With what I was talking about earlier about feminism co-opting and appropriating other movements such as LGBT. It's this type of stuff that leaves a real bad taste in my mouth
Anyway, gay rights SHOULD be at least partially lumped in with feminism, as far as I'm concerned. Homophobia (against gay men, specifically) is pretty much misogyny taken to its logical conclusion. The misogynistic viewpoint is that women are inherently inferior to men, so any man who has no interest in sexually "dominating" women is seen as weak and also "womanly."
and the response under that
There's a phrase I've seen thrown around on here a bit, which isn't perfect but it's still pretty apt: Homophobia is the fear that you'll be treated the way you treat women.
A woman saying violence and hate crimes against gay men is really about her is multiple kinds of fucked up.
What is wrong with "save the princess" story-lines?
I've heard girls talking about their knight in shining armor, but I don't know if I've ever heard a dude talking about his female knight in shining armor. That is my big problem with modern feminism, is that it seems to be more of a kind of anti-feminism than anything else. Femininity is looked down upon and masculinity (in women/girls) is glorified as the ideal.
Take Game of Thrones for example: Sansa, who is a typical young woman, likes dresses and balls, wants a picture perfect storybook knight to come and save her, and basically can be described as a princess. Arya wants to be a warrior, kills people and kicks ass, doesn't like frilly shit, and basically can be described as a "tom-boy". Sansa is seen by most fans, and portrayed as, a stupid little airhead. Arya is portrayed, and seen by most fans as, a strong female character who is awesome. Arya is a very masculine female character, while Sansa is extremely feminine. The implication is that girls who stab things are cool and good, and girls who like frilly stuff and despise violence are stupid, naive, and more important: flawed.
THE FOLLOWING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS:
When a male character (Tyrion) basically comes within a finger breadth of raping Sansa, many fans called her a bitch for seeing him as ugly and being repulsed by him. If another male character who was ugly and repulsive (as Tyrion is described) almost raped Arya and she is disgusted, and responds by cutting his balls off, most fans would cheer and talk about how awesome she is. The reason they feel hatred for Sansa is because she would never respond with violence to a threat, but instead engages in what could be called "passive resistance". Her femininity damns her while Arya's masculinity makes her loved. If they suddenly reversed roles in the story, fans would lament the loss of a strong female character in Arya, and applaud the "wisdom" of Sansa. The "girlie" one is useless and offensive, while the "boyish" one is cool and inspiring.
END OF SPOILERS:
This isn't unique to A Song of Ice and Fire. In today's media, the girl who can kick ass is cool and awesome, and the girl who is what would be called "a normal girl" is stupid and boring. A "princess" should either be able to cross blades with the best knight, or she is useless. I can't tell you how many times I've heard female readers of fantasy/fiction complain about the lack of strong female role-models, but then they define those strong female role-models as either being sexually promiscuous, or physically tough, or both. Traditionally masculine traits are seen as "strong" and traditionally feminine traits are seen as "weak". The feminist betrays her own innate sexism when condemning the feminine girl in favor of the masculine one; they show that they have a deeper sexism than just vagina vs dick; in their view, it is the very essence of being male that is desirable, while the essence of being female is undesirable. Instead of asking for a strong queen, they ask for a knight with tits.
Now a lot of people will say that these traits aren't feminine at all, which is just redefining words to suit their purpose. Gentleness, sensitivity, passivity (not necessarily submissiveness), and empathy are traditionally considered feminine traits. Courage (physical), boldness, dominance, and even violence are traditionally considered masculine traits. While I, and most other modern men and women, generally agree that not all men are, or even should be, bold; and conversely that not all women are, or even should be, passive; the fact remains that more often than not, it is the male who will act boldly, and the woman who will act more passively. Arguing about whether these are entirely social constructs is, to me, just another form of sexism. It is the rejection of the innate strength in the traditional female position, and an over-glorification of the innate strength of the traditionally male position. Obviously certain cultural/social constructs will subtract, add, or even change, to some degree the way these traits are usually expressed by either sex; but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the evidence supports the conclusion that men are by nature more aggressive, and women are by nature less.
