This specific example you gave is somewhat connected to the part of "rape culture" where we blow off the behavior of boys and men with "Oh, that's just the way guys are" but presume that women should know better and avoid tempting the men.
...Well, that went dark fast. But, I quite see it, even though CK's character just opened his beer bottle on the table edge rather than with a church key.
I do want to point out, however, that as a man who deals in counseling and education professionally, there is a strong bias against men, and it's not because people think they/I should be doing something more worthwhile.
Bloo, I've worked in education, and yes, it's a field that can be problematic for men--largely because it's regarded as Woman's Work, a maternal and nurturing field. So, yeah, it ties to misogyny.
Bloo Driver wrote:I do want to point out, however, that as a man who deals in counseling and education professionally, there is a strong bias against men, and it's not because people think they/I should be doing something more worthwhile.
Bloo, I've worked in education, and yes, it's a field that can be problematic for men--largely because it's regarded as Woman's Work, a maternal and nurturing field. So, yeah, it ties to misogyny.
Thanks for the rundown!
I wasn't making my point to dismiss the idea that there are cases where men have it difficult. I personally think they should be talked about, albeit without being the focus. Collateral damage is still damage and, while some disagree, it's probably a worthwhile endeavor to show everyone how they benefit from feminism, not just women.
The reason I asked the question is because of what you said, Bloo Driver. "It's a strange, difficult argument to make when people decide to try and convince others that all sexism is somehow sexism against women in a roundabout way. " It's not a strange, difficult argument. It's actually an easy, logically consistent argument and you've yet to show any examples that it's not.
SpacePPoliceman wrote:Bloo Driver wrote:I do want to point out, however, that as a man who deals in counseling and education professionally, there is a strong bias against men, and it's not because people think they/I should be doing something more worthwhile.
Bloo, I've worked in education, and yes, it's a field that can be problematic for men--largely because it's regarded as Woman's Work, a maternal and nurturing field. So, yeah, it ties to misogyny.
Thanks for the rundown!
Hahaha. I admit to being guilty, occasionally, of absolutely missing a nuanced point in a long post just to post a "nuh uh", but wow, this one was a textbook example. SpacePPoliceman, it seems like you completely missed the entire central argument Bloo made.
I wasn't making my point to dismiss the idea that there are cases where men have it difficult. I personally think they should be talked about, albeit without being the focus. Collateral damage is still damage and, while some disagree, it's probably a worthwhile endeavor to show everyone how they benefit from feminism, not just women.
Sure, and I agree with that. I don't disagree at all with the notion that feminism makes crap better all around for men and women.
The reason I asked the question is because of what you said, Bloo Driver. "It's a strange, difficult argument to make when people decide to try and convince others that all sexism is somehow sexism against women in a roundabout way. " It's not a strange, difficult argument. It's actually an easy, logically consistent argument and you've yet to show any examples that it's not.
Well, I did, but I guess you just either didn't like it, didn't read it, or just want to dismiss it without actually explaining why. Don't worry, though, you weren't the first - SPP quoted one line and then made an argument that seemed to imply that the following several lines after that just didn't exist. The issue I'm having here is, again, this notion that we can't say misandry, misandry is fake, and really it all should be called misogyny or sexism against women. The idea that sexism against men is related to sexism against women in many cases is factual in my experience, sure. But that's different than saying, "Well, we need to say it's all sexism against women." Sorry, but no. When people make selections and biases against men because they are men, there's a word for that. It's not misogyny, no matter how cleverly people want to lawyer around it. It might be part of misogyny, in differing ways and degrees based on the circumstance, but I don't go into talks about misogyny and say, "Oh, sorry, that's not misogyny. See, what's happened here is you're a victim of tribal monarchy, under which misogyny falls. Please stop using that term."
