On April 09 2013 13:03 zbedlam wrote: Nothing is wrong with feminism.
Something is wrong with feminists in general however, every feminist I have met has acted like all men are rapists etc.
Women are not a minority, women are not repressed in the western world, there is very little reason for the hate mongering this fringe group seems to vocalise consistantly.
That's some quality anecdotal evidence, man: met a few feminists, didn't like them, therefore, your words here, "something is wrong with feminists in general."
Academic rigor and care is often left by the wayside when real people get involved, true story. Even those who are normally meticulous somehow fall prey to this.
See: the department rumor mill @ university.
You talk about real people proof but you said: "women are not repressed in the western world" which makes me think you don't know much about the real world either.
You should double-check and triple-check your assumptions before data analysis.
On April 10 2013 08:09 Fruscainte wrote: Comparing the current state of the female to the state of the black in the 60's is fucking despicable.
I don't even got anything more to say, that's just disgusting you think it's any comparable. Are women being water blasted by policemen for protesting? Are women being lynched for wanting more rights? Are women not allowed to go to schools with men?
But this isn't about comparing the plight of people. You missed the entire point. Let me spell it out for you:
When someone raises a valid feminist criticism, a common response is not to rebut but to deflect. Asking women to "care about mens issues" too is ignoring the very valid complaints. There is no obligation for any one person to "care' about every single issue various groups face.
To play the devil's advocate:
So he's good (or just as bad) then?
I mean, theoretically he's raising valid "male-ist" criticism, but his responses are deflected more than rebutted.
To the broader point: Someone raising an issue specific to males as a gender is perfectly entitled to do so. The problem is when someone raises these points in response to issues famales face as if it is a rebuttal.
They're both valid issues to be concerned about.
I suppose using something of such nature would be based on the presumption that feminism is a stand for equality in women's rights? In that case it would make sense to rebut essentially a claim of "Women could have it better" by saying "Men have it just as bad, but in different ways"
Motbob seems to be saying feminism (or at least feminist criticism) is transcending application to gender, though, and is more of a commentary on how the patriarchy (Which itself is becoming fairly gender-ambiguous, no?) affects our culture?
On April 10 2013 08:36 ComaDose wrote: Yeah of course! like I said earlier the root of feminism is anti oppression against women which of course is a good thing! good picture from earlyer post: + Show Spoiler +
So yeah I am a feminist masculinist LGBTIQist and LGBTist lol who wouldn't be? I like what you said about religion cause its pretty much what I said in my earlyer post.
Now about the middle class north america thing. It's difficult to begin explaining why the way the world is reflects commonly held opinions that may have negative effects on women specifically. I would say that a good example and keystone to start explaining it would be women's representation in the media. The oversexualized woman that appears in the majority of womens roles in advertising advocates and legitimized many opinions that are held by society. Similarly the housewife and docile home-care giver represented in a multitude of shows and movies presently further reinforce a stereotype of women. Whether these opinions are voiced or even acknowledged consciously is a matter of awareness. These things in and of themselves are not sexist. It is the mentality of the objectified woman that is sexist. and these things serve to reinforce that. This is the mentality that leads to examples like the woman who was raped two years ago who was teased and insulted by the police when she called for help. The first questions she were asked were about her intoxication and outfit and how willingly she went to his apartment, all of which are irrelevant, and would not be brought up in a less woman oriented crime. Similarly, I would be surprised if you haven't notice a not so subtle tinge of misogyny in standard locker-room banter when it turns to women. e.g. "lol bitches dont know shit" is an extremely sexist thing to say. Once you unlock an understanding that women do not particularly enjoy being viewed the way society is asking them to be, you cant watch 15 min of middle class north american television without witnessing the objectification of women.
Sure, but what you have to remember is that you're making an argument that oppression against women is greater than that of oppression against men. Media also pumps unattainable amounts of machismo into male roles! Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis are iconic "male" figures... nevermind virtually every superhero movie in the last decade... nevermind shaving / body wash / deodorant commercials directed at males often EXPLICITLY oversexualized because "that's what guys are/should be". I mean, go watch a fucking axe commercial and try tell me that the male roles in the commercial are every bit as bad (or worse) than the female ones.
You can't make an argument like "Once you unlock an understanding that women do not particularly enjoy being viewed the way society is asking them to be" without also allowing for "Once you unlock an understanding that MEN do not particularly enjoy being viewed the way society is asking them to be".
And again, I'll raise the story I raised before: A good friend of mine has a warrant out for his arrest because his girlfriend claimed that he beat her, and they pressed charges without ANY physical evidence whatsoever and with her IN HER STATEMENT declaring that she did not want to press charges. Yes, there have been rape cases where it turns out the (probably male) police are idiots... but again, you're making an argument that oppression of females is WORSE than oppression of males, and I've heard (and immediately refuted) sexist generalisations like "Girls are just like that" as much as I've heard "men are stupid"
Well HP talked about why "it's happening to men too" isn't a good answer in and of itself here, but I stand by my statement that its "worse" in some measurable way for women.
I am not the spokesperson for society by any means and this maybe isn't the best place to continue it... but things I would bring up in a full argument would include: history (all of it. its all bad for women.... from start to finish). I accept that of course men are also pressured to be as they appear in the media which can put undue pressure on them to be buff and manly. But in that same axe commercial there were also over sexualized women. And the women were there FOR the man, the man is in control in that commercial. I would suggest that I observe more commercials objectifying women than men. I would find a way to objectively compare the number of overweight and less physically appealing actors to actresses. I would recite the statistics on sex distributions amongst positions of power, both across the globe, locally, politically and in business.
And ultimately I would plead you to imagine how different a world be where a child could never get the idea that sweat, cigars, and swearing were not lady like. Then help me try and quantify the differences so I can explain it better next time >.< EDIT: + Show Spoiler +
On April 09 2013 13:03 zbedlam wrote: Nothing is wrong with feminism.
Something is wrong with feminists in general however, every feminist I have met has acted like all men are rapists etc.
Women are not a minority, women are not repressed in the western world, there is very little reason for the hate mongering this fringe group seems to vocalise consistantly.
That's some quality anecdotal evidence, man: met a few feminists, didn't like them, therefore, your words here, "something is wrong with feminists in general."
Academic rigor and care is often left by the wayside when real people get involved, true story. Even those who are normally meticulous somehow fall prey to this.
See: the department rumor mill @ university.
You talk about real people proof but you said: "women are not repressed in the western world" which makes me think you don't know much about the real world either.
