Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

Not to seem conceited, but could anyone could tell me what they think of that? No contempt or hostility, please.

I guess that's true, but they didn't take issue with Lara Croft in the late 90s, either. Makes me wonder if Sarah Silverman is right, it's not a reluctance to have female characters from an audience point of view, it's just men dominate the industries, and so write what they're most familiar with: Men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. When I put the "men's rights activism" tag on this thread, I thought it was going to be merely ironic. Patters, you're embarrassingly full of shit.

That's going too far, just as Patters' earlier comment that the thread was bullshit and needed to die was too far. I don't know why, in a pretty relaxed discussion so far, this hyperbolic standoffishness has manifested. Whatever the reason, everyone should feel free to chill out for a second and remember that (as far as I've noticed) no one participating in this thread desires to promote inequality - some of us just have different ideas for how to get to equality.

Acting as if there aren't negative aspects to gender inequality for men is naive, and saying that all of the problems are the fault of patriarchy is not helpful - even if it might be true (and I genuinely mean might, I'm not sure at a glance). "Patriarchal societal structure" does not equal "men" - men and women are equally conditioned for their social roles, most of us did not at some point choose to view men and women in particular, traditional ways.

Patters brought up spousal abuse directed against men - that is something that happens, even if some people find it funny or even ridiculous, and those attitudes to it (and the lack of seriousness with which it therefore is treated) are created by the conditioned views of gender roles that we've all grown up with. It's not the fault of the men involved, nor really of men in general.

In reality, equality is not a slider, we can't achieve it by just jumping on one side and pushing. It's complicated and multifaceted and ignoring the male issues involved is just as ignorant and unfair as ignoring the female ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@thunder:

Huh. The idea of playing a female in a video game to ogle her seems so weird. That's never occured to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's going too far, just as Patters' earlier comment that the thread was bullshit and needed to die was too far. I don't know why, in a pretty relaxed discussion so far, this hyperbolic standoffishness has manifested. Whatever the reason, everyone should feel free to chill out for a second and remember that (as far as I've noticed) no one participating in this thread desires to promote inequality - some of us just have different ideas for how to get to equality.

Acting as if there aren't negative aspects to gender inequality for men is naive, and saying that all of the problems are the fault of patriarchy is not helpful - even if it might be true (and I genuinely mean might, I'm not sure at a glance). "Patriarchal societal structure" does not equal "men" - men and women are equally conditioned for their social roles, most of us did not at some point choose to view men and women in particular, traditional ways.

Patters brought up spousal abuse directed against men - that is something that happens, even if some people find it funny or even ridiculous, and those attitudes to it (and the lack of seriousness with which it therefore is treated) are created by the conditioned views of gender roles that we've all grown up with. It's not the fault of the men involved, nor really of men in general.

In reality, equality is not a slider, we can't achieve it by just jumping on one side and pushing. It's complicated and multifaceted and ignoring the male issues involved is just as ignorant and unfair as ignoring the female ones.

The thing is, the stuff he mentions is caused by gender inequality in a patriarchal society. The view that women are better suited to raise a child, that men are too strong to be raped or abused by a woman, that men are more violent and likelier to be criminals. Also society frowning on men expressing their feelings, or wearing pink, or in general not conforming to what is considered "manly". These are all consequences of the very same societal constructs that feminism seeks to get rid of.

We are all on the same side here, except the ones who want one gender – or race, or orientation, or whatever – to be above the other(s).

"The patriarchy" does not equal men. Feminism is not warring against men. I like men. "The patriarchy" refers to the entire social system that has assigned specific values and roles to men and women. And so, the patriarchy really is responsible for all of the above mentioned ills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very conflicted, because on the one hand I agree with everything Sal is saying and appreciate her calm, clear debating style. On the other hand, she dissed my "bigger tits" running joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's going too far, just as Patters' earlier comment that the thread was bullshit and needed to die was too far. I don't know why, in a pretty relaxed discussion so far, this hyperbolic standoffishness has manifested. Whatever the reason, everyone should feel free to chill out for a second and remember that (as far as I've noticed) no one participating in this thread desires to promote inequality - some of us just have different ideas for how to get to equality.