It's always interesting to me that political and social discussions like this are, in the end, a war of language. People bristle at the term "privilege," because it feels like an attack, but in the end, that's the word. It's privilege. MRA folks rail hard against that, though, mostly because well, it makes them all pouty and sad when the word is used. In a similar vein, it seems that feminists would rather just pretend misandry is not a thing at all, and people are very good about being careful to say, "Well things do happen to men, too," but that's about as far into the subject it goes. It feels like something people don't actually believe especially when this sort of issue comes up - "no no, that doesn't happen to you, it's actually happening to someone else, stop trying to make it about you," is about as condescending and dismissive as one can get when you're talking about someone's personal experiences. It's odd to me people just can't grasp that, but in one of the locked feminism threads, there was about three pages or so that got pretty contentious around the basic idea of empathy in this regard, so it doesn't particularly surprise me this time.
In the end, anyway, there's words for what's going on, and I worry when we try to redefine or destroy words to win the argument. I don't disagree with the ideas people are trying to get across, but unfortunately I guess when people try to tell me that the exact word used to describe something is the wrong word, I get a little confused. But there's really not an argument to be had, in the end. Words have meanings, and that's really all I can say about that.
I also tend to bristle at the obsessiveness over words when talking about this stuff. I'm actually not particularly super interested in whether someone calls themselves a feminist or not, I'm more just interested in ideas and actions. The terminology can snag us. But as you said, words have meanings. And misandry has a meaning and a context that has been pointed out several times now. I'll keep going back to this well, but while there's nothing particularly wrong with the concept of "white pride" it's not exactly something anyone is going to be tossing around because of how it is generally used and the culture and history in which it exists. So that's one reason misandry isn't a term most people are using. And wishing the word didn't have that context in gender issues circles is just howling at a brick wall. It does because that's how the most people have used it. Bummer, but yeah. See also a billion other terms.
As someone who is presumably someone who disagrees with how some people use the term feminism to be a shorthand for elevating women to a superior status and/or punishing men, I have to say I find the response of "Bummer, but yeah," to the idea of a word getting hijacked by abuse a little dangerous. Same with the comparison of misandry and "white pride" - I guess it's just a foregone conclusion to some people that "misandry" is really only shorthand for "I am an idiot who thinks feminism is a problem and the patriarchy is either a sham or extremely overstated".
The priority of what words are worth fighting for is pretty interesting, but I think I already showed in that conservatism thread that I'm prone to just diddling myself over word definition and use. And, like in that thread, I'll do the polite thing and try not to do it in public so much.
I think you're reading an implication or sarcasm in my previous post that really isn't there. When I say I find this sort of thing interesting, I am not saying, "I think your blase' hypocrisy is amusing, yes, yes, tut tut." I literally just think it's interesting. For the reasons you've described, people are willing to let one word go but not another. That is interesting to me.
I tried very hard to make it clear I was more examining the edges of the word and its use in a technical way and not trying to go down the rabbit hole of "but, but dude problems," so I find myself a little sadfacey that I get this -
I think it's less about terms and more about your feeling that men's (and your) particular issues aren't being addressed with enough respect and care.
... thrown at me anyway. My part in this was, again and again, just a bit of surprise that people don't see how that sort've ends. I suppose it gets muddied when I say it comes off as dismissive and insulting, but let me assure you - the power of this forum is insignificant compared to the power of my ego. Or the Force, whatever. So I'm not particularly worried on a personal level. I guess it's just a failure of communication on my part. Obviously, just further proof that the word itself immediately throws up red flags that people are unwilling, unable, or uncaring (don't have to just pick one) to push aside.
I really only brought it up to begin with because the FAQ-ing nature of this FAQ-ing thread seemed to be more about technical approaches and explanations, but I managed to spiral it back into dude problems with my admittedly low-value discussion. So, sorry about that. No sarcasm.
I'd like to respect the spirit of the cute bear, but I really do have to say before you start bandying about accusations of point-missing, and dismissal and what not, well, there's a bit from this book about a mote in the eyes. Consider it.