You should double-check and triple-check your assumptions before data analysis.
On April 10 2013 08:36 ComaDose wrote: Yeah of course! like I said earlier the root of feminism is anti oppression against women which of course is a good thing! good picture from earlyer post: + Show Spoiler +
So yeah I am a feminist masculinist LGBTIQist and LGBTist lol who wouldn't be? I like what you said about religion cause its pretty much what I said in my earlyer post.
Now about the middle class north america thing. It's difficult to begin explaining why the way the world is reflects commonly held opinions that may have negative effects on women specifically. I would say that a good example and keystone to start explaining it would be women's representation in the media. The oversexualized woman that appears in the majority of womens roles in advertising advocates and legitimized many opinions that are held by society. Similarly the housewife and docile home-care giver represented in a multitude of shows and movies presently further reinforce a stereotype of women. Whether these opinions are voiced or even acknowledged consciously is a matter of awareness. These things in and of themselves are not sexist. It is the mentality of the objectified woman that is sexist. and these things serve to reinforce that. This is the mentality that leads to examples like the woman who was raped two years ago who was teased and insulted by the police when she called for help. The first questions she were asked were about her intoxication and outfit and how willingly she went to his apartment, all of which are irrelevant, and would not be brought up in a less woman oriented crime. Similarly, I would be surprised if you haven't notice a not so subtle tinge of misogyny in standard locker-room banter when it turns to women. e.g. "lol bitches dont know shit" is an extremely sexist thing to say. Once you unlock an understanding that women do not particularly enjoy being viewed the way society is asking them to be, you cant watch 15 min of middle class north american television without witnessing the objectification of women.
Sure, but what you have to remember is that you're making an argument that oppression against women is greater than that of oppression against men. Media also pumps unattainable amounts of machismo into male roles! Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis are iconic "male" figures... nevermind virtually every superhero movie in the last decade... nevermind shaving / body wash / deodorant commercials directed at males often EXPLICITLY oversexualized because "that's what guys are/should be". I mean, go watch a fucking axe commercial and try tell me that the male roles in the commercial are every bit as bad (or worse) than the female ones.
You can't make an argument like "Once you unlock an understanding that women do not particularly enjoy being viewed the way society is asking them to be" without also allowing for "Once you unlock an understanding that MEN do not particularly enjoy being viewed the way society is asking them to be".
And again, I'll raise the story I raised before: A good friend of mine has a warrant out for his arrest because his girlfriend claimed that he beat her, and they pressed charges without ANY physical evidence whatsoever and with her IN HER STATEMENT declaring that she did not want to press charges. Yes, there have been rape cases where it turns out the (probably male) police are idiots... but again, you're making an argument that oppression of females is WORSE than oppression of males, and I've heard (and immediately refuted) sexist generalisations like "Girls are just like that" as much as I've heard "men are stupid"
Well HP talked about why "it's happening to men too" isn't a good answer in and of itself here, but I stand by my statement that its "worse" in some measurable way for women.
I am not the spokesperson for society by any means and this maybe isn't the best place to continue it... but things I would bring up in a full argument would include: history (all of it. its all bad for women.... from start to finish). I accept that of course men are also pressured to be as they appear in the media which can put undue pressure on them to be buff and manly. But in that same axe commercial there were also over sexualized women. And the women were there FOR the man, the man is in control in that commercial. I would suggest that I observe more commercials objectifying women than men. I would find a way to objectively compare the number of overweight and less physically appealing actors to actresses. I would recite the statistics on sex distributions amongst positions of power, both across the globe, locally, politically and in business.
And ultimately I would plead you to imagine how different a world be where a child could never get the idea that sweat, cigars, and swearing were not lady like. Then help me try and quantify the differences so I can explain it better next time >.< EDIT: + Show Spoiler +
On April 09 2013 13:03 zbedlam wrote: Nothing is wrong with feminism.
Something is wrong with feminists in general however, every feminist I have met has acted like all men are rapists etc.
Women are not a minority, women are not repressed in the western world, there is very little reason for the hate mongering this fringe group seems to vocalise consistantly.
That's some quality anecdotal evidence, man: met a few feminists, didn't like them, therefore, your words here, "something is wrong with feminists in general."
Academic rigor and care is often left by the wayside when real people get involved, true story. Even those who are normally meticulous somehow fall prey to this.
See: the department rumor mill @ university.
You talk about real people proof but you said: "women are not repressed in the western world" which makes me think you don't know much about the real world either.
You should double-check and triple-check your assumptions before data analysis.
lol whoops! im so happy that was a joke now....
"The man got a job as a friggin' astronaut to be good enough FOR the woman"
What exactly the role is or who is "in control" isn't relevant. If you're saying that the woman by role necessity in the advertisement isn't in control, you're saying that the man by role necessity is in control. The statements are entertwined and equally unfair. While the message to be subservient is being sold to the female, the message to be dominant is being sold to the man. There is no heirarchy to these terms, and being dominant is not BETTER, so pointing out that the woman is being forced into a role without acknowledging the man also being forced into a role just suggests a bias on your part.
I think we shall agree to disagree! We're on the right track, and time will continue to equalize the remaining inequality between women and men!
I accept that of course men are also pressured to be as they appear in the media which can put undue pressure on them to be buff and manly.
Yes. And notice the following statements:
"Stop being such a girl." "Stop being a pussy." "What are you, somebody's bitch?" "Stop being a boy." "Grow some balls."
All of these are derogatory or condescending statements when applied to adult males. I'm sure there are more male-targeted ones (going for specifically gendered insults that are often used against men who don't fit the typical image of masculinity, whether in appearance or personality), but I don't think it's a coincidence that so many of these are terms are related to women. The association is "not masculine enough = feminine = weak = bad" or "not masculine enough = weak = feminine = bad." Of course, as you can see, there is also the association of "not masculine enough = not having gone through puberty = boy = weak" (feel free to swap the middle two in this one as well), but that is also connected to the previous associations of feminine = bad in the end.
On the opposite end of the spectrum (for women, insulted for not fitting the typical image of femininity), I've heard, "What are you, a dyke?" and "What a bitch!" (for instance, sometimes if a woman asserts herself in a way that is often associated with masculinity). The former is somewhat reappropriated these days and is more an attack on sexuality than someone's gender identity as a woman.
I accept that of course men are also pressured to be as they appear in the media which can put undue pressure on them to be buff and manly.
Yes. And notice the following statements:
"Stop being such a girl." "Stop being a pussy." "What are you, somebody's bitch?" "Stop being a boy." "Grow some balls."
