is about ~true equality~ which we (as in women) don't currently have.

There are lots of ways that feminism is fucked, but also lots of ways it is still useful and relevant.

 

[Yesspleasse]

feminism is no more biased than the current western hegemony. The whole point is, is that it is about ~true equality~ which we (as in women) don't currently have.

There are lots of ways that feminism is fucked, but also lots of ways it is still useful and relevant.

I agree that in many ways it's still useful and relevant, especially in certain countries, but also in all countries, to some degree.

But, to me, feminism too often way overstates the case, it's like it's wearing blinkers which divide the world into two groups. You literally can't have equality by only advocating equality for one gender. It's like.....well, councils and public bodies should (and do have) anti-sexist policies, but they should not (and don't as far as I know) have feminist ones, for a very good reason. That'd be a bit like having blackist policies (in for example, American or European countries) instead of anti-racist ones. There may be some merit in joining a blackist movement (I'm using the fictional term as an analogy to illustrate a point), there may even, arguably, be some merit in it if you're white, for example, but you can understand that many (not all obviously) white people would be reluctant or wary of joining, not because their privilege is threatened (though this will be true in some cases), but because, well, anti-racism is just a better, more inclusive rallying point.

Most feminists I have met aren't unreasonable at all, so I would make a big distinction between individuals and feminism as a philosophy.

Anyhow, it's an extremely complicated and controversial topic. I'm not sure I'm in the right place to be banging on about it. Probably not in the spirit of what this site is all about (fun, I guess?) . For that reason, maybe I'll shut up now. :]

 

[Yesspleasse]

Bringing plant or animal life into it, is creative, but pretty disingenuous

Sorry, couldn't resist coming back.

Newsflash: we're part of the animal kingdom.

And we should use words like 'lower' and 'higher' with caution, into the bargain.

There's a great book, recommended to me by a feminist as it happens, entitled, 'The Woman That Never Evolved' by Sarah Hrdy, which is about her studies of other social animals, mainly other primates. Another excellent book is 'Promiscuity' by Tim Birkhead. It's not about what you might think. It's about 'Sperm competition' (which again is perhaps not what some might think) in animals. I hadn't heard of it beforehand, but quite honestly I haven't entirely thought of sex and gender issues in quite the same way since reading.

Incidentally, the latter book has stills from footage taken inside the body of a particular type of jellyfish (can't remember which type) which shows two sperm reaching an egg, and the egg 'chooses', that is to say it actively goes up to one sperm, turns away and goes to fertilize with the other instead . Now, that's what I call proper 'girl power'

Not saying everything is evolution, btw, though some biologists would argue that much of it is, and not defending any kind of status quo. Just adding a valid and important, and interesting ingredient into the mix.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I want to apologise for my own loud voice in this thread, folks-- and my subsequent loss of articulation.

but is it us equalising up or them equalising down?

that I'm sure is why many men often feel very threatened by the idea of feminism.

Exactly. Because as women equalise up-- it will mean in certain areas, than men do equalise down. If there are ten CEO jobs, and of those five end up going to women instead of men-- an awful lot of men will feel robbed of their rightfully high-status job.

If there are ten households that need maids, and five of those "maids" are now men, and awful lot of men will feel forced into a demeaning low-status job.

 

[where]

Sorry, couldn't resist coming back.

Newsflash: we're part of the animal kingdom.

And we should use words like 'lower' and 'higher' with caution, into the bargain.

There's a great book, recommended to me by a feminist as it happens, entitled, 'The Woman That Never Evolved' by Sarah Hrdy, which is about her studies of other social animals, mainly other primates. Another excellent book is 'Promiscuity' by Tim Birkhead. It's not about what you might think. It's about 'Sperm competition' (which again is perhaps not what some might think) in animals. I hadn't heard of it beforehand, but quite honestly I haven't entirely thought of sex and gender issues in quite the same way since reading.

Incidentally, the latter book has stills from footage taken inside the body of a particular type of jellyfish (can't remember which type) which shows two sperm reaching an egg, and the egg 'chooses', that is to say it actively goes up to one sperm, turns away and goes to fertilize with the other instead . Now, that's what I call proper 'girl power'

Not saying everything is evolution, btw, though some biologists would argue that much of it is, and not defending any kind of status quo. Just adding a valid and important, and interesting ingredient into the mix.

I don't think you entirely understand the difference between sex and gender. At least going by your jelly-fish example, you don't.

I want to apologise for my own loud voice in this thread, folks-- and my subsequent loss of articulation. Exactly. Because as women equalise up-- it will mean in certain areas, than men do equalise down. If there are ten CEO jobs, and of those five end up going to women instead of men-- an awful lot of men will feel robbed of their rightfully high-status job.

If there are ten households that need maids, and five of those "maids" are now men, and awful lot of men will feel forced into a demeaning low-status job.

Men will seldom take the low status, low pay job. That's why there are so few men in childcare, home care or in primary schools. I have noticed very little difference in terms of changes in gender roles in employment. There is one male cleaner at my place of employment, and he's the supervisor.

you could also extrapolate all this to race as well. If you wanted to be really mischievous.

 

[hiddenfreak]

I do all of the things on that list. Not because my husband makes me, but because I enjoy doing them for him. My husband and I both know my place, I am his sub, but the one he trusts to take care of the mundane everyday crap decisions. We dig it.

 

[Yesspleasse]

I don't think you entirely understand the difference between sex and gender. At least going by your jelly-fish example, you don't.

Hm. Possibly, though maybe it's you who doesn't understand the connection between the two.

I wasn't seriously suggesting a jellyfish egg's activities were a gender issue.

Men will seldom take the low status, low pay job. That's why there are so few men in childcare, home care or in primary schools. I have noticed very little difference in terms of changes in gender roles in employment. There is one male cleaner at my place of employment, and he's the supervisor.

At this rate, no doubt next we'll be enriched with the 'women earn 77 cents/pence for every male dollar/pound' canard soon.

And of course, let's not forget, construction workers and soldiers are fantastically well paid all over the world, and the job isn't shitty at all.

The thing is, it just isn't as straighforward as you suggest. You have a point, but it's a narrow perspective. There are a multitude of reasons for who does what job, and yes, sexism is one of them (that is to say sexism in general, not just male sexism) but in modern 'western' economies, its not as big a part as is often trumpeted.

Men this, women that. Must things really come down to that so often? This is why I will never join the feminism movement or the mens' rights movement. Ick.

'The truth is that the vital difference is not between men and women but between women with dependent children and everyone else, whether male or female. The hourly rate of pay for women who are neither married nor cohabiting is slightly higher than for men in the same situation' http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidgreen/9666597/The_gender_pay_gap_does_not_exist/

When like is compared with like (years of service, hours worked, overtime worked, amount of time off/career breaks, qualifications, experience.....etc) the gap is pretty small. When lifestyle/career choices come into the equation, I have seen reports of University studies here in the UK and studies by (male and female) economists in the USA which suggest that the pay gap shrinks to low single figures, maybe even 1-2% (though personally, I think that's a bit low). Which is not good, obviously. No gap is good.