On April 09 2013 13:13 babylon wrote: One of the other major issues is that the feminist cause is much of the times harmed directly by those they are trying to help, i.e. other women.
To give a crude example: Women are often portrayed as pieces of meat in popular media, i.e. objectification of women as sexual things. That is deplorable, and I think that's an issue, as it encourages people to treat women as if they are merely sexual objects.
But fuck, it's hard for the movement to gain traction on that ground when many women continue to choose to portray themselves in such a way that reinforces the idea that women are merely sexual objects.
With regards to this particular issue, women are fighting for, on the one hand, the idea that women should be sexually liberated but also against the idea that women should not be objectified. It is a tough line to walk, and I'm not sure it can be walked successfully.
I often feel like people make too big a deal about sex in the media as it is. Especially when you have a show like the walking dead which is rotting corpses ripping people limb from limb, but you can't show a fucking nipple? People have sex, sex is normal. I think if we didn't treat sex as such a crazy taboo subject we'd be less likely to reduce someone's sexuality to an object and be more likely to see it in a broader spectrum.
On April 09 2013 13:18 Wombat_NI wrote: Agreed babylon, this is the thing that actually gained me a lot of ire and backlash for saying. That and that women-centred media in the Cosmopolitans and Hello! magazines of this world, also feed into things like negative body image, but are written by and consumed by women primarily. I saw an interesting study on body image for example that had men's 'ideal size' for a woman be a good bit larger than what women believed that men found most attractive.
Gender relations are exactly that, a relationship in which both blocs have an input into how the other perceives them, interacts with them etc etc. You can't absolve women of what responsibility is theirs to bear for creating and perpetuating certain beliefs and archetypes.
It is extremely difficult to resolve this sort of tension, though, and I'm not at all certain it can be done until feminists somehow distance themselves from the women who are making their cause difficult. It's just a sad truth that not all women are feminists (either out of ignorance or apathy, or on purpose), and how do you push for progress given the lack of unity? It is no longer about mainly blatant, outright discrimination (e.g. as it was in the civil rights movement, the LGBTQ movements, etc.) but it's about patriarchy, gender roles, etc. -- abstract concepts around which it's hard to form a forceful united movement that can help educate people and therefore push for efficient, real change.
It's a brick wall I run into every time I try to discuss the pervasive effect of 'the media' precisely because it is so difficult to pinpoint at what point they actually exert influence, through what mechanisms etc. Doesn't mean it isn't there, but god it's a bitch to get other people on your side.
On April 09 2013 13:42 Wombat_NI wrote: I tend to view that as a problem of societal norms, and the opinions of individuals can influence criminal proceedings.
The actual laws themselves have, in many places been redrafted to place less of an onus on women to physically resist. I think Germany was thinking of making some changes in this regard, in terms of redefining consent.
I draw a distinction between 'the laws' and the 'the judiciary that applies them' in this case, whereas some people may think that a silly distinction to make.
This was after our 1992 amendments which put Canada at the forefront of progressive sexual assault legislation. It still is today. Regardless of the legislation, the interpretation by the judiciary can be problematic.
And it's not just the judiciary, but the bar as well.
I'm currently taking evidence... in fact I have a lot of notes to prepare for my exam next week! But for the most part, cross-examinations of sexual assault complainants is actually utterly horrible.
There are plenty of defence lawyers who pride themselves on "tearing down" and slamming sexual assault complainants to show bad character. As if it matters at all.
You may draw the distinction between the laws and the way the laws are applied... but I do very much think this is silly! Laws on paper mean nothing if they are not used correctly in practice.
On April 09 2013 13:23 Ruscour wrote: There is no problem with feminism, there is a problem with people who call themselves "feminists", and in reality feminism in everyone's mind becomes what they see feminism to be, which has become a lot of nitpicking and cis white male-hating. If you care about equality for everyone, why label yourself with a term clearly favouring a particular gender? We are far from gender equality for women, but at the same time it's nowhere near as one-sided as it once was. Modern feminists don't care about men's issues while expecting men to care about theirs.