All of these are derogatory or condescending statements when applied to adult males. I'm sure there are more male-targeted ones (going for specifically gendered insults that are often used against men who don't fit the typical image of masculinity, whether in appearance or personality), but I don't think it's a coincidence that so many of these are terms are related to women. The association is "not masculine enough = feminine = weak = bad" or "not masculine enough = weak = feminine = bad." Of course, as you can see, there is also the association of "not masculine enough = not having gone through puberty = boy = weak" (feel free to swap the middle two in this one as well), but that is also connected to the previous associations of feminine = bad in the end.
On the opposite end of the spectrum (for women, insulted for not fitting the typical image of femininity), I've heard, "What are you, a dyke?" and "What a bitch!" (for instance, sometimes if a woman asserts herself in a way that is often associated with masculinity). The former is somewhat reappropriated these days and is more an attack on sexuality than someone's gender identity as a woman.
Well, nothing wrong with another man to "grow some balls," which is the equivalent of "man up" or "take responsibility/go for it/get off your ass." That's more of telling a man to be a man, in a more motivational sort of way, so I don't find that particular derogatory to tell a man to man up. Wouldn't make sense to tell a man to grow some ovaries right? Because men can't grow ovaries, or so I've been told, so to have courage for a man is just to "grow/rediscover your testicles." Likewise, I've always been telling women to grow their ovaries in times of cowardice, in addition to the occasional suggestion for them to even reattach the fallopian tubes.
To look at the world in a feminist perspective is not necessarily to find something to criticize. At its root, a feminist view is to observe the way things are and perceive some way in which patriarchy has made them that way.
The problem here is that patriarchy the way feminists imagine it has never existed. "Patriarchy" wasn't a system to explicitly benefit men at the expense of women - that's more what modern feminism is, actually, in reverse. Patriarchy was a system to allow men to compete with other men, or people to compete with people.. it just happens that competition benefits men more than women, because men are innately more competitive (or successful men are). It's also why men are often the highest payed in their profession, and at the top of any field that allows competition.
It's also why traditionally male occupation lose a lot of their status when they become "colonized" by women -- because men don't gain anything from competing with women, from a standpoint of evolutionary psychology, and women aren't as interested in competing hard or valuing their occupation higher than having children, etc. This is what is causing the wage gap currently, which isn't even a real gap anymore, because newly educated women make on average 8% more than newly educated men. It's just that they fall behind as soon as they start having children, which is natural, because that demands a lot of your time if you're going to do it right. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
Check out girlwriteswhat on youtube. Although her "style" is a bit too polemic for my tastes, her points are usually well researched, and it's also refreshing to see feminism criticized from a women's perspective
Of course it existed. Men were allowed to compete and women were/are being stuck with the households. The ideas of statuses of occupations are seriously flawed nowadays, I hope this changes soon. The work connected with the upbringing of children can be done by the father as well as soon as they are out of the womb, so this argument is invalid as well. Women can have an as competitive mindset as men.
Women CAN be as competitive as men, generally they aren't. This is more likely biological than anything else. Evolutionary speaking, a woman gained no where near as much from competing as men did.
I didn't say patriarchy didn't exist - I said it didn't exist in the form that feminists historically have understood it to exist. Some aspects of what we think of as patriarchy was a way to consolidate power, and it punished lower standing men just as much as women. Girlwriteswhat goes into more depth on this than I ever could - taking a look at a few of her videos is definitely worth the time, imo.
To look at the world in a feminist perspective is not necessarily to find something to criticize. At its root, a feminist view is to observe the way things are and perceive some way in which patriarchy has made them that way.
The problem here is that patriarchy the way feminists imagine it has never existed. "Patriarchy" wasn't a system to explicitly benefit men at the expense of women - that's more what modern feminism is, actually, in reverse. Patriarchy was a system to allow men to compete with other men, or people to compete with people.. it just happens that competition benefits men more than women, because men are innately more competitive (or successful men are). It's also why men are often the highest payed in their profession, and at the top of any field that allows competition.
It's also why traditionally male occupation lose a lot of their status when they become "colonized" by women -- because men don't gain anything from competing with women, from a standpoint of evolutionary psychology, and women aren't as interested in competing hard or valuing their occupation higher than having children, etc. This is what is causing the wage gap currently, which isn't even a real gap anymore, because newly educated women make on average 8% more than newly educated men. It's just that they fall behind as soon as they start having children, which is natural, because that demands a lot of your time if you're going to do it right. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
Men are not innately more competitive than women. They are (still) educated to be so. I mean educated in a very broad sense, not just first or second socialization through family and school, but through your everyday life. You will (and have) probably see more ads/stories/newspaper or things like these about men being successfull or striving for success than women. Even though the share has changed favourably for women in the last decade (in terms of exposition). Moreover, as an example, if you read about politics, you primarily read about men competing against men. Yet again, it is changing, but the way women are exposed is hardly not reproducing a "patriarchal" society.
For the same matter, patriarchy is to be understood as a system that was produced by excluding women (not directly to the profit of men). This is why women had to wait decades before getting the right to vote. Or that is why women were not able to open a bank account without the autorization of their husband. That is also why, for example in India (non western society) women, when their husband died, were literally excluded from the society and treated as garbage (close enough) and sometime women decided die instead of living under the shame of a loss of their husband. They were not to live as individuals, but defined by the fact of being married, by the fact of having a husband, thus the patriarchal society In many way, the western society was designed in excluding the freedom of act and will of women. And in that sense, the system was patriarchal. For the same reason, men expected a lot from men, they would be educated to mathematics, latin and "highly intellectuel" stuffs, therefore providing them the best spot and reproducing the scheme. All while women were left literally "in the Kitchen". And this expression is still true vigourously used, especially on the internet. The labour market still has issue to incorporate women who decided to leave the market for a few years because, as a family, they wanted a child. And even though she is being compensated, it is hard for women to value the time they spent with the child on the market.
When you label a girl that's just want to freely use her body (whore/bitch w/e) as she wants, you are committing a patriarchal act as "it is not the normal way for a girl to be". The normal way being exclusive to one man. Being the propriety of the man, and therefore not being definied as a free individual. Insulting girls for their behavior (Slut Shaming anyone?) is patriarchal, sexist (therefore racist). It is also the same scheme when a girl plays video games and she is being labelled "an attention whore" or anything. She is being denied the one fact that a girl could want to play videogames, that she only does that to have the attention of geeks/nerds that are lacking the presence of women. While it may be true in some instances, it clearly reproduces a patriarchal (exclusion of women, remember!) scheme in videogames.