One must ask how so universal a standard of behavior could have come into societal being without there being at least some evolutionary/biological cause. This is not to say anything about what a woman or man should do or not do, or be or not be. Rather it is a simple examination of the behaviors and tendencies of the general populace. Among the sexes, across all nationalities and borders, there are specific attitudes, attributions, and trends of behavior which could not have conceivably come from merely societal constructs. I am reminded of the famous saying:
"Boys are snips, snails, and puppy dog tails." "Girls are sugar, spice, and everything nice."
I remember being a child, and thinking that the boys definitely had the best of that. Snails were delightfully gross, snips sounded cool, and puppy dog tails (and puppies in general) were awesome. I remember plenty of my girl classmates laughing and saying that sugar, spice, and everything nice (with the emphasis on nice), was obviously better. This is a case of confirmation bias (on both sides) and of societal (learned) gender roles. But it is also a case of hormonal differences. The truth just is that simple: boys and girls are, generally, different. Boys tend to be more active and more fascinated with moving, action toys. Girls tend to be more nurturing, and more interested in inter-personal relationships.
When it comes down to it, the plot device of "saving the princess" is not only natural; in my opinion, it is beneficial. It is a kind of indoctrination for the young (and older) male to act in a "chivalrous" way with females. You are put in the place of the noble hero, who fights to save the woman from danger. You battle with the villain, who would imprison the female and guide her choices for her. The male hero is almost universally portrayed, in such stories/plots, as being interested only in the well-being of the female, while the despicable villain is only interested in the physical and mental control of the woman. The fact being that females are, almost universally, physically weaker than males; combined with the natural tendency toward aggressiveness on the male side; leads this to being an important trait to put in young males. Protection rather than objectification, liberation rather than oppression. To deny the innate differences between males and females is to destroy an important social construct specifically designed to protect females from unwanted male aggression.
At the end of the day, most girls will still want their knight in shining armor, and most men will still want their princess, and specific exceptions don't change this. Fighting against the facts is just another form of sexism; a more dangerous and insidious form. It damns the essence of femininity rather than just the female herself. Instead of combating patriarchal oppression, it seeks to turn women into patriarchs.
When a male character (Tyrion) basically comes within a finger breadth of raping Sansa, many fans called her a bitch for seeing him as ugly and being repulsed by him.
This analysis is wrong. In the story the "bedding is a ritual after the wedding." Tyrion used everything in his power to strong arm everyone away, and then told Sansa they'd wait as long as they needed even if it was forever. They were both forced into that situation by Tywin, and Tyrion knew he would be further demonized by everyone around him if he didn't take her to bed (which he was I might add). Tyrion was sticking his neck out for her and she wouldn't even make small talk with him. She was colder to Tyrion than she was to Joff even.
People hate Sansa because she can't tell her friends from her enemies, because she betrayed her little sister and made her throw rocks at her pet until it left her, and because she got her father Ned Stark killed.
There are multiple stereotypical "womanly" characters in the same series that disprove that people hate Sansa for being "girly." Lady Stark is very motherly and shows a remarkable amount of strength and people like her for this. In the books Margery doesn't have her epic cleavage going for her and yet the readers still love her because of her subtle political manipulation of everyone around her, she seems to be 3 steps ahead of her enemies and still finds time to give off the image of a philanthropist noble princess type.
Legitimate problems that feminists can target do exist in the world. In China and India, women are troubled by social problems like the family having to pay for the marriage costs on the woman's side, or the surname aways passing from the male, which means with the one child rule in China, that you have to have a son to pass on the name. In islamic theocracies, and even supposedly secular nations with a heavy influence of islam, women are socially oppressed by being forced into marriages, and being considered unequal to their male counterparts, and juristically by not being allowed to hold many high position jobs etc.
Of course there are also problems in the western world, albeit very minor compared to the ones above, but the same can be said for every group of people, homosexuals, men, immigrants, natives. Feminists link the problem to the wrong source, and the wrong solution. Men fill up most of the top and the bottom of society, and this is not because society favours men, if it did, they would not make up the largest part of homeless and people working dangerous and unwanted jobs. What they should be blaming in this case, should be capitalism and democracy.
