On April 09 2013 23:25 DaCruise wrote: If the point of feminism was to bring equality between genders I wouldnt oppose it, however thats not the case as I see it.
We always hear feminists complain about the fact that top positions within goverments, companies and such are dominated by men but what about the men also dominating pretty much every single negative social statistic in society. We NEVER hear them complain about that.
The point of feminism is to make the society better for women no matter the consequences for the men, which ultimately will also lead to a worse society for everyone funny enough.
I feel like the feminists are not focusing on the things that really matter. At least in my part of the world and because of that its hard to sympathize with them.
Did you read what the point of feminism is? Because it seems like you didn't. Even though it was already described pretty well in this thread, by a person with a big shiny title.
Yes, I read it but unfortunatly thats not how feminism works or at least how most of us view feminism as a social agenda. If we want to debate how we can reflect upon our society, our culture and how things became the way they are, cool! lets do that but it has nothing to do with feminism as I see it.
On April 09 2013 23:07 Jibba wrote: This thread has become a perfect example of people who don't understand feminism talking about feminism based on their preconceptions. :/
I wish people on TL did more reading than posting. Basically any time someone jumps in with "My problem with ______", it means they didn't read any of the posts preceding theirs and just want to inject their opinion.
And Sarkeesian's first short is a good example of people misinterpreting a critique, even though she explicitly makes mention that she doesn't think it's a calculated decision. People respond, "but those stories sell!" or "look how popular they are!" when her exact point (and the point of many other feminist critiques) was that there isn't a conscious decision to portray women poorly, but it's embedded in our culture and we often take it as second nature that women are passive prizes. It's not about blame, it's about acknowledgement.
But such a thing as "Portraying women stereotypically in cultural art" is incredibly minor and arbitratry, you can't expect people to sympathize with you, even if you use express it as "portraying women poorly". You could make the same example of homosexuals in literature, or indians in literature, or white men in most cases when reading non-western literature.
You deeming it as unimportant doesn't make it unimportant to the people who think it's a problem. Art/TV/mediahas a very large part in shaping society.
Most of those groups do have similar critiques, but the difference is that women make up 51% of the population and the portrayals are quite a bit more ubiquitous than any others.
Modern feminists know that this isn't enough to warrant anything, so they start radically opposing men, making up reasons why men are evil, which simply ends in a hateful relationship between everyone.
This is a very large leap and I'm almost certain you don't have much to support it.
For the first point i guess we'll simply have to disagree then, but you must understand that you are a minority trying to change something, and pointing out that 51% of the population in western nations are women does not mean that 51% deems this important enough to dedicate resources towards.
For the second point, while i make a conclusion as a statement and not to portray anything certain, the burden of proof is not on my side. Your claim of female stereotypes in art is only one in a hundred of the claims modern feminists make towards female and male unequality, i have a lot of examples if you want those, but i'm sure you already know that feminism is not a hivemind, and that what you want from feminism isn't the same as everyone calling themself a feminist wants.
I actually support gender equality rights. Although I think the discussion gets blown out far out of proportion. I think western societies made good progress in the last decade and with every progress the whining gets louder, atleast it seems to be that way for me.
So the principal is all right. In reality feminism gets rightfully critisized pretty often because leading feminists somehow mix up equality and positive discrimination. An actual example could be the femen movement. They actually demand a matriachatic society. Yeah, of course darling...
To mix in some demagogy.In today's western society women live in houses which are mainly build by men, they drive in cars largely manufactored by men on roads largely manufactored by men and yet they cry what a hard time they have. In a german feuilleton (taz) I read an article some time ago from a feminist of arabian origin that women are more free in pakistan than they are in today's germany. It is idiocy like that which discredits the movement and make it very easy to hate on feminism
On April 09 2013 21:38 Wombat_NI wrote: Oh I have visited, I just can't ascertain whether it's some kind of in-joke that I don't get (a la what 4chan must look like to anyone who hasn't lurked there), or serious, or even with elements of both.
it's real and one of the major subreddits responsible for massive sponsorship email campaigns in esports.
On April 09 2013 11:45 motbob wrote: I've never thought much about feminism, but I thought of something today that made me look at it in a way I hadn't before.
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. Criticism probably follows, but not always. Most feminist critiques of popular culture that get posted on TL (usually critiques of video games, in our case) are generally dismissed by the community. I think the basic idea of a feminist critique is sort of a foreign concept to most people in TL's demographic.
Let me sharply change subjects. Blizzard ranks its SC2 leagues, from weakest to strongest, like so: Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Diamond (excluding Masters/GM). It is likely that the placement of Diamond at the top of the heap has its (ancient) roots in De Beers' marketing efforts in the 1930s and beyond (first, their accomplishment of making a diamond ring a critical part of an engagement; second, the feat of convincing nearly everyone that purchasing a synthetic diamond simply isn't the same as buying an organic, yet identical, piece of carbon). Blizzard's choice to make Diamond the "premier" league reflects society's attitudes towards diamonds and the precious metals listed. Without the mysticism surrounding diamonds, brought about by De Beers, it is unlikely that society would view something that can be flawlessly replicated to be worth more than the most precious of metals.