I disagree with your post to such a degree that I find no need to go into it at any level of detail. I talked about competitiveness, which research and simple observation suggests is biologically ingrained in male homo-sapiens, just like it is in many other species and not a socially conditioned behavior. You talk about "slut shaming" ..wtf?
Could you provide a link to the research ? Simple observation is not a valid argument. I did observe only white fucking duck, does it mean there is only white fucking duck on earth, hardly think so.
Still, how do you make such concept of "competitivness" operationalizable when driving a study, especially when leading a biological study ? I would be delighted to read that.
Slut shaming was there to illustrate the fact that women are denied freedom of act and will: this is how the society works: a girl is not allowed to do whatever she wants of her body. When she does so (i.e: sleeping with many men/women etc...) she is being pointed at as a deviant and ensue slut-shaming: "You should be ashamed to sleep with many men/women, to be a slut". Which implicitly means, you should be ashamed to have the liberty to use the body to your will. Which leads to : your body belongs to one person, and that person is not you but your boyfriend/husband (traditionnal couple is a man and a woman whom belong to the man through marriage, both are supposedly exclusive to each others).
And this is a patriarchal act, anchored in a patriarcal system.
For both jobs, more females replied to both job listings than males. Of the applicants to the sports assistant position, 53.5% of those interested were women. The generic job listing was split 80-20 females to male. Here’s the interesting part: for both jobs, when the element of the bonus was added, males were far more likely to actually send in their application than females. Or worded the other way around, females were more likely to pass on the job once they found out part of their pay would be based on their performance versus a co-worker. In the most competitive salary structure, where the base pay was $12 an hour and the bonus $6, List determined that men were 55.5% more likely to apply for the job than women. The conclusion: Women don’t like competition.
How does this relate to the gender gap? List says, anecdotally at least, it appears the industries and positions with the most competitive work environments tend to pay the most.
When it comes to "slut shaming," I don't think you automatically can or necessarily have to attribute that to "patriarchy." It could have some other function -- and often women are the ones who engage in this kind of behavior the most. I'd say it could just as well be a tribal impulse. In a smaller society, "loose" women with many children when there father(s) isn't engaged in providing for the children can become a liability for the tribe itself. And if the male in this instance is from a competing tribe, the mother and child would probably be driven off or worse. This could happen in a "matriarchal" tribe too, patriarchy doesn't necessarily figure into it. This could also explain why an extremely tribal religion like Islam is so sexist.
Relatively speaking, it is very recent that we could have sex for the pleasure of it, with impunity. Of course our biological minds are lagging behind.. it still thinks we're living in caves and being hunted by giant bears after all.
The article is interesting, but it doesn't seem to provide a biological explanation for the competition gap, maybe the scientific article does, but not the Time's one.
What I understand from it, is that women are less likely to risk a smaller pay despite an uncertain bonus than men. This could relate to risk aversion, and while some argue, like you, that this kind of risk aversion might be due to cave age (not everyone agrees at all with the prehistoric conception of men and women) it may be due to other things too.
Once again, it is socially constructed that boys are usually encouraged to take risk and be competitive since their childhood, so it was, so it is (even though less). The competition gap might be induced solely on the base that (1) women (girls) are not taught when child to take risk but to secure. Why ? Maybe because we see them as fragile, or because we vehiculate an image of the strong man and the weak woman (2) women (girls) are not taught to be competitive, because competition is display, display is the public sphere, and the public sphere for very long was a men space. While women remain in the private sphere (household, housewives) and are facing no competition because they are alone
Does it mean they are less competitive, in the sense they have been taught to be, then yes of course it does. In the sense it is biologically embedded in their brain, I really don't think so and once again I feel the article does not provide biological evidence for this.(it is a psychological study, not a biological one, lead by economic professors, not biologists)
It just says there is a gap, they shy away from competition, they don't know where that shyness is from.
Now yes, i was agressive, I explained why in my last post, my apologies.
The notion that men and women are basically the same and that gender is a social construction and not something that arises from biological factors is more or less a by-product of the political climate of the 60s and 70s. There are so many differences between the male and female brain that there has to be more to it than just social conditioning/social expectations.. and certainly the entire field of evolutionary biology and a lot of observable behavior in animals (like our closest relatives) suggest that men and women behave differently according to their biology. Here's an example:
Scientists at Harvard University and Bates College say female chimpanzees appear to treat sticks as dolls, carrying them around until they have offspring of their own. Young males engage in such behavior much less frequently. [...] The two researchers say their work adds to a growing body of evidence that human children are probably born with their own ideas of how they want to behave, rather than simply mirroring other girls who play with dolls and boys who play with trucks.
Anybody who knows a few women in their 30s can attest to biology affects them. I know several women who had no interest in children, and no desire to have them, and then suddenly they have an intense need to procreate. Some also describe it not as a logical want or need, but as an extremely physical, bodily sensation.
I never said that women and men were biologically equal. Once again, I never said that and that is since my first post.
What i said, is : legitimizing discriminating practice and discource such as "men are innatly more competitive than women" is a socially constructed discourse and it reproduces patriarchal scheme.
I absolutely agree on that weird moment where women decide to go baby. Biological clock, I know it exists and completely agree with you on this fact. I agree that men and women are differents, biologically.
But (1) playing with a doll does not make you less competitive. (2) I am pretty sure plenty of highly competitive boys played with stick like if they were people and fighting against each others (myself did that with pencil when bored at school, it is not different) so difference in behavior does not necessairly translate sexe differences. (3) My point is, was, still be, saying competitiveness arise from biological difference is exactly the same as stipulating black people are idiots compared to white men. There is no proof of such lack of competitiveness among women, as there is absolutely no proof of higher intelligence among white men . Because you did not experience it does not mean it does not exist. Because you experienced weak/fragile/scared girls does not make them all like that. Because i experienced highly competitive women does not make them all like that. But to dare to generalize so loud and clear competitiveness is a "man's quality" is really going to far.
I accept that of course men are also pressured to be as they appear in the media which can put undue pressure on them to be buff and manly.
Yes. And notice the following statements:
"Stop being such a girl." "Stop being a pussy." "What are you, somebody's bitch?" "Stop being a boy." "Grow some balls."