Why should they care about men's issues? Did a civil rights activist in the 60s have to care about white people problems?
I'm not sure how that affects the, often valid, complaints they raise. However annoying it can be when its in your face and you already know it.
On April 09 2013 13:11 Xayvier wrote: My problem is that trying to abolish gender roles is to try to end a fact of nature; it is natural that men are generally dominant and that women are care takers (note I am speaking in general). Gender roles are not a societal construct.
Physically men are, I don't buy the rest of it as 'natural' and we live in a society where physical brawn is not as advantageous or important as it once was.
I could not agree more, and this is where I think gender issues in society rob women the most. No Darwinian selection society is A GOOD THING. You wouldn't want someone to come to your house, club you over the head, and take all your stuff just because he's bigger and stronger than you. We have police and a legal system to make sure everyone gets a fair shot.
That said, I think having a professional life is part of what it means to be human, like up there with listening to music and having preferences. It pisses me off to know end that women are just expected to drop that part of their life when they have kids. Sometimes marketing people still ask for a "head of the household" as if one person in a marriage is supposed to be subordinate to another. I wish we had some first world labor laws where men got time off as well as women to take care of newborns.
On April 09 2013 13:13 babylon wrote: One of the other major issues is that the feminist cause is much of the times harmed directly by those they are trying to help, i.e. other women.
To give a crude example: Women are often portrayed as pieces of meat in popular media, i.e. objectification of women as sexual things. That is deplorable, and I think that's an issue, as it encourages people to treat women as if they are merely sexual objects.
But fuck, it's hard for the movement to gain traction on that ground when many women continue to choose to portray themselves in such a way that reinforces the idea that women are merely sexual objects.
With regards to this particular issue, women are fighting for, on the one hand, the idea that women should be sexually liberated but also against the idea that women should not be objectified. It is a tough line to walk, and I'm not sure it can be walked successfully.
I often feel like people make too big a deal about sex in the media as it is. Especially when you have a show like the walking dead which is rotting corpses ripping people limb from limb, but you can't show a fucking nipple? People have sex, sex is normal. I think if we didn't treat sex as such a crazy taboo subject we'd be less likely to reduce someone's sexuality to an object and be more likely to see it in a broader spectrum.
I think you're missing the point entirely (or it is likely I did not explain myself well). It's not about the portrayal of sex. It's about portraying women like walking vaginas whose purpose is to receive dick (to be extremely crude). Their value as characters is often tied solely to their role as sexual, romantic partners. That is not good, and I think it does encourage many people to either see women in that light or to see themselves in that light (if they are women).
On April 09 2013 13:13 babylon wrote: With regards to this particular issue, women are fighting for, on the one hand, the idea that women should be sexually liberated but also against the idea that women should not be objectified. It is a tough line to walk, and I'm not sure it can be walked successfully.
These come from two different branches of feminism. Again, it's an extremely broad and possibly misnamed field. There's plenty of feminists who are okay with everyone being meat. Some don't want anyone seen that way.
And therein lies one of the greatest issues. Lumped under one great giant "feminism" label (which, yes, I have perpetuated in my post ). But that is both because people are too lazy to elaborate or too lazy (or hostile) to push for more elaboration or to listen when it is given, in most cases.
I would think Diamond is the upper rank of the ladder because it is the "hardest" naturally occurring material. (At least, it's on the top of the Mohs hardness scale.)
I dislike DeBeers, but I don't think they had that much input. As for the lower leagues, Bronze, Silver, and Gold are a commonly used distinction in competition, dating back to the original Olympics. Platinum, well, I don't know about that. But it is a fairly valuable rare earth.
Maybe they could rename the ladders to reflect metal values only, and go with Bronze, Copper, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Although in a few years, they may need to bump copper up. (Okay, probably a lot of years, it's rising sharply but not that sharply in value.)
On feminism, I have nothing to say. At all. I lack the proper chromosomes. People should be treated equally, that's it.
On April 09 2013 13:13 babylon wrote: One of the other major issues is that the feminist cause is much of the times harmed directly by those they are trying to help, i.e. other women.