There's also the problem concerning post-modern third-wave feminists, that jump on the faminism craze because it suits their "Liberal openminded personality", and start militantly supporting something they have done no research about, and often don't even want to resolve, as they simply participate to enhance the feeling that they have an identity. The largest part of those calling themself feminists these days fall into this category, and completely ruin any legitimacy feminists have. An example of the feminists people will come to know the name by:
On April 09 2013 17:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: What is wrong with "save the princess" story-lines?
I've heard girls talking about their knight in shining armor, but I don't know if I've ever heard a dude talking about his female knight in shining armor. That is my big problem with modern feminism, is that it seems to be more of a kind of anti-feminism than anything else. Femininity is looked down upon and masculinity (in women/girls) is glorified as the ideal
What is wrong with "save the princess" storylines? Let me tell you - stereotyping the woman into weak, dreamy, illiterate someone, who just waits for her thing to happen, rather than to fight for it herself.
I personally think, that it is fine though, as long as there's a choice. In many games, women are objectified into mere romance & crap stuff. I personally don't like this stereotyping women, and again, I want to have a choice. The only good examples I can think of, where woman hero was not in this position was Mass Effect series & The Elder Scrolls series, but I guess it's because you can create the character the way you want to => therefore, good examples, as you have that choice. Here, you could make your character what you wanted, no prejudices.
Hell, when you look at the armor in fantasy genre. I don't want my female knight to wear a f*cking iron bra instead of proper armor. Why are women characters in some games depicted like that, while guys have proper, nice armor? Again, my issue is with lack of choice. Just because guys want to watch "dat pretty bum & boobs" it doesn't mean that everyone wants their female hero look that way.
I also don't like stereotyping someone based on their gender - being masculine and feminine, who defines that & who the hell gave them right to do it? Everyone should act the way they want and not be labelled because of it.
Regarding feminism: I don't like feminism on the grand scale. In my country, feminists are more worried about if we have equal number of nouns in feminine to those in masculine in the czech vocabulary, than being worried about real issues, such as this stereotyping "feminine" and "masculine", or about the very real opression of women in islamic countries.
PS: But, thanks to you, I'm gonna watch Game of Thrones, just to see Arya opposing ridiculous gender stereotypes. Thank you :D
On April 09 2013 18:07 Wombat_NI wrote: Incidentally what the fuck is Shit Reddit Says? I can't work it out for the life of me. Satirical or serious?
I think it started satirical and ended up serious when idiots couldn't tell.
Some of the shit they make fun of, I can kinda follow. For example, I don't think "OP is a faggot" is people trying to re-appropriate the term "faggot", it's just people trying to get away with saying it and copying 4chan, which is ultimately pretty pathetic and I fully agree that it's stupid. People say shit like "when I see faggot I think OP, nothing to do with gay people" but somehow I don't think gay people see it the same way. Imagine the shitstorm if it was "OP is a nigger". Same thing.
On the other end of the spectrum they tried to whinge about the joke "I'd call Margaret Thatcher a cunt, but she lacks the warmth and depth" and say it was "hating her for being a woman"
I've never heard anyone hate her for being a woman. People make jokes about menstruation and shit, but no-one with an IQ above their age actually dislikes her or thinks less of her for being a woman. On top of that, I rarely to never hear women called cunts. I hear it used in a friendly way between men, but I can't think of a time I've heard a guy tell a women she's a cunt.
People call David Cameron a cunt all the time. Are they hating on him for being a man? Obviously not, they're hating on him because they hate him. I don't understand SRS at all on that point.
What is wrong with "save the princess" story-lines?
I've heard girls talking about their knight in shining armor, but I don't know if I've ever heard a dude talking about his female knight in shining armor. That is my big problem with modern feminism, is that it seems to be more of a kind of anti-feminism than anything else. Femininity is looked down upon and masculinity (in women/girls) is glorified as the ideal.
Take Game of Thrones for example: Sansa, who is a typical young woman, likes dresses and balls, wants a picture perfect storybook knight to come and save her, and basically can be described as a princess. Arya wants to be a warrior, kills people and kicks ass, doesn't like frilly shit, and basically can be described as a "tom-boy". Sansa is seen by most fans, and portrayed as, a stupid little airhead. Arya is portrayed, and seen by most fans as, a strong female character who is awesome. Arya is a very masculine female character, while Sansa is extremely feminine. The implication is that girls who stab things are cool and good, and girls who like frilly stuff and despise violence are stupid, naive, and more important: flawed.