All of these are derogatory or condescending statements when applied to adult males. I'm sure there are more male-targeted ones (going for specifically gendered insults that are often used against men who don't fit the typical image of masculinity, whether in appearance or personality), but I don't think it's a coincidence that so many of these are terms are related to women. The association is "not masculine enough = feminine = weak = bad" or "not masculine enough = weak = feminine = bad." Of course, as you can see, there is also the association of "not masculine enough = not having gone through puberty = boy = weak" (feel free to swap the middle two in this one as well), but that is also connected to the previous associations of feminine = bad in the end.
On the opposite end of the spectrum (for women, insulted for not fitting the typical image of femininity), I've heard, "What are you, a dyke?" and "What a bitch!" (for instance, sometimes if a woman asserts herself in a way that is often associated with masculinity). The former is somewhat reappropriated these days and is more an attack on sexuality than someone's gender identity as a woman.
Well, nothing wrong with another man to "grow some balls," which is the equivalent of "man up" or "take responsibility/go for it/get off your ass." That's more of telling a man to be a man, in a more motivational sort of way, so I don't find that particular derogatory to tell a man to man up. Wouldn't make sense to tell a man to grow some ovaries right? Because men can't grow ovaries, or so I've been told, so to have courage for a man is just to "grow/rediscover your testicles." Likewise, I've always been telling women to grow their ovaries in times of cowardice, in addition to the occasional suggestion for them to even reattach the fallopian tubes.
I think the point was that the association between physical masculinity and being responsible as a personality trait is problematic - though I am amused by your subversion in telling women to "grow some ovaries" :D
The other problem is, as you said, it doesn't make sense to tell a man to "grow some ovaries", and yet, people commonly tell women to "grow some balls" (or similar; "you don't have the balls to do X").
What i said, is : legitimizing discriminating practice and discource such as "men are innatly more competitive than women" is a socially constructed discourse and it reproduces patriarchal scheme.
while I'd agree mostly with you.
both men and women are competitive for status, but in the case of men, competition might have more to do with "fitness" (in darwinians terms) since having higher status is established as increasing your reproductive success, while women are most likely to be infanted no matter the status. Although, women do have adaptative benefits competing for the alpha male who can provide protection but also great social value in terms of cooperation.
but that would be a false statement to say women lack competitiveness I'll 100% agree.
as for men and women being biologically equal, there are recent discoveries that would consider almost no dimorphism couple of thousand years back between women and men and that indicate that the actual dimorphism (in term of strenght) would probably be due to ressource control and work divison (which is the only division in said equalitray societies).
people often talk about emotive the woman is compared to man, but there are societies where women are warriors and kill. mainly the difference between men and women all comes down (biologically) to glands and hormones in the brain. while at birth the brains is at 10% developped the rest develops along with sociality.
My only problem with feminism are feminists that think there is no need for masculism (or those that ignore men problems or think women have everything bad).
Other than that feminism in itself is a great thing, I'm more annoyed by feminists pursuing ill battles or by the use of clichés.
To look at the world in a feminist perspective is not necessarily to find something to criticize. At its root, a feminist view is to observe the way things are and perceive some way in which patriarchy has made them that way.
The problem here is that patriarchy the way feminists imagine it has never existed. "Patriarchy" wasn't a system to explicitly benefit men at the expense of women - that's more what modern feminism is, actually, in reverse. Patriarchy was a system to allow men to compete with other men, or people to compete with people.. it just happens that competition benefits men more than women, because men are innately more competitive (or successful men are). It's also why men are often the highest payed in their profession, and at the top of any field that allows competition.
It's also why traditionally male occupation lose a lot of their status when they become "colonized" by women -- because men don't gain anything from competing with women, from a standpoint of evolutionary psychology, and women aren't as interested in competing hard or valuing their occupation higher than having children, etc. This is what is causing the wage gap currently, which isn't even a real gap anymore, because newly educated women make on average 8% more than newly educated men. It's just that they fall behind as soon as they start having children, which is natural, because that demands a lot of your time if you're going to do it right. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
Check out girlwriteswhat on youtube. Although her "style" is a bit too polemic for my tastes, her points are usually well researched, and it's also refreshing to see feminism criticized from a women's perspective
Of course it existed. Men were allowed to compete and women were/are being stuck with the households. The ideas of statuses of occupations are seriously flawed nowadays, I hope this changes soon. The work connected with the upbringing of children can be done by the father as well as soon as they are out of the womb, so this argument is invalid as well. Women can have an as competitive mindset as men.
Women CAN be as competitive as men, generally they aren't. This is more likely biological than anything else. Evolutionary speaking, a woman gained no where near as much from competing as men did.
I didn't say patriarchy didn't exist - I said it didn't exist in the form that feminists historically have understood it to exist. Some aspects of what we think of as patriarchy was a way to consolidate power, and it punished lower standing men just as much as women. Girlwriteswhat goes into more depth on this than I ever could - taking a look at a few of her videos is definitely worth the time, imo.
To look at the world in a feminist perspective is not necessarily to find something to criticize. At its root, a feminist view is to observe the way things are and perceive some way in which patriarchy has made them that way.
The problem here is that patriarchy the way feminists imagine it has never existed. "Patriarchy" wasn't a system to explicitly benefit men at the expense of women - that's more what modern feminism is, actually, in reverse. Patriarchy was a system to allow men to compete with other men, or people to compete with people.. it just happens that competition benefits men more than women, because men are innately more competitive (or successful men are). It's also why men are often the highest payed in their profession, and at the top of any field that allows competition.
It's also why traditionally male occupation lose a lot of their status when they become "colonized" by women -- because men don't gain anything from competing with women, from a standpoint of evolutionary psychology, and women aren't as interested in competing hard or valuing their occupation higher than having children, etc. This is what is causing the wage gap currently, which isn't even a real gap anymore, because newly educated women make on average 8% more than newly educated men. It's just that they fall behind as soon as they start having children, which is natural, because that demands a lot of your time if you're going to do it right. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
Men are not innately more competitive than women. They are (still) educated to be so. I mean educated in a very broad sense, not just first or second socialization through family and school, but through your everyday life. You will (and have) probably see more ads/stories/newspaper or things like these about men being successfull or striving for success than women. Even though the share has changed favourably for women in the last decade (in terms of exposition). Moreover, as an example, if you read about politics, you primarily read about men competing against men. Yet again, it is changing, but the way women are exposed is hardly not reproducing a "patriarchal" society.