To give a crude example: Women are often portrayed as pieces of meat in popular media, i.e. objectification of women as sexual things. That is deplorable, and I think that's an issue, as it encourages people to treat women as if they are merely sexual objects.
But fuck, it's hard for the movement to gain traction on that ground when many women continue to choose to portray themselves in such a way that reinforces the idea that women are merely sexual objects.
With regards to this particular issue, women are fighting for, on the one hand, the idea that women should be sexually liberated but also against the idea that women should not be objectified. It is a tough line to walk, and I'm not sure it can be walked successfully.
I often feel like people make too big a deal about sex in the media as it is. Especially when you have a show like the walking dead which is rotting corpses ripping people limb from limb, but you can't show a fucking nipple? People have sex, sex is normal. I think if we didn't treat sex as such a crazy taboo subject we'd be less likely to reduce someone's sexuality to an object and be more likely to see it in a broader spectrum.
I think you're missing the point entirely (or it is likely I did not explain myself well). It's not about the portrayal of sex. It's about portraying women like walking vaginas whose purpose is to receive dick (to be extremely crude). Their value as characters is often tied solely to their role as sexual, romantic partners. That is not good, and I think it does encourage many people to either see women in that light or to see themselves in that light (if they are women).
As a university aged male with many male friends, I can attest to how shockingly widespread that is. Even the most reasonable of guys have shocked me.
On April 09 2013 13:13 babylon wrote: One of the other major issues is that the feminist cause is much of the times harmed directly by those they are trying to help, i.e. other women.
To give a crude example: Women are often portrayed as pieces of meat in popular media, i.e. objectification of women as sexual things. That is deplorable, and I think that's an issue, as it encourages people to treat women as if they are merely sexual objects.
But fuck, it's hard for the movement to gain traction on that ground when many women continue to choose to portray themselves in such a way that reinforces the idea that women are merely sexual objects.
With regards to this particular issue, women are fighting for, on the one hand, the idea that women should be sexually liberated but also against the idea that women should not be objectified. It is a tough line to walk, and I'm not sure it can be walked successfully.
I often feel like people make too big a deal about sex in the media as it is. Especially when you have a show like the walking dead which is rotting corpses ripping people limb from limb, but you can't show a fucking nipple? People have sex, sex is normal. I think if we didn't treat sex as such a crazy taboo subject we'd be less likely to reduce someone's sexuality to an object and be more likely to see it in a broader spectrum.
I think you're missing the point entirely (or it is likely I did not explain myself well). It's not about the portrayal of sex. It's about portraying women like walking vaginas whose purpose is to receive dick (to be extremely crude). Their value as characters is often tied solely to their role as sexual, romantic partners. That is not good, and I think it does encourage many people to either see women in that light or to see themselves in that light (if they are women).
As a university aged male with many male friends, I can attest to how shockingly widespread that is. Even the most reasonable of guys have shocked me.
HawaiianPig just wants a world where Elly can grow up and have the same opportunities as bull elephants.
On April 09 2013 13:13 babylon wrote: One of the other major issues is that the feminist cause is much of the times harmed directly by those they are trying to help, i.e. other women.
To give a crude example: Women are often portrayed as pieces of meat in popular media, i.e. objectification of women as sexual things. That is deplorable, and I think that's an issue, as it encourages people to treat women as if they are merely sexual objects.
But fuck, it's hard for the movement to gain traction on that ground when many women continue to choose to portray themselves in such a way that reinforces the idea that women are merely sexual objects.
With regards to this particular issue, women are fighting for, on the one hand, the idea that women should be sexually liberated but also against the idea that women should not be objectified. It is a tough line to walk, and I'm not sure it can be walked successfully.
I often feel like people make too big a deal about sex in the media as it is. Especially when you have a show like the walking dead which is rotting corpses ripping people limb from limb, but you can't show a fucking nipple? People have sex, sex is normal. I think if we didn't treat sex as such a crazy taboo subject we'd be less likely to reduce someone's sexuality to an object and be more likely to see it in a broader spectrum.