THE FOLLOWING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS:
When a male character (Tyrion) basically comes within a finger breadth of raping Sansa, many fans called her a bitch for seeing him as ugly and being repulsed by him. If another male character who was ugly and repulsive (as Tyrion is described) almost raped Arya and she is disgusted, and responds by cutting his balls off, most fans would cheer and talk about how awesome she is. The reason they feel hatred for Sansa is because she would never respond with violence to a threat, but instead engages in what could be called "passive resistance". Her femininity damns her while Arya's masculinity makes her loved. If they suddenly reversed roles in the story, fans would lament the loss of a strong female character in Arya, and applaud the "wisdom" of Sansa. The "girlie" one is useless and offensive, while the "boyish" one is cool and inspiring.
END OF SPOILERS:
This isn't unique to A Song of Ice and Fire. In today's media, the girl who can kick ass is cool and awesome, and the girl who is what would be called "a normal girl" is stupid and boring. A "princess" should either be able to cross blades with the best knight, or she is useless. I can't tell you how many times I've heard female readers of fantasy/fiction complain about the lack of strong female role-models, but then they define those strong female role-models as either being sexually promiscuous, or physically tough, or both. Traditionally masculine traits are seen as "strong" and traditionally feminine traits are seen as "weak". The feminist betrays her own innate sexism when condemning the feminine girl in favor of the masculine one; they show that they have a deeper sexism than just vagina vs dick; in their view, it is the very essence of being male that is desirable, while the essence of being female is undesirable. Instead of asking for a strong queen, they ask for a knight with tits.
Now a lot of people will say that these traits aren't feminine at all, which is just redefining words to suit their purpose. Gentleness, sensitivity, passivity (not necessarily submissiveness), and empathy are traditionally considered feminine traits. Courage (physical), boldness, dominance, and even violence are traditionally considered masculine traits. While I, and most other modern men and women, generally agree that not all men are, or even should be, bold; and conversely that not all women are, or even should be, passive; the fact remains that more often than not, it is the male who will act boldly, and the woman who will act more passively. Arguing about whether these are entirely social constructs is, to me, just another form of sexism. It is the rejection of the innate strength in the traditional female position, and an over-glorification of the innate strength of the traditionally male position. Obviously certain cultural/social constructs will subtract, add, or even change, to some degree the way these traits are usually expressed by either sex; but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the evidence supports the conclusion that men are by nature more aggressive, and women are by nature less.
One must ask how so universal a standard of behavior could have come into societal being without there being at least some evolutionary/biological cause. This is not to say anything about what a woman or man should do or not do, or be or not be. Rather it is a simple examination of the behaviors and tendencies of the general populace. Among the sexes, across all nationalities and borders, there are specific attitudes, attributions, and trends of behavior which could not have conceivably come from merely societal constructs. I am reminded of the famous saying:
"Boys are snips, snails, and puppy dog tails." "Girls are sugar, spice, and everything nice."
I remember being a child, and thinking that the boys definitely had the best of that. Snails were delightfully gross, snips sounded cool, and puppy dog tails (and puppies in general) were awesome. I remember plenty of my girl classmates laughing and saying that sugar, spice, and everything nice (with the emphasis on nice), was obviously better. This is a case of confirmation bias (on both sides) and of societal (learned) gender roles. But it is also a case of hormonal differences. The truth just is that simple: boys and girls are, generally, different. Boys tend to be more active and more fascinated with moving, action toys. Girls tend to be more nurturing, and more interested in inter-personal relationships.
When it comes down to it, the plot device of "saving the princess" is not only natural; in my opinion, it is beneficial. It is a kind of indoctrination for the young (and older) male to act in a "chivalrous" way with females. You are put in the place of the noble hero, who fights to save the woman from danger. You battle with the villain, who would imprison the female and guide her choices for her. The male hero is almost universally portrayed, in such stories/plots, as being interested only in the well-being of the female, while the despicable villain is only interested in the physical and mental control of the woman. The fact being that females are, almost universally, physically weaker than males; combined with the natural tendency toward aggressiveness on the male side; leads this to being an important trait to put in young males. Protection rather than objectification, liberation rather than oppression. To deny the innate differences between males and females is to destroy an important social construct specifically designed to protect females from unwanted male aggression.