For the same matter, patriarchy is to be understood as a system that was produced by excluding women (not directly to the profit of men). This is why women had to wait decades before getting the right to vote. Or that is why women were not able to open a bank account without the autorization of their husband. That is also why, for example in India (non western society) women, when their husband died, were literally excluded from the society and treated as garbage (close enough) and sometime women decided die instead of living under the shame of a loss of their husband. They were not to live as individuals, but defined by the fact of being married, by the fact of having a husband, thus the patriarchal society In many way, the western society was designed in excluding the freedom of act and will of women. And in that sense, the system was patriarchal. For the same reason, men expected a lot from men, they would be educated to mathematics, latin and "highly intellectuel" stuffs, therefore providing them the best spot and reproducing the scheme. All while women were left literally "in the Kitchen". And this expression is still true vigourously used, especially on the internet. The labour market still has issue to incorporate women who decided to leave the market for a few years because, as a family, they wanted a child. And even though she is being compensated, it is hard for women to value the time they spent with the child on the market.
When you label a girl that's just want to freely use her body (whore/bitch w/e) as she wants, you are committing a patriarchal act as "it is not the normal way for a girl to be". The normal way being exclusive to one man. Being the propriety of the man, and therefore not being definied as a free individual. Insulting girls for their behavior (Slut Shaming anyone?) is patriarchal, sexist (therefore racist). It is also the same scheme when a girl plays video games and she is being labelled "an attention whore" or anything. She is being denied the one fact that a girl could want to play videogames, that she only does that to have the attention of geeks/nerds that are lacking the presence of women. While it may be true in some instances, it clearly reproduces a patriarchal (exclusion of women, remember!) scheme in videogames.
I disagree with your post to such a degree that I find no need to go into it at any level of detail. I talked about competitiveness, which research and simple observation suggests is biologically ingrained in male homo-sapiens, just like it is in many other species and not a socially conditioned behavior. You talk about "slut shaming" ..wtf?
Could you provide a link to the research ? Simple observation is not a valid argument. I did observe only white fucking duck, does it mean there is only white fucking duck on earth, hardly think so.
Still, how do you make such concept of "competitivness" operationalizable when driving a study, especially when leading a biological study ? I would be delighted to read that.
Slut shaming was there to illustrate the fact that women are denied freedom of act and will: this is how the society works: a girl is not allowed to do whatever she wants of her body. When she does so (i.e: sleeping with many men/women etc...) she is being pointed at as a deviant and ensue slut-shaming: "You should be ashamed to sleep with many men/women, to be a slut". Which implicitly means, you should be ashamed to have the liberty to use the body to your will. Which leads to : your body belongs to one person, and that person is not you but your boyfriend/husband (traditionnal couple is a man and a woman whom belong to the man through marriage, both are supposedly exclusive to each others).
And this is a patriarchal act, anchored in a patriarcal system.
For both jobs, more females replied to both job listings than males. Of the applicants to the sports assistant position, 53.5% of those interested were women. The generic job listing was split 80-20 females to male. Here’s the interesting part: for both jobs, when the element of the bonus was added, males were far more likely to actually send in their application than females. Or worded the other way around, females were more likely to pass on the job once they found out part of their pay would be based on their performance versus a co-worker. In the most competitive salary structure, where the base pay was $12 an hour and the bonus $6, List determined that men were 55.5% more likely to apply for the job than women. The conclusion: Women don’t like competition.
How does this relate to the gender gap? List says, anecdotally at least, it appears the industries and positions with the most competitive work environments tend to pay the most.
When it comes to "slut shaming," I don't think you automatically can or necessarily have to attribute that to "patriarchy." It could have some other function -- and often women are the ones who engage in this kind of behavior the most. I'd say it could just as well be a tribal impulse. In a smaller society, "loose" women with many children when there father(s) isn't engaged in providing for the children can become a liability for the tribe itself. And if the male in this instance is from a competing tribe, the mother and child would probably be driven off or worse. This could happen in a "matriarchal" tribe too, patriarchy doesn't necessarily figure into it. This could also explain why an extremely tribal religion like Islam is so sexist.
Relatively speaking, it is very recent that we could have sex for the pleasure of it, with impunity. Of course our biological minds are lagging behind.. it still thinks we're living in caves and being hunted by giant bears after all.
The article is interesting, but it doesn't seem to provide a biological explanation for the competition gap, maybe the scientific article does, but not the Time's one.
What I understand from it, is that women are less likely to risk a smaller pay despite an uncertain bonus than men. This could relate to risk aversion, and while some argue, like you, that this kind of risk aversion might be due to cave age (not everyone agrees at all with the prehistoric conception of men and women) it may be due to other things too.
Once again, it is socially constructed that boys are usually encouraged to take risk and be competitive since their childhood, so it was, so it is (even though less). The competition gap might be induced solely on the base that (1) women (girls) are not taught when child to take risk but to secure. Why ? Maybe because we see them as fragile, or because we vehiculate an image of the strong man and the weak woman (2) women (girls) are not taught to be competitive, because competition is display, display is the public sphere, and the public sphere for very long was a men space. While women remain in the private sphere (household, housewives) and are facing no competition because they are alone
Does it mean they are less competitive, in the sense they have been taught to be, then yes of course it does. In the sense it is biologically embedded in their brain, I really don't think so and once again I feel the article does not provide biological evidence for this.(it is a psychological study, not a biological one, lead by economic professors, not biologists)
It just says there is a gap, they shy away from competition, they don't know where that shyness is from.
Now yes, i was agressive, I explained why in my last post, my apologies.
The notion that men and women are basically the same and that gender is a social construction and not something that arises from biological factors is more or less a by-product of the political climate of the 60s and 70s. There are so many differences between the male and female brain that there has to be more to it than just social conditioning/social expectations.. and certainly the entire field of evolutionary biology and a lot of observable behavior in animals (like our closest relatives) suggest that men and women behave differently according to their biology. Here's an example:
Scientists at Harvard University and Bates College say female chimpanzees appear to treat sticks as dolls, carrying them around until they have offspring of their own. Young males engage in such behavior much less frequently. [...] The two researchers say their work adds to a growing body of evidence that human children are probably born with their own ideas of how they want to behave, rather than simply mirroring other girls who play with dolls and boys who play with trucks.
Anybody who knows a few women in their 30s can attest to biology affects them. I know several women who had no interest in children, and no desire to have them, and then suddenly they have an intense need to procreate. Some also describe it not as a logical want or need, but as an extremely physical, bodily sensation.
I never said that women and men were biologically equal. Once again, I never said that and that is since my first post.