Just when I thought we were making progress, I stumble upon this: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/05/09/women-strip-men-judge-their-bodies-on-danish-tv-show/
The show, Blachman, was named after its creator, Thomas Blachman, who is the Danish version of Simon Cowell, according to the Telegraph, as well as an award-winning jazz musician and judge on the local edition of The X Factor. Blachman purportedly created the show to get “men discussing the aesthetics of a female body without allowing the conversation to become pornographic or politically correct.”
There are just so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to start... Treating the female body like a piece of meat, for starters... I really don't see the discussion value of a show like this, but I haven't seen it firsthand, of course. Opinions?
I think it's less about terms and more about (the) feeling that men's...issues aren't being addressed with enough respect and care.Which is a different topic altogether, even if it does dovetail into this one. It's also the topic that every feminism thread eventually spirals into.
I wanted to comment on this particular trend, in general, regarding forum discussion about feminism. I'm going to refer to this as Item 1, later. First, though, I'm going to kiiiiiinda white knight Bloo because I cannot resist l letting that kind of delicious irony go unnoted.
We're ganging up on him a bit, so I want to note that I think Bloo's opinion and experience are valuable to this discussion because of his professional insight into human psychology. I hope he'll continue to be a part of this conversation. He's going into detailed and nuanced territory that may be of interest to other readers. So by highlighting bombsfall's quote, I'm not trying to pick on Bloo so much as draw a tangent from their dialogue to comment on something that isn't particular to any one person here.
Item 1: Thoughts.
I think the "but what about the men" comes up in every feminism thread for a variety of reasons, which unfortunately by its nature creates a framework for discussion that assumes a zero-sum situation where "if we're taking about unequal power-balances for non-male people vs. males, then there's no room for the rights of males also harmed by this cultural imbalance." That it is a men vs. women issue, which just isn't true.
The problem with taking a conversation about feminism in the direction of men's rights is that it's often used as a diversionary tactic of MRA's and trolls to derail a discussion about the things that feminism does attempt to address. There's a definite level of... fatigue regarding the subject for folks interested in feminism. So when the men's rights are inevitably broached, it has a chilling effect in participation from women and even the very men disenfranchised by misogyny that appropriates femininity as a negativism to their particular role in society. Because there are people out there using it to intentionally deflect attention from a specific scope of conversation to muddy the issue. Hands are thrown up, threads may be locked, and everyone walks away from the experience with nothing gained but a distaste for the conversation. Which is sometimes the intended effect.
Edit: Oops, accidentally a word. Not even drinking, wtf.
I question the insistence that Bloo's point is "what about the men". I question it because Bloo has denied it four times now, has carefully detailed that it's about a word - misandry - and bent over backwards supporting that point without making the mistake we saw on pages 1-3 of this thread.
I also don't see anything in Amoebic's recent post contradicting that, though. Every observation made I consider accurate, just not in any way applicable to a careful discussion of which words we use when and where, and which words we try to redefine, and why we do that.
Yeah, I did kind of ramble around the fact that this was tangential to a comment from their earlier conversation, and was more about current trends in discussing feminism than the most current deviation of a recent conversation.
Not to be callus, but what they're talking about is personal experiences, which are valuable in their own right but aren't necessarily directly feeding into a FAQ for conversations in feminism. I felt the need to frame my comment so that it was relevant to the OP as a FAQ.
To be clear, I also understand that what Bloo's detailed has been not that, and why I was trying to avoid being someone who's accusing him of it. Fell flat on that one. Apologies.
Will finish posting detail later, trying to post from phone at length is garbage/bugged. Feck.
I have to point it out. That bear is adorable.
Something relevant to what I've mentioned earlier in this thread and others - people who aren't faced with the problem on a regular basis, are not themselves sexist jerks, and tend to have friends who are likewise not sexist jerks might get lulled into a bit of a illusory feeling that the problem isn't really a big deal anymore. Or rather, things are much improved, and that the rest are details that need to be worked out but aren't the end of the world.