Acting as if there aren't negative aspects to gender inequality for men is naive, and saying that all of the problems are the fault of patriarchy is not helpful - even if it might be true (and I genuinely mean might, I'm not sure at a glance). "Patriarchal societal structure" does not equal "men" - men and women are equally conditioned for their social roles, most of us did not at some point choose to view men and women in particular, traditional ways.

Patters brought up spousal abuse directed against men - that is something that happens, even if some people find it funny or even ridiculous, and those attitudes to it (and the lack of seriousness with which it therefore is treated) are created by the conditioned views of gender roles that we've all grown up with. It's not the fault of the men involved, nor really of men in general.

In reality, equality is not a slider, we can't achieve it by just jumping on one side and pushing. It's complicated and multifaceted and ignoring the male issues involved is just as ignorant and unfair as ignoring the female ones.

Sorry, I'm with Kingz on this one. Yes, there is *some* gender inequality towards men, but the reason Patters cited those "examples" was to try and make this point: He claims that if you're a feminist, you're against gender equality.

As has been previously established in this thread, feminism (despite its literal grounding in English) means "gender equality". Yes, it's focus is on giving equal rights to women, but we still live in a patriarchal society.

Does that mean that there's no inequality towards men? Of course not. The best example Patters made is how the courts treat estranged fathers. This treatment, however reportedly unfair, is not based on thousands of years of culturally ingrained and systematic subjugation of men by women. It's just the side-effect of currently not having a better way to deal with genuinely neglectful fathers. It sucks, yes. It's unfair against men, yes. But it's not a woman-controlled society abusing men.

In fact, none of his examples are, which is why they're laughable -- even the ones that are serious -- because they have nothing to do with feminism or sexism. A lot of those problems are directly due to the system that men currently control. Our society and culture is currently male dominated. If we don't take male spousal abuse seriously, it's not because the female judges, and female police officers, and female controlled media empires don't think it's serious... it's because a lot of men don't think it's serious.

Trying to tell a woman who is fighting against a patriarchal society for equality, to take a look at how men are being treated by this patriarchal society is beyond absurd. It actually shows a lack of understanding so deep that I can't think of another word for it besides misogyny. Yes, misogyny.

And I've not even touched upon how rudely he's addressed a new member of our community, or how violently he disrupted this discussion.

I sent a PM to Patters very early into this discussion, as I could already see it escalating unnecessarily. We all know what it's like to be new to a community, and how an "elder" in that community carries a lot of weight when they criticise your contributions, so those of us who have been around for several years have a responsibility to wield this "weight" sensibly. (Kamiri's Guide to Joining Idle Thumbs leaps to mind here.) His tone towards Sal was uncalled for (she was only ever polite to him) and unbalanced (he seemed to be blaming her for his frustrations with the entire thread). We all know Patters, and so consider him a good guy, but to a new user (and Sal has all of 5 posts to her name) he speaks for the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agreed that the tone Patters used was inappropriate, but that doesn't make the tone Kingz used in return much more appropriate. "He started it" isn't quite as stupid a defence as we teach children it is, but that doesn't make it a good one. As I said, I'm mystified by the sudden hostility in this thread, it seems totally out of left field given our unified view that gender inequality is a bad thing.

Regarding your response to my post, Sal, I'm not sure if there's some miscommunication here or what because I feel like we're kind of crossing meanings while intending to say the same thing. As I said in my post, I agree that (some of) these problems are due to a patriarchal society, and I agree with you, ThunderPeel, that it's not (for the most part) women who are causing the inequalities that affect men - it's other men. However, as Sal herself echoed from my post, "the patriarchy" does not equal "men".

I'll repeat what I said, we're all equally conditioned - I never got to pick to live in a society that is largely traditionally under male control, taking the benefits from that in a measured judgement that they are worth the downsides (such as the aforementioned spousal abuse issue). There was no judgement whatsoever, I was just taught, formally and informally, that men are strong and women are weak and that therefore men should protect women and if a man is harmed by a woman it is his own fault for not being masculine enough.