De Beers' propaganda has been a source of great evil in this world (conflict diamonds, plus the unnecessary and massive transfer of wealth to De Beers over the last century). Given that, it makes a weird sort of sense to wish that Blizzard did not have a part to play in reinforcing the valuation of diamonds over materials like gold or platinum in our society. Yet if I were to write an article to that effect (Change the name of Diamond league, Blizzard!) I would promptly be laughed off TL. The same sort of ridicule is often applied towards feminist articles which follow the line of reasoning of my diamonds example. The word "ridiculous" shows up a lot in threads about feminists taking issue to game elements that they view as products of a patriarchal society and/or work environment ("save the princess" storylines, for example).
I guess the point of this article is, jointly, a) that being able to take a feminist perspective on things can highlight social ills that are not immediately evident, and b) that feminist critiques are not automatically ridiculous or trivial because of the mere fact that game companies are not going out of their way to perpetuate patriarchy when they implement patriarchal elements in their games, like saving the damsel in distress.
I agree with you.
The problem I see in the whole discussion is that some terms are too poisoned to the point people can't really talk about it seriously. The well has been poisoned and it's really hard to re-estabilish it. That's why - as a philosophy teacher - I tend to discuss this with different themes. To discuss patriarchalism, I like to discuss the notion of hierarchy (because without this notion, it's impossible to even talk about patriarchalism). To touch the notion of objectification of woman, it's really good to talk about the essence of all kinds of objectification (we call it the 'objectity of an object').
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
Cheers for the link Quotidian, I saw one of her videos before and never subscribed and totally forgot the channel name.
@shostakovich, that was somewhat the crux of many of my points, albeit badly articulated here. Interesting way to address the issues you mentioned, seems a perfectly good way to discuss the same kind of topics under different terms that aren't so misunderstood
I am a male feminist(even though radical feminism doesnt believe it's possible or legitimate) and was raised in a somewhat feminist household. I'm thankful for it(specially my older sister)..teaches you how to use your brain matter. I'm sad to read ignorance about feminism and prejudice against feminists but I wouldn't expect any differently.
Lol at people generalising feminists because of the feminists they met(Yeah go ahead on generalising a historical group of militance and of philosophical, moral, critical and scientific importance that achieved A LOT because of some people you met). This shows exactly the kind of prejudice feminism fights against and probably explaining why the feminists acted "badly", special lols because the massive majority of feminists only act bad with people who are already saying some kind of shit or wanting special attention because they are male.
For the people interested in understanding feminism and the biggest prejudice of our world: the prejudice against most people ever born(women). The basic exercise that worked for me is to put yourself in a girl's place from the very beginning of her interaction with society and try to imagine what it must have felt like each and everyone of the times that you learn you shouldn't do something that your little brother is cheered at for doing. Another important thing to do so you aren't alienated inside of some rudimentary feminist mindset is to relate patriarchy to other social institutions like the capital, the church, the exploitation of our resources, the state, etc. My sister started understanding social roles and social privileges at age 6, I only started thinking about these kind of things at age 11 or 12, but in a very negative way, there are a lot to be learned from feminism people.
PS: Something else to think about a woman's view of things is that in a country like mine with a lot of crime and general paranoia just from walking on the street every time a young woman(be her feminist or not) walks on the street she is afraid of being harassed or raped(the same way Im afraid of being kidnapped). Think about the useless paranoia that needs to be in woman's mind all the time she's walking by herself just so she's alert of the possibility of some rapist prowling nearby. It's taught to them by their mothers at young age that they shouldnt sit with her legs open, they shouldnt dress provoking people, etc, its a whole different mindset, ignoring this is just alienating yourself from the reality of more than half of the world.
I was raised in a somewhat feminist household. I'm thankful for it(specially my older sister)..teaches you how to use your brain matter. I'm sad to read ignorance about feminism and prejudice against feminists but I wouldn't expect any different.
Lol at people generalising feminists because of the feminists they met showing exactly the kind of prejudice feminism fights and probably explaining why the feminists acted "badly", special lols because the massive majority of feminists only act bad with people who are already saying some kind of shit or wanting special attention because they are male.
For the people interested in understanding feminism and the biggest prejudice of our world: the prejudice against most people ever born(women). The basic exercise that worked for me is to put yourself in a girl's place from the very beginning of her interaction with society and try to imagine what it must have felt like each and everyone of the times that you learn you shouldn't do something that your little brother is cheered at for doing. Another important thing to do so you aren't alienated inside of some rudimentary feminist mindset is to relate patriarchy to other social institutions like the capital, the church, the exploitation of our resources, the state, etc. My sister started understanding social roles and social privileges at age 6, I only started thinking about these kind of things at age 11 or 12, but in a very negative way, there are a lot to be learned from feminism people.
bad post, sorry.
You condemn generalisations and start to make them in the very next sentence, double standards. Your next paragraph is about gender roles, also swings both ways. Be a boy and play with dolls and watch what your environment has to say about that.
Your whole post is made up of generalisations and places women in the "poor victim" category in society. Parenting at its finest and the very opposite of equal rights and obligations.