What I find interesting is the implication that some women might even think to themselves, "But women have gained so much and advanced so far in the last two generations. Banging this drum is starting to feel whiny and greedy." I deal with a lot of women in my line of work (both as professionals and clients), and it's weird that I never really noticed something of a pattern about this. I get asked a lot about sexism issues because - for various reasons - I'm considered harmless or even "one of the girls", so I'm "guy" enough to get talked to about the other perspective, but unlikely to bro out or whatever. Anyway, from these talks I never really thought about it, but I think there's a danger of complacency setting in on 20- and 30-something women who have done well for themselves. They're well educated, they have good jobs, they don't have to deal with the glass ceiling (or, more likely I think, either don't notice it or find that it's an extremely high ceiling and are ok with that), and believe that perhaps they should be ok with what they have. I actually see a weird sort of reversed feminism coming in - these women remarking regularly that it must be hard for guys to deal with "that kind of girl," referring to women who hold feminist ideals high on their list of topics of interest.
Anyway, I wanted to introduce that article to the thread for consideration. It's weird and interesting to me that feminism might have to worry about being a victim of its limited success.
edit: uh let me fix that article link to the right one yes okay thank you ahem
I'm trying to instate him as an official "no hard feelings, let's move on" symbol.
Gunna instate him as my sig, thanks!
Sorry that I'm generally late to the conversation. I have a little difficulty posting anything at length, so it takes me a while.
That article references The Feminine Mystique, which I think is good textbook history lesson on feminism.
It's telling that some women are quick to settle for "enough." Or that they don't want to "make a fuss."
Oh my gosh, this story at The Hawkeye Initiative is fantastic. (Visual aid removed because it's better in context. :D)
Shouldn't his balls be poking out to mirror the underboob in the original picture?
Hypatian wrote:Oh my gosh, this story at The Hawkeye Initiative is fantastic. (Visual aid removed because it's better in context. :D)
Shouldn't his balls be poking out to mirror the underboob in the original picture?
The first comment on A Different Site Which Shall Remain Nameless was a rather indignant "She has more clothes than he does!"
Found an interesting reddit discussion in /r/bestof thought I would share it here.
This was alternately interesting, comical, thoughtful, and plain ol' dumb.
I mean to say it was very reddit.
While I agree with the danger of complacency, Bloo Driver, I'm unsure that it solely concerns the 20 and 30-something women. I'm a 20-something woman (dangerously close to becoming a 30-something woman ), and feel I've done pretty well for myself. However, the complacency vibe I get comes from older women, interestingly enough (mostly my mother, some aunts and to a lesser degree my mother-in-law). The general idea is "well, you have all those things and possibilities we didn't have so really, you shouldn't complain all that much, be grateful for you got."
It's something that genuinely disturbs me. When Pasteur discovered penicillin, did scientists say "oh good, we've got one antibiotic, we're set for life?" Isn't this part of humanity, to strive to better ourselves, to better the lives we lead?
The idea of intersectionality is spot on, at least in my own limited experience. I don't lead a profitable company, but I do see what happens to other women, in other lines of work, in different walks of life, and I do feel there is a need to stand together. Being dismissive of these issues serves no one.
Fleming discovered penicillin. Pasteur pioneered microbiology and vaccination, invented pasteurization.
Left: Disney doll, Right: Merida as in the Pixar movie Brave.
Note - this is not an attempt to "sex up" the Merida character. Rather, it is Disnry trying to save a buck. The design of the dress is, once you remove the colours and the sash, the same as that if a bunch of the other princess dresses that they use on their small (2-inch) dolls. I think that, between the whole set of princesses, there are only 2 different models of dresses: short sleeved and long sleeved.
This is not me trying to excuse this, it was a stupid decision, and kudos on Disney for (apparently) changing course so quickly. I am just trying to ensure that the proper reasoning behind it is brought forward.
They also changed her face (eyes & cheeckbones), no?
They also changed her face (eyes & cheeckbones), no?
Again, I think this is to fit in the mold they already have for the dolls.
Hold on, it is my work at home day, let me go grab some if my daughters dolls and grab some pics. Let me see if what I think is right.
Here are the long-sleeved dresses. The one on the right is an outlier. There is some variation from one to another, but not much.
Pages