I'm not saying men have it as bad, and I'm not saying that we don't need to push a woman's agenda, all I am taking issue with is what is exemplified by one line of your post, ThunderPeel: "In fact, none of his examples are, which is why they're laughable -- even the ones that are serious -- because they have nothing to do with feminism or sexism." I am arguing that they have everything to do with sexism, because as you yourself went on to state, they are caused by the patriarchal system that conditioned us all. Furthermore, as you and others have stated, feminism (despite its dodgy linguistics) is the fight against sexism. Hence, male inequality issues are absolutely related to sexism and therefore within the realm of feminism to counter.

My true purpose is simply to remind that inequality (and indeed most problems) will not be solved simply by pushing in one place hard enough. Ironically, that is a profoundly masculine view of a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying, Gwardinen. I agree, that yes, "the patriarchy" does not equal "men", so therefore hatred of a patriarchal society does not equal hatred of men, but the problems inherent in a patriarchal society are directly due to men. Even if they're continued by conditioned women and men, those problems are here because of male dominance.

Secondly, I see what you're saying regarding feminism tackling male sexism, but Patters's examples of "male sexism" strike me as human incompetence; Not due to conditioned ideas of male and female roles. Also, there has to be some responsibility for our actions, otherwise it's like saying, "I'm not responsible for my actions as a man, as I've been conditioned this way by other men".

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is quite confusing. I do think BioWare is quite forward thinking, but this does seem like a step backwards for them. For me this character walks a fine line, I guess. It's interesting reading people's reactions to it, though.

If enough people want a more realistic and grounded female characters, then that's undoubtedly what we'll get... eventually.

Female Bioware characters:

morrigan-dragon-age-origins-10440626-468-642.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm very conflicted, because on the one hand I agree with everything Sal is saying and appreciate her calm, clear debating style. On the other hand, she dissed my "bigger tits" running joke.

Maybe if your joke had bigger tits I would have paid more attention to it.

(I did not, I think it's funny)

Regarding your response to my post, Sal, I'm not sure if there's some miscommunication here or what because I feel like we're kind of crossing meanings while intending to say the same thing. As I said in my post, I agree that (some of) these problems are due to a patriarchal society, and I agree with you, ThunderPeel, that it's not (for the most part) women who are causing the inequalities that affect men - it's other men. However, as Sal herself echoed from my post, "the patriarchy" does not equal "men".

I'll repeat what I said, we're all equally conditioned - I never got to pick to live in a society that is largely traditionally under male control, taking the benefits from that in a measured judgement that they are worth the downsides (such as the aforementioned spousal abuse issue). There was no judgement whatsoever, I was just taught, formally and informally, that men are strong and women are weak and that therefore men should protect women and if a man is harmed by a woman it is his own fault for not being masculine enough.

I'm not saying men have it as bad, and I'm not saying that we don't need to push a woman's agenda, all I am taking issue with is what is exemplified by one line of your post, ThunderPeel: "In fact, none of his examples are, which is why they're laughable -- even the ones that are serious -- because they have nothing to do with feminism or sexism." I am arguing that they have everything to do with sexism, because as you yourself went on to state, they are caused by the patriarchal system that conditioned us all. Furthermore, as you and others have stated, feminism (despite its dodgy linguistics) is the fight against sexism. Hence, male inequality issues are absolutely related to sexism and therefore within the realm of feminism to counter.

I'm a bit confused now, because it seems we agree completely. But I think what prompted me to reply to your original post was the fact that I felt you were separating the problems Patters mentioned (and seems to blame on feminism, somehow, mindblowingly) from the problems that arise due to the patriarchy, when they are in fact one and the same and part of the targets on the fight for equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever the reason, everyone should feel free to chill out for a second and remember that (as far as I've noticed) no one participating in this thread desires to promote inequality - some of us just have different ideas for how to get to equality.

I think this is the best part of the thread so far. There's way too many attempts here to drive large wedges between members that are probably not ever going to fully agree on this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, there has to be some responsibility for our actions, otherwise it's like saying, "I'm not responsible for my actions as a man, as I've been conditioned this way by other men".