What i said, is : legitimizing discriminating practice and discource such as "men are innatly more competitive than women" is a socially constructed discourse and it reproduces patriarchal scheme.
I absolutely agree on that weird moment where women decide to go baby. Biological clock, I know it exists and completely agree with you on this fact. I agree that men and women are differents, biologically.
But (1) playing with a doll does not make you less competitive. (2) I am pretty sure plenty of highly competitive boys played with stick like if they were people and fighting against each others (myself did that with pencil when bored at school, it is not different) so difference in behavior does not necessairly translate sexe differences. (3) My point is, was, still be, saying competitiveness arise from biological difference is exactly the same as stipulating black people are idiots compared to white men. There is no proof of such lack of competitiveness among women, as there is absolutely no proof of higher intelligence among white men . Because you did not experience it does not mean it does not exist. Because you experienced weak/fragile/scared girls does not make them all like that. Because i experienced highly competitive women does not make them all like that. But to dare to generalize so loud and clear competitiveness is a "man's quality" is really going to far.
and I'd say I completely disagree with you, and see plenty of evidence that male humans, and males of many other species are more outwardly competitive than women, generally with males of their same species. "Patriarchy" doesn't even enter into it. It's no more socially constructed than how a "successful" Labrador Retriever loves to swim - it's ingrained in the being. The simple reason is, males can typically have a larger group of females. For example in groups of chimps, only 5% of the male chimps pass on their genetic material, while almost all of the females pass on theirs. The most successful and most competitive men over the course of history have had hundreds if not thousands of offspring. There is also research that suggests that male-to-male competition originates in the y-chromosome, and of course, women don't have y-chromosomes nor can they be male-to-male competitive, so saying women are competitive in the same way that men are is complete horseshit.
You're (2) point is hilarious. There's quite a bit of difference in playing with a stick as if it's a doll or just twirling it around like it's a pencil. Also, it was an article about chimps, not "young boys" etc. The point of the article from my perspective was that males and females are different from birth, and that for example young girls playing with dolls has deeper roots than just doing what society tells them to do.
And your (3) is even worse. No, it's nothing like saying black men er idiots based on genetic make-up, because there's no evidence for that being that case. Your objection to this notion of inherent competitiveness seems completely socially imprinted on you. Anyway, I'll link this again, further into the video.. she's able to form an hypothesis way more succinctly than I am
I accept that of course men are also pressured to be as they appear in the media which can put undue pressure on them to be buff and manly.
Yes. And notice the following statements:
"Stop being such a girl." "Stop being a pussy." "What are you, somebody's bitch?" "Stop being a boy." "Grow some balls."
All of these are derogatory or condescending statements when applied to adult males. I'm sure there are more male-targeted ones (going for specifically gendered insults that are often used against men who don't fit the typical image of masculinity, whether in appearance or personality), but I don't think it's a coincidence that so many of these are terms are related to women. The association is "not masculine enough = feminine = weak = bad" or "not masculine enough = weak = feminine = bad." Of course, as you can see, there is also the association of "not masculine enough = not having gone through puberty = boy = weak" (feel free to swap the middle two in this one as well), but that is also connected to the previous associations of feminine = bad in the end.
On the opposite end of the spectrum (for women, insulted for not fitting the typical image of femininity), I've heard, "What are you, a dyke?" and "What a bitch!" (for instance, sometimes if a woman asserts herself in a way that is often associated with masculinity). The former is somewhat reappropriated these days and is more an attack on sexuality than someone's gender identity as a woman.
The associations of things like "Average female = physically weaker than average male" and even the association "Average female = easier to rattle than average male" are completely acceptable because they have in one case a biological and in the other a social basis.
The actual problem isn't about this part, the part is that there are people who draw the conclusion that "physically weak = bad" or that "easier to rattle" (to clarify, I'm talking about stuff like horror movies and spiders here) are bad qualities. They inherently aren't. I'm a giant pussy when it comes to horror movies, for me that's a reason to not watch them. For others that IS the reason to watch them.
Another side effect is that in todays society "too brave" or "too strong" aren't associated with bad qualities in the same amount their opposites are. The phrase "You're way too manly" can imply "You're an idiot for fighting wars you can't win", the phrase "Can you please hang your balls on the wall for a moment and listen to me?" can imply that someone has so much ego that he's not listening to an actual argument.
The association that "being feminine = bad" is implied by people who want to believe it (hint: That includes you, even though you're trying to argue the opposite). I love my women feminine with just enough balls to smack more feminine women around if they have to. I love my men masculine with just enough ovaries to not turn into brainless monkeys.
This is entirely anecdotal of course and I don't have pretentions that it 'proves anything' but anyone with close female friends/relatives has probably noticed this.
When you were young kids, you were a lot less genderised. You probably would play a lot of the same games with your cousins, or your female friends etc. As you grow up your interests tend to move in divergent directions to what 'boys' and 'girls interests are expected to be, especially notable around the onset of puberty. I had a female friend at primary school who was 'one of the boys', as soon as she got to her all-girls secondary school she completely changed the way she dressed, the things she professed interest in because she got insulted so much for being a 'tomboy'.
I see this happening at a younger and younger age in how even television programmes aimed at kids, and the adverts especially pigeonhole what each gender is expected to do.
I think it's rather ignorant to claim there are no biological differences between the sexes, but equally to ignore the influence of popular culture falls into the same pitfalls.
I accept that of course men are also pressured to be as they appear in the media which can put undue pressure on them to be buff and manly.
Yes. And notice the following statements:
"Stop being such a girl." "Stop being a pussy." "What are you, somebody's bitch?" "Stop being a boy." "Grow some balls."
All of these are derogatory or condescending statements when applied to adult males. I'm sure there are more male-targeted ones (going for specifically gendered insults that are often used against men who don't fit the typical image of masculinity, whether in appearance or personality), but I don't think it's a coincidence that so many of these are terms are related to women. The association is "not masculine enough = feminine = weak = bad" or "not masculine enough = weak = feminine = bad." Of course, as you can see, there is also the association of "not masculine enough = not having gone through puberty = boy = weak" (feel free to swap the middle two in this one as well), but that is also connected to the previous associations of feminine = bad in the end.
On the opposite end of the spectrum (for women, insulted for not fitting the typical image of femininity), I've heard, "What are you, a dyke?" and "What a bitch!" (for instance, sometimes if a woman asserts herself in a way that is often associated with masculinity). The former is somewhat reappropriated these days and is more an attack on sexuality than someone's gender identity as a woman.
i think you (and motbob's original piece) are reading intent where there is none in order to fuel your own beliefs. nicknames and phrases stick for a lot of reasons, too many to list off here in a quick post. calling someone, and it really doesnt have to be a man, a pussy or a girl is not a sexist term. it is nothing to do with girls being inferior in any way. are you going to try and argue that calling someone a dick is offensive to all men by the same logic? inferring that all penis's are inherently bad?
but this seems to be something you realise yourself in the second half of your first paragraph, but then you change direction in the second to assert that it is only the pussy remark which retains its anti feminist meaning.
this strikes me as you holding a view then clawing at things to prop it up, and then when presented with a contradiction sweeping it under the carpet. "pussy is a slur because it implies women as a negative thing, but dick isnt as bad because ive already decided that women are oppressed."
i have absolutely no doubt that there are certain situations in life, work, pleasure whatever where women are at a real disadvantage. but clawing at straws to find offence in everything just makes the whole movement look stupid to a casual observer.
ignoring ofcourse the huge hypocrisy of complaining about words 'real' meaning when talking about feminism, a word which implies female superiority when in fact its a movement for equality.
On April 10 2013 20:12 Quotidian wrote: and I'd say I completely disagree with you, and see plenty of evidence that male humans, and males of many other species are more outwardly competitive than women, generally with males of their same species. "Patriarchy" doesn't even enter into it.
Reposting this because apparently you missed it...
This study uses a controlled experiment to explore whether there are gender differences in selecting into competitive environments across two distinct societies: the Maasai in Tanzania and the Khasi in India. One unique aspect of these societies is that the Maasai represent a textbook example of a patriarchal society whereas the Khasi are matrilineal. Similar to the extant evidence drawn from experiments executed in Western cultures, Maasai men opt to compete at roughly twice the rate as Maasai women. Interestingly, this result is reversed amongst the Khasi, where women choose the competitive environment more often than Khasi men, and even choose to compete weakly more often than Maasai men.
I lost my initial post so I'll keep this one short. I've found myself being annoyed with feminists mostly because I think women are already equal. It seems like the movement is full of hypocrites who want preferential treatment rather than equal treatment.
Also I think the whole diamond league thing misses the point, much like the feminists of today. Blizzard started with copper<->gold. The leagues line up with the market value of the medals. It was then expanded to copper<->platinum. You could argue that platinum has a slightly lower market value than gold right now, so the leagues should switch places, but there is a practical reason for why it was done this way. First, you have the easily recognizable bronze/silver/gold as the Olympic medals. Secondly, injecting a league into the middle is more confusing and more work than adding to either the top or the bottom. So Blizzard has copper<->platinum. For whatever reason copper just doesn't cut it. Maybe it isn't shiny enough, or it is too demeaning, but for whatever reason Blizzard decides that it needs to go. Adding to the top is the most logical step in this situation. Instead of going with the metal theme and introducing the Rhodium or Technetium league Blizzard reflects society and goes with Diamond. If you want them to change it then your article should really be aimed at society explaining why diamonds shouldn't be valuable. If you change society the companies will follow because the best companies are the best slaves.
Bronies are grown men who love and bond over the cartoon My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic in large part because of how friendly and accepting the pony characters are, how welcoming their world is. Brony communities invented ‘bronyspeak’ and use codes of community-enforced niceness so that ‘nopony’ has to suffer social rejection. These folks are not necessarily hurting anyone, but they’re messing with nerdom’s social fabric, pushing it farther away from society at large and making it more repugnant all around.
We had gotten to the point where we could be openly geeky without being stereotyped as neckbearded, sweaty basement-dwellers, but those anime-pillow-loving guys are holding us back.
What if some of the worst trends of nerdom run amok? Look at Japan—from the groping that’s so endemic in its public spaces that authorities have given up enforcement (they’ve created male/female subways) to vending machines that dispense soiled women’s underwear, something’s gone terribly wrong. They have a pandemic of hikikomori, guys who feel so divorced from the social scene that they leave it altogether for the solitude of their rooms and computers, all born of the same alienation that our nerds engage in. Japanese men are having sex and kids in smaller numbers than they ever have—one in four Japanese men in their 30s are virgins, and have given up on real relationships for videogame women or pillow wives—so much so that it’s a national crisis. Men in the United States have taken a different route, frustrated opprobrium rather than apathy, but the land of the rising sun is proof positive that, whether or not you care if geek is cool, trends like ours can go South like a carpetbagger.
Bronies are grown men who love and bond over the cartoon My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic in large part because of how friendly and accepting the pony characters are, how welcoming their world is. Brony communities invented ‘bronyspeak’ and use codes of community-enforced niceness so that ‘nopony’ has to suffer social rejection. These folks are not necessarily hurting anyone, but they’re messing with nerdom’s social fabric, pushing it farther away from society at large and making it more repugnant all around.
We had gotten to the point where we could be openly geeky without being stereotyped as neckbearded, sweaty basement-dwellers, but those anime-pillow-loving guys are holding us back.
What if some of the worst trends of nerdom run amok? Look at Japan—from the groping that’s so endemic in its public spaces that authorities have given up enforcement (they’ve created male/female subways) to vending machines that dispense soiled women’s underwear, something’s gone terribly wrong. They have a pandemic of hikikomori, guys who feel so divorced from the social scene that they leave it altogether for the solitude of their rooms and computers, all born of the same alienation that our nerds engage in. Japanese men are having sex and kids in smaller numbers than they ever have—one in four Japanese men in their 30s are virgins, and have given up on real relationships for videogame women or pillow wives—so much so that it’s a national crisis. Men in the United States have taken a different route, frustrated opprobrium rather than apathy, but the land of the rising sun is proof positive that, whether or not you care if geek is cool, trends like ours can go South like a carpetbagger.
Bronies are a danger to society...
I see no coherent argument in it. They draw examples of a bunch of men that are unsympathetic and easy to ridicule (like the backwards loner in highschool) and then link it as the counterpart of feminism, men's rights. This is no better than finding the worst examples of "feminists", throwing in disapproved of behaviors of females in other cultures for good measure (Japanese men, in this article), and using this as fodder to deride feminism. It's simply bullying, but more subtle and refined than the 4chan and reddit vomit that they cite in the article. People were already called out in this thread for doing the same thing against feminism.
Likewise, I've always been telling women to grow their ovaries in times of cowardice, in addition to the occasional suggestion for them to even reattach the fallopian tubes.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8RSOC.jpg)