I think you're missing the point entirely (or it is likely I did not explain myself well). It's not about the portrayal of sex. It's about portraying women like walking vaginas whose purpose is to receive dick (to be extremely crude). Their value as characters is often tied solely to their role as sexual, romantic partners. That is not good, and I think it does encourage many people to either see women in that light or to see themselves in that light (if they are women).
As a university aged male with many male friends, I can attest to how shockingly widespread that is. Even the most reasonable of guys have shocked me.
HawaiianPig just wants a world where Elly can grow up and have the same opportunities as bull elephants.
On April 09 2013 14:00 babylon wrote: And therein lies one of the greatest issues. Lumped under one great giant "feminism" label (which, yes, I have perpetuated in my post ). But that is both because people are too lazy to elaborate or too lazy (or hostile) to push for more elaboration or to listen when it is given, in most cases.
I don't think it's just a matter of laziness, but it's hard to describe what connects the social movement and the philosophical sphere. They're definitely not always in sync.
On April 09 2013 12:37 HawaiianPig wrote: At its core, Feminism is a stance promoting substantive equality with a particular focus on gender.
Thank you for this post. This is the fundamental aspect of feminist ideology that too often is overlooked or drowned out.
If a sentence so vague is a fundamental aspect, then no wonder there is so much confusion. Surely there must be a more solid foundation that can be stated with conciseness. The more vague and couched the language, the more it sounds like euphemism is covering something that looks bad to state outright. "Stance promoting substantive equality" can have so many different interpretations. Then "with a particular focus on gender", tacked on innocuously at the end, seems disingenuous. The name of the thing itself: "feminine", with the suffix -ism, means literally the doctrine or theory of the feminine or female. This seems to indicate that gender is at the root at center of the doctrine, not merely a particular focus among the bigger umbrella of equality for all. Unless those well versed in it can tell us clearly what it is, why should we accept as true the conclusions it puts forth?
On April 09 2013 12:08 Wombat_NI wrote: Feminists are often right, but their cause has a major, major image problem because the term itself is far too broad and ill-defined. A breakdown into say, I don't what terms I'd use, but ones with more specificity could be prudent.
I agree with what they say regarding games sometimes, but equally I feel it is rather like fussing over a cigarette that you drop on the floor when your house is already burning to the ground around you.
Feminists also far too often give women a pass in perpetuating the gender roles that exist today, in my experience.
I'll address each bolded point real quick because it made me twitch:
a) It's not that it's ill-defined, it's that people misuse it b) This is a result of people misusing the term "feminism"
Detach the word from whatever bad experience you've had
Let me try to summarize feminism as succinctly as possible. At its core, Feminism is a stance promoting substantive equality with a particular focus on gender.
Substantive equality is the root of the ideology. That is to say, that equality is not a "treat everyone the same" affair, but rather, "recognize the differences and account for them" affair. The goal is to avoid a differential impact.
A simple example of this is workplace leave and discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. In Canada, at least, discrimination in the workforce on the grounds of pregnancy is a breach of equality rights.
Don't let some teenage kid who spouts "girl power" on her tumblr affect how you view a very real and very important lens you can use to view various issues.
I think it's especially problematic that when critiques are made, many people automatically receive them as if they're making a direct attack on an overt decision, which is generally not the case. Often feminist critiques are meant to recognize something much more subtle and unintentional, where no one is specifically "at fault" but the consequence may be dangerous.
Good point. I think more people would be comfortable with feminism if they understood it as a thoroughly rational process of observation, inquiry and discussion. The scope of the issues aren't even apparent until you start asking yourself some simple questions. As one progresses towards a more feminist point of view, one realizes the deeper, more subtly pervasive effects of our accepted modern society. One problem arises when people from different levels of understanding try to have a conversation. Consider a math PhD student discussing the finer points of her dissertation with colleagues: it is going to sound like crazy-talk to anyone who hasn't done a lot of studying. Likewise with feminist critiques as interpreted by folks who haven't even begun to consider the issues.
On April 09 2013 12:08 Wombat_NI wrote: Feminists are often right, but their cause has a major, major image problem because the term itself is far too broad and ill-defined. A breakdown into say, I don't what terms I'd use, but ones with more specificity could be prudent.