At the end of the day, most girls will still want their knight in shining armor, and most men will still want their princess, and specific exceptions don't change this. Fighting against the facts is just another form of sexism; a more dangerous and insidious form. It damns the essence of femininity rather than just the female herself. Instead of combating patriarchal oppression, it seeks to turn women into patriarchs.
The princess and shining knight business is depressing. If you don't force people to stay together, relationships in general don't last decades. What happens going separate ways after six years? Did knight-in-shining-armor mean the man was the only one with good enough income to pay for the apartment and car etc.? So the woman has to go and search for another knight as that's what princesses do? Are there children involved? Does the man also have to leave the children as that's what knights have to do?
When a male character (Tyrion) basically comes within a finger breadth of raping Sansa, many fans called her a bitch for seeing him as ugly and being repulsed by him.
This analysis is wrong. In the story the "bedding is a ritual after the wedding."
I'm not going to get into an argument about aSoIaF. I don't really like the books, and I was just using it as an example. However, read it again.
ONCE AGAIN POSSIBLE SPOILERS: (I'm serious don't read unless you want to be spoiled!!!) + Show Spoiler +
Sansa is a 14-15 year old girl who is forced, under pain of torture/death to marry a disgusting little psychopath and he then brings her up to his room, and strips naked in front of her, and contemplates forcing himself upon her. When she doesn't respond with anything but understandable disgust (this man's family, whom he has not forsaken but in fact helps, has killed her father, her brother and mother, and according to her flawed knowledge, her sister too) he basically thinks of her as a cold fish and goes off to whine that nubile young girls don't love ugly guys. It's the most sexist fucking thing I've read in a long time, actually, and it's funny that legions of fan-boy fantasy lovers (of whom I am one so don't think this is a dig at geeks) get off on pitying themselves like Tyrion does in that scene. To them, it's a sin that the pretty girl wants a handsome, popular husband/boyfriend.
END OF SPOILERS!!!
Which brings me to my ultimate point. Sansa typifies the kind of girl that most fantasy readers traditionally cannot get: the pretty, rich, popular girl. GRRM is fucking genius (while being kind of pathetic) at playing on his reader's emotions. He creates a "rich bitch" and then let's his fans revel in how stupid and naive and dumb she is; and how she gets her comeuppance at every turn. My problem with it on the feminist level is that the stupid, naive, dumb "bitch" is, of course, the pretty, girlie girl who is feminine. While Arya, whose every action is treated as shining fucking gold by author and fans, is the tom-boy with ridiculously masculine traits.
Other characters aside, the point is that Sansa's femininity is treated as worthless, while Arya's masculinity is treated as the ideal for what a girl should be. Rather than just saying that Arya shouldn't have to be girlie, the author, and fans, feel it is necessary to say that Sansa is pathetic for being girlie. The funny thing is, Sansa is infinitely more a realistic 15 year old than Arya is a 9-11 year old. And the modern feminist movement completely embraces this so often: the girl who is traditionally feminine is air-headed and weak, and the girl who is masculine is awesome and strong. That's the point. Feminine girls are wrong and need to change. Masculine girls are right and should be free to be who they are. Why should one be accepted as who she is, and not the other? Because one fights against traditional gender roles? But what about choice? I thought the whole point of feminism was choice. Rather, it seems today that a girl's duty is to change herself and suffocate her natural femininity in order to satisfy the wants and needs of the minority who aren't as feminine. We should support everyone in being who they are (as long as it is not harmful to themselves or others) and if that includes a girl being girlie, than that should be fine too.
Think what you want of GRRM and his work (I personally am disgusted by it, not just because of the innate sexism, but for many other reasons) but the fact remains that in today's media and today's feminist movement: femininity is bad and masculinity is good. Whether you personally feel that it is portrayed this way with Sansa/Arya in aSoIaF or not, the facts are what they are.