Yeah, that's a fair point. As much as we are all wrapped up in this system from birth, we do still possess free will and if we're not using it to try to improve things, what's the point? It's just worth noting that even if men benefit from sexism, it doesn't necessarily mean they're the ones trying to maintain it - though of course some are, but so are some women, bizarrely enough. As men I suppose we have a responsibility to both lead by example in trying not to follow along the traditional male paths of treating women as inferior (though I admit even I find that harder to do when it's "positive" sexism - such as being overprotective of female friends) and to act as the previously mentioned "allies" in terms of spreading ideals of equality to other men.

I'm a bit confused now, because it seems we agree completely. But I think what prompted me to reply to your original post was the fact that I felt you were separating the problems Patters mentioned (and seems to blame on feminism, somehow, mindblowingly) from the problems that arise due to the patriarchy, when they are in fact one and the same and part of the targets on the fight for equality.

Yeah, I think my tendency to not want to overcommit to language without fully considering it is to blame there. While on reflection I agree most of these issues are caused by the flipside of the patriarchal system that causes inequality for women, I just didn't want to go with outright hyperbole right off the bat and say "all inequality is created by patriarchy!" even if I was saying it for the right reasons. I'm perhaps unnecessarily sensitive to overstating a point or pushing an argument beyond its facts when it comes to talking on the internet, as it seems like it's kind of a plague in these sorts of discussions, even when not deliberate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(POKES HEAD BACK INTO THREAD.)

Is it safe yet?

I don't like it when we fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, so we're all agreed that feminism is BAD because it is actually sexist.

Oh, hi subbes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, hi subbes.

(YELPS, DUCKS HEAD BACK OUT OF THREAD.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I deliberately avoided this thread as much as possible because I had a feeling that at some point it would inevitably turn into a fiery argument even if we all were mostly in agreement.

Anyway, I think women are inferior to men in pretty much all respects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it safe?

Mostly.

As I said earlier, and sort of to respond to Pat's thinking about how men are getting treated by things: I have a fairly consistent reminder of why I'm against the patriarchy. When the atmospheric pressure changes, my jaw starts to hurt from the sucker-punch I took for daring to wear bright colours while in possession of a penis, thus not conforming to gender roles. To me, a feminist is (among other things) someone who thinks that any kind of pre-defined gender role is bullshit, so go feminism!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, hi subbes.

(YELPS, DUCKS HEAD BACK OUT OF THREAD.)

Aww, you only quoted the last bit as if to imply that you ducked back out because of my presence, not the continued lack of safety.

You feminists are all menBen-haters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you have probably noticed, I glide quickly into glib snark reactions when things get hairy, rather than staying and answering. I really appreciate that no-one else in the thread has followed me in taking the easy way out.

But wait! Women benefit from things that are women-only! Surely that is FEMALE PRIVILEGE and SEXIST?!

Yes, it is sexist.

You mean I'm right?

Probably not in the way you wanted to be, sorry. I'd suggest that it's a "benevolent" form of sexism.

Women can't be drafted because they are weak ickle flowers suitable for raising babies and not for being SPEHHHS MARINES. Women get cheaper car insurance because they are sweet and sensitive and caring and don't have the COJONES to weave in and out of traffic at 95MPH with a cup of coffee in one hand and a cellphone in the other (or they would have the COJONES but they don't because they have babies in the back seat). That doesn't sound like a privilege.

I'd rather be able to prove whether or not I'm able to be a SPEHHHHS MARINE on my own terms[*], rather than have someone assume I can't because I have ladybits.

What about "Women's History Month" and "Women Only" clubs? You're shutting men out!

Glib answer: Women's history month is just one month. Men's history month is the other 11. I think you'e still safely in the majority.

(I'll come back to this one in a separate post with less snark.)

Why bother with talking about sexism when there are wars and famine and stuff going on? That's a lot more important.