I agree with what they say regarding games sometimes, but equally I feel it is rather like fussing over a cigarette that you drop on the floor when your house is already burning to the ground around you.
Feminists also far too often give women a pass in perpetuating the gender roles that exist today, in my experience.
I'll address each bolded point real quick because it made me twitch:
a) It's not that it's ill-defined, it's that people misuse it b) This is a result of people misusing the term "feminism"
Detach the word from whatever bad experience you've had
Let me try to summarize feminism as succinctly as possible. At its core, Feminism is a stance promoting substantive equality with a particular focus on gender.
Substantive equality is the root of the ideology. That is to say, that equality is not a "treat everyone the same" affair, but rather, "recognize the differences and account for them" affair. The goal is to avoid a differential impact.
A simple example of this is workplace leave and discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. In Canada, at least, discrimination in the workforce on the grounds of pregnancy is a breach of equality rights.
Don't let some teenage kid who spouts "girl power" on her tumblr affect how you view a very real and very important lens you can use to view various issues.
I think it's especially problematic that when critiques are made, many people automatically receive them as if they're making a direct attack on an overt decision, which is generally not the case. Often feminist critiques are meant to recognize something much more subtle and unintentional, where no one is specifically "at fault" but the consequence may be dangerous.
Good point. I think more people would be comfortable with feminism if they understood it as a thoroughly rational process of observation, inquiry and discussion. The scope of the issues aren't even apparent until you start asking yourself some simple questions. As one progresses towards a more feminist point of view, one realizes the deeper, more subtly pervasive effects of our accepted modern society. One problem arises when people from different levels of understanding try to have a conversation. Consider a math PhD student discussing the finer points of her dissertation with colleagues: it is going to sound like crazy-talk to anyone who hasn't done a lot of studying. Likewise with feminist critiques as interpreted by folks who haven't even begun to consider the issues.
Dear God, I feel that way all the time. I cannot tell you how many times people automatically assumed that I was calling all men perverts, wanting to bring on the matriarchy, all men are rapists, men are evil, and consensual sex is rape. It feels like I am explaining evolution to creationists.
On April 09 2013 12:37 HawaiianPig wrote: At its core, Feminism is a stance promoting substantive equality with a particular focus on gender.
Thank you for this post. This is the fundamental aspect of feminist ideology that too often is overlooked or drowned out.
If a sentence so vague is a fundamental aspect, then no wonder there is so much confusion. Surely there must be a more solid foundation that can be stated with conciseness. The more vague and couched the language, the more it sounds like euphemism is covering something that looks bad to state outright. "Stance promoting substantive equality" can have so many different interpretations. Then "with a particular focus on gender", tacked on innocuously at the end, seems disingenuous. The name of the thing itself: "feminine", with the suffix -ism, means literally the doctrine or theory of the feminine or female. This seems to indicate that gender is at the root at center of the doctrine, not merely a particular focus among the bigger umbrella of equality for all. Unless those well versed in it can tell us clearly what it is, why should we accept as true the conclusions it puts forth?
Are you familiar with the concept of queer theory? Despite the fact that it is certainly relevant to "queer" issues (in that it can apply to performative gender identities), it actually has much wider applications in deconstructing mainstream ideological binaries and the politics contained within.
Just because a term may appear to have do with something, and may historically have been rooted in certain ideas, doesn't mean that that's it's limited to that meaning.
I find this video is quite interesting for a number of reasons.
1. It kind of illustrates, albeit in a humourous/not overly rigorous way the intersection of feminists transmitting their thoughts, and how they are received and 'decoded' if you will at the other end, especially by men.
2. The woman in this issue clearly makes herself out to be a feminist, but also a 'pop-culture critic', that is her field if you will. It's rather harsh to make out like she's focusing on issues that are 'trivial', if that is her chosen area to look at.
EPT
). But that is both because people are too lazy to elaborate or too lazy (or hostile) to push for more elaboration or to listen when it is given, in most cases.