Disclaimer: To anyone who likes aSoIaF, I'm not telling you not to like it. I'm not saying that he isn't a good writer. I'm not saying that you're a sexist if you like the books, or even if you hate Sansa. I'm just using her character as an example.
edit: I also will agree that there are good examples of strong feminine roles in the books, but as a whole, it is the masculine traits that are celebrated and the feminine traits that are denigrated, and that is just as wrong as the converse. Women and girls can be strong in many different ways: some will be strong by fighting, and others by passively resisting. I just happen to be disgusted in a lot of ways by the reaction a lot of people get to the one girl in the series who actually shows remarkable inner strength by passively resisting: Sansa.
Personally, I think she is the most realistic character in the whole series, and actually is an extremely interesting example of how a very feminine role would deal with hardships (arguably the most disturbing and harsh in the whole series). What bothers me most is that it seems a lot of times that author and fans don't recognize that some women can't fight with cunning or physical strength and have to rely on strength of will, which IMHO, Sansa's character has got in spades. Rather than celebrating the fact that a 14-15 year old girl has made it through so much mental/physical/sexual torture relatively unscathed without the help of any man or boy, they hate on her for what seems to be her way of dealing with it: which is very traditionally feminine.
On April 09 2013 20:24 sc2superfan101 wrote: Why should one be accepted as who she is, and not the other? Because one fights against traditional gender roles? But what about choice? I thought the whole point of feminism was choice. Rather, it seems today that a girl's duty is to change herself and suffocate her natural femininity in order to satisfy the wants and needs of the minority who aren't as feminine. We should support everyone in being who they are (as long as it is not harmful to themselves or others) and if that includes a girl being girlie, than that should be fine too.
On April 09 2013 20:24 sc2superfan101 wrote: Masculine girls are right and should be free to be who they are. Why should one be accepted as who she is, and not the other? Because one fights against traditional gender roles? But what about choice? I thought the whole point of feminism was choice.
Yup, the choice is, what should matter. But, the same could be said about the other side as well => why berate/belittle or insult a woman who doesn't want to be as some social construct gender roles tell her to be, just because she happens to be a woman?
In fact, nobody is 100% male and 100% female, when it comes to traits, the way they think and act, if you want to go trait-by trait definition on what is "masculine" and what is "feminine". That's why I find it ridiculous some people try to stereotypize both genders and I think it should be let go, let people be the f*cking way they want to be & not label stuff masculine or feminine. Nothing should be seen as better or worse, so if someone wants to be prissy girly, let them be, no matter if they are a woman or a man, but, if someone doesn't, they too have the right to make that choice and don't deserve to be looked down either.
On April 09 2013 17:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: What is wrong with "save the princess" story-lines?
I've heard girls talking about their knight in shining armor, but I don't know if I've ever heard a dude talking about his female knight in shining armor. That is my big problem with modern feminism, is that it seems to be more of a kind of anti-feminism than anything else. Femininity is looked down upon and masculinity (in women/girls) is glorified as the ideal
What is wrong with "save the princess" storylines? Let me tell you - stereotyping the woman into weak, dreamy, illiterate someone, who just waits for her thing to happen, rather than to fight for it herself.
The majority decides whether those storylines are appreciated more over others or not. Women buy books with those storylines and read them to their kids. If women would hate those values in general those storylines wouldn't sell as much as they do.
Regarding feminism: I don't like feminism on the grand scale. In my country, feminists are more worried about if we have equal number of nouns in feminine to those in masculine in the czech vocabulary, than being worried about real issues, such as this stereotyping "feminine" and "masculine", or about the very real opression of women in islamic countries.
Personally I believe feminism as a movement completely escalated and managed to get things "done" which made it worse for women under the disguise of political correctness.
Women quotas at workplaces are one of my favorite examples. There isn't much more in the same area that's more insulting to a womans ability than getting hired because of a quota. "You're worse than this or that male applicant but we're taking you because you're a woman." - what. the. hell. Sure it raises the amount of females in that area but at the price of encouraging gender-biased selection and at the expense of gender equality.
I had the opportunity of speaking at a mens right group meeting not too long ago. After initially being confused that those even exist I was even more confused about some of their stories. Custody of their kids for men? Forget it. Women are considered "emotionally more qualified". Favoring a man over a woman for a raise because the men brought better results? Woman sues for discrimination and gets away with it. Man being physically abused by a woman in his relationship? Good luck fighting for that in a courtroom.
I've seen feminists argue that offering my girlfriend to carry canned water up the stairs means insisting that she is the "weaker sex and can't do it herself" while at the same time arguing that women quotas exist to "fight gender discrimination". Here's the deal: A woman can say "yes" or "no" when being offered what others call gallantry. That makes her equal. Not a group of extremists telling her what she should and should not do for the greater good of feminism. I believe that women are equal - that's why they don't need to be favored. Neither at the workplace, nor in the military (it's even worse there) nor in the privacy of their homes.
Sometimes the efforts of "modern" feminism (I'm looking at modern people who apply second-wave-feminism values in todays world - that includes bitching at "save the princess" storylines, thereby disregarding their historical context - not actual third-wave-feminism) look to me like the efforts of PETA. Their basic idea might be alright but the way they try to accomplish it backfires all over the place.
I studied various courses related to gender and feminism at university. I'm honestly the person of all my acquaintances that is most progressive and informed on these issues. I've read articles and blogs on feminism for years and I would agree with most if not all of the the main points that I came across.
Yet when I started posting on a feminist website and it became obvious that I was a 1. white 2. male 3. 'STEM' 4. cis 5. heterosexual, who had occasional minute differences with some statements on feminist blogs, I was basically run out of that community and called a lot of names like MRA and PUA and so on. I've never encountered such outright hostility and disregard for civil discourse on any blog that I frequent.
On April 09 2013 18:07 Wombat_NI wrote: Incidentally what the fuck is Shit Reddit Says? I can't work it out for the life of me. Satirical or serious?
I think it started satirical and ended up serious when idiots couldn't tell.
Some of the shit they make fun of, I can kinda follow. For example, I don't think "OP is a faggot" is people trying to re-appropriate the term "faggot", it's just people trying to get away with saying it and copying 4chan, which is ultimately pretty pathetic and I fully agree that it's stupid. People say shit like "when I see faggot I think OP, nothing to do with gay people" but somehow I don't think gay people see it the same way. Imagine the shitstorm if it was "OP is a nigger". Same thing.
On the other end of the spectrum they tried to whinge about the joke "I'd call Margaret Thatcher a cunt, but she lacks the warmth and depth" and say it was "hating her for being a woman"
I've never heard anyone hate her for being a woman. People make jokes about menstruation and shit, but no-one with an IQ above their age actually dislikes her or thinks less of her for being a woman. On top of that, I rarely to never hear women called cunts. I hear it used in a friendly way between men, but I can't think of a time I've heard a guy tell a women she's a cunt.
People call David Cameron a cunt all the time. Are they hating on him for being a man? Obviously not, they're hating on him because they hate him. I don't understand SRS at all on that point.
I thought this was very annoying. I made an account on reddit for the express purpose of posting on SRS, since they are rather ban-happy. I literally attempted to only make posts that would fall in line with SRS ideology and I was still banned. I was originally banned on my regular reddit account for disagreeing once.
Nevertheless, I do think people are too blindly dismissive of a place like SRS. It has some flaws, but it has positive aspects to it.
On April 09 2013 20:46 r.Evo wrote: The majority decides whether those storylines are appreciated more over others or not. Women buy books with those storylines and read them to their kids. If women would hate those values in general those storylines wouldn't sell as much as they do.
Problem is, there is not that big of a choice there. I personally read ONLY one fantasy book, which depicts a young woman, wishing to become a Knight & her journey while she becomes a Squire & trains under various people. I'd read that to my son over "save the princess" any day, just to teach him, that there's a choice & to not start stereotyping women or even men. So, the issue is, that there are very few authors depicting THESE kind of women, both in books, movies and hell, even in games.
Again, the issue of choice is there, where one "version" is favoured & other is condemned or viewed as wrong. Neither choice should be viewed as bad/wrong, but there should be equal of signs of that; for that to happen.
On April 09 2013 20:46 r.Evo wrote: The majority decides whether those storylines are appreciated more over others or not. Women buy books with those storylines and read them to their kids. If women would hate those values in general those storylines wouldn't sell as much as they do.
Problem is, there is not that big of a choice there. I personally read ONLY one fantasy book, which depicts a young woman, wishing to become a Knight & her journey while she becomes a Squire & trains under various people. I'd read that to my son over "save the princess" any day, just to teach him, that there's a choice & to not start stereotyping women or even men. So, the issue is, that there are very few authors depicting THESE kind of women, both in books, movies and hell, even in games.
Again, the issue of choice is there, where one "version" is favoured & other is condemned or viewed as wrong. Neither choice should be viewed as bad/wrong, but there should be equal of signs of that; for that to happen.
If those fantasy books play in a universe where men and women live in medieval times and are equal, those storylines are fine. If they play in a parallel universe of ours and try to be historical accurate, they'd be bullshit.
200 or more year old "save the princess"-stories inherently can't be sexist or discriminating because they're historically accurate. In general stereotyping isn't as evil as you might belief. Our world is defined by binary oppositions, it is not wrong to like a woman because she is more feminine or because she's more masculine. Just like it's not wrong to love men or to love women. What is wrong however is to tell people that they should feel bad for preferring one over the other or that it's not normal to prefer one. Stereotyping != discriminating.
Without stereotypes we couldn't call women women, books books or children children.
That's usually a scary trap I believe people who like to say "it's all equal stereotypes are bad" tend to fall into.
On April 09 2013 12:50 ktimekiller wrote: Popular feminism tends to be problematic where kids on tumblr go in hordes to blame everything in the world on men and patriarchy and dismiss any problems or disadvantages men might suffer due to feminism. You don't need to be an expert to realize how one sided family law is for example, and yet when men try to speak up about the bullshit of becoming a working mule to feed a family you should no longer legally be tied to, you get shut down by screaming hordes of feminists trying to destroy your shit.
There are many agreeable points in feminism, but the way it is practiced by many people, even high profile spokespersons make it detestable in many different ways.
Pretty much this, there might be reasonable, self-proclaimed feminists out there that I'd totally convene with (as I do agree with the general equality concept behind it), but the term itself is so attached to illogical idiocy in my mind that I just tend to shy away from these people, which are quite clearly the minority of the movement.
Ditto. Few movements have been damaged as much by extremists as feminism. My subconscious and emotional perceptions of feminism have been utterly wrecked by the idiocy I see spouted by extremists. Even worse, confirmation bias starts to kick in as one's viewpoint begins to solidify, so whenever people touched by these extremists see feminists, they actively look for mistakes they're making and enlarge the significance of these mistakes. That's a massive issue for feminists everywhere.
On April 09 2013 21:08 r.Evo wrote: If those fantasy books play in a universe where men and women live in medieval times and are equal, those storylines are fine. If they play in a parallel universe of ours and try to be historical accurate, they'd be bullshit.
200 or more year old "save the princess"-stories inherently can't be sexist or discriminating because they're historically accurate. In general stereotyping isn't as evil as you might belief. Our world is defined by binary oppositions, it is not wrong to like a woman because she is more feminine or because she's more masculine. Just like it's not wrong to love men or to love women. What is wrong however is to tell people that they should feel bad for preferring one over the other or that it's not normal to prefer one. Stereotyping != discriminating.
Without stereotypes we couldn't call women women, books books or children children.
That's usually a scary trap I believe people who like to say "it's all equal stereotypes are bad" tend to fall into.
The thing is, most people who stereotype also deem those not conforming to that stereotype as wrong, bad and not normal. So, until that goes, then I personally will always see stereotypes as wrong.
Regarding the books - In parallel universe of ours, there could be completelly different rules, so, nah. In general, no fiction book, even if it has some historical part in it would be a bullshit. Sure, when a book is pure history work, whatever. But when it's a work of fiction, there is imo no problem depicting the other side of the possible, how a woman could decide to be and who to become.
So yeah, the biggest issue is, that there's lack of choice, mostly when it comes to women who want to see strong hero characters, in not so "feminine" (goodness, I hate that definition) way, they are simply at loss. Maybe that is partially why people are upset at characters like Sansa in Game of Thrones, because they are always there, while the other one is not, and therefore, the Salsa-type character is preferred, which of course people like me will not like, because we like having the choice & don't want these characters to depict who we are in general..
EPT![[image loading]](http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/543170_449327118462221_1715055015_n.jpg)