A thread or discussion about sexism and feminism doesn't mean you can't start a thread or discussion about wars and famine and other things. In fact, you may find that your anti-war or anti-starvation thread draws in quite a few people who are also anti-sexist! It's interesting how those beliefs tend to overlap.

[*] FYI I could not be a SPEHHHHHS MARINE because I have terrible eyesight and I bet glasses don't do well in zero-G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, I think women are inferior to men in pretty much all respects.

sieniavatari2.png

:grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Women get cheaper car insurance because they are sweet and sensitive and caring and don't have the COJONES to weave in and out of traffic at 95MPH with a cup of coffee in one hand and a cellphone in the other (or they would have the COJONES but they don't because they have babies in the back seat).

I've been pondering for a couple of minutes what I think about this (the insurance rates, that is, not the giant COJONES). I'm a little torn between thinking that differing car insurance rates based on gender is no problem at all and that it may be a problem, at least in terms of precedent. On the one hand, demographics (specifically, gender and age) have been shown to be decent predictors of driving safety. They're by no means perfect, and there are terrible middle-aged female drivers just as there are brilliant young male drivers (quality here being lower probability of being in an accident), but they have exposed trends that correlate with statistics. For this reason, I am inclined to say: "Why not? Why shouldn't the insurance company be able to use what information it has to make an informed decision about something which is, after all, all based on probability?"

However, the precedent this sets is somewhat troubling. For example, there is no particular difference between this and the concept that, since black males are involved in more violent crime per capita than many other ethnic and gender groups, they should get more attention from police investigators when suspects are being sought for a violent crime. When it's being done by law enforcement it's usually known as "racial profiling" and has been a hot button issue for civil rights activists for a while now - and yet the same logic and rationale are applied to car insurance premiums without raising nearly as much fuss. Even for me.

To relate it to the SPEHHS MARINES example subbes gave, in the armed forces the obvious solution would appear to be to train and test candidates for whatever role they are applying for, and determine whether or not you think they're good enough at the required skills to be given that position. If being a woman makes the actual physical abilities required to be a combat soldier more difficult to obtain, there will probably be less women who are combat soldiers, but it won't be because they were banned, they just weren't able to do the job. In my mind, that's not sexist, it's just utilising people as befits their capabilities.

So perhaps the best solution here would be to allow new drivers to prove themselves in some way to determine their insurance rates. There actually are ways to do this via advanced driving courses, though not all insurance companies care. Technically "driving for several years without an accident" also counts, but the truth of the matter is that your increasing age as you wait tends to do as much to convince insurance companies to lower your premiums as your record of safe driving does.

I suppose it comes down to the idea of whether it's all right to rely on assumptions until proof is obtained, or in cases in which proof is difficult to come by. It's also a worthwhile question to ask who holds the burden of proof in such situations - is it the new driver's job to find a way to prove themselves safe or is it the insurance company's job to accurately and equally test the safety of drivers in order to make an informed decision?

Have more thoughts but I ramble too much in this thread and I think it's part of the reason I'm sometimes being misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, just to clarify: Women get cheaper car insurance because they're less likely to get into accidents and claim on it. Fact. Young men have the most expensive car insurance because they're most likely to get into an accident and claim on it. "Women Only" car insurance is largely a marketing gimmick, as the insurance is usually out by the same umbrella company that deals with everyone else.

In other words: It's not sexist or even feminist. It's just the result of a car insurance company calculation. (But everyone already knew that, right...?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Er, just to clarify: Women get cheaper car insurance because they're less likely to get into accidents and claim on it. Fact. Young men have the most expensive car insurance because they're most likely to get into an accident and claim on it. "Women Only" car insurance is largely a marketing gimmick, as the insurance is usually out by the same umbrella company that deals with everyone else.

In other words: It's not sexist or even feminist. It's just the result of a car insurance company calculation. (But everyone already knew that, right...?)

I think the point is that charging male drivers on the whole more because a larger proportion of them are idiots than women (at least in terms of driving, anyway) is unfair to those men that ARE safe drivers.

Of course insurance companies are still greedy corporations and all that, so who cares if it's sexist or racist or what have you?

TL;DR: I'm on the fence on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×