I was raised in a somewhat feminist household. I'm thankful for it(specially my older sister)..teaches you how to use your brain matter. I'm sad to read ignorance about feminism and prejudice against feminists but I wouldn't expect any different.
Lol at people generalising feminists because of the feminists they met showing exactly the kind of prejudice feminism fights and probably explaining why the feminists acted "badly", special lols because the massive majority of feminists only act bad with people who are already saying some kind of shit or wanting special attention because they are male.
For the people interested in understanding feminism and the biggest prejudice of our world: the prejudice against most people ever born(women). The basic exercise that worked for me is to put yourself in a girl's place from the very beginning of her interaction with society and try to imagine what it must have felt like each and everyone of the times that you learn you shouldn't do something that your little brother is cheered at for doing. Another important thing to do so you aren't alienated inside of some rudimentary feminist mindset is to relate patriarchy to other social institutions like the capital, the church, the exploitation of our resources, the state, etc. My sister started understanding social roles and social privileges at age 6, I only started thinking about these kind of things at age 11 or 12, but in a very negative way, there are a lot to be learned from feminism people.
bad post, sorry.
You condemn generalisations and start to make them in the very next sentence, double standards. Your next paragraph is about gender roles, also swings both ways. Be a boy and play with dolls and watch what your environment has to say about that.
Your whole post is made up of generalisations and places women in the "poor victim" category in society. Parenting at its finest and the very opposite of equal rights and obligations.
But I'm not making a bad generalisations there, I only said majority because I didnt want to specify different feminist types. There is radical feminism+ Show Spoiler +
In radical feminism the mindset is more of complete isolation from males so it wouldnt fit most femininsts mindset of being open to what people has to say.
and thats the only reason I didnt say ALL feminists act nice, because if you are feminist you need to act nice(not in a sense of being nice to everyone all the time like a good girl, but in a sense of being open to what people have to say even as a means of understanding the patriarchy), thats not a generalisation from personal experience(necessarily a bad generalisation) because it is exactly what being feminist means, so it is a generalisation based around the ideology being discussed that in some ways means being open to other possibilities.
Some people here are generalising because of their "privileged male judgement" of having met some feminists. That's the kind of generalisations I'm fighting and feminists are fighting, I'm making generalisations that are based around the feminist ideology so it has a whole other meaning altogether, I never made a generalisation because I had met some people, I'm talking about what feminism means and how people who understand feminism and apply it to their daily lifes interact with each other in consonace with the ideology...I could use my personal experience to confirm what Im saying from a minor point of view but I cant use my personal experience to generalise a group of people.
Yeah, about gender roles, yes of course patriarchy shackles males in a role as well. What feminism explains is that men are in the dominant role and women are in the submissive role, it goes both ways and it should be seen as important for both male and female liberation, men aren't free to choose as well.
Equal rights and obligations are not the only things feminism cares about, it cares about the very framework of our social interactions in which we apply dominant-submissive structures based on gender, I really cant see any parenting, care to quote?
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.
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?
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.
On April 09 2013 12:08 Wombat_NI wrote: Feminists are often right, but their cause has a major, major image problem because the term itself is far too broad and ill-defined. A breakdown into say, I don't what terms I'd use, but ones with more specificity could be prudent.
I agree with what they say regarding games sometimes, but equally I feel it is rather like fussing over a cigarette that you drop on the floor when your house is already burning to the ground around you.
Feminists also far too often give women a pass in perpetuating the gender roles that exist today, in my experience.
The main issue is that feminism is super broad you are correct.
However, the biggest problem is that most people don't know what feminism is, including self proclaimed feminists. Many people will latch onto the idea of Patriarchy or Gender Equality and label themselves feminists without understanding the intricate history behind feminism as an academic practice and more than a "movement".
In my opinion far more dangerous than the above are people who take one or two feminism classes in university and claim to be feminists because they agreed with the topics they discussed. My reasoning is as follows: any sociological field of study is built on a history of knowledge and discoveries that came before the current iteration. As a result, in University you don't actually learn anything about contemporary sociology until you are at the end of your studies. Even then, I knew very little about contemporary stuff until I started my MA for example. Why is this a problem and how does it relate to feminism you may ask?
Well, the introductory feminism courses will emphasize teaching the origins and basic tenets of feminism and describe how these apply to the different schools of feminism in a very shallow way. So for example, radical feminism is the super hard men and patriarchy is evil and ruins society side of feminism that most people dislike and overlook as garbage. The whole "women are more equal than men" impression people get is a result of misinterpreting the feminism movement in the 60s as representative of feminism as a whole.
A few reasons for this, like media representations of the feminists of the time, but mostly because the protests for womens rights went to ridiculous lengths to get the point that women deserved more at the time across to politicians. People often forget the social context - large protests and elaborate movements were more common and were generally seen as more impactful in the past. So, burning bras made more sense in the 60s than they do now.
If your image of feminism even from an academic perspective is shallow and you identify with radical feminism without looking at alternatives to this severe form of feminism (which at times borders on women are more equal than men) then of course its going to paint feminism in a negative light.
More contemporary gender studies incorporates Queer theory, liberal feminism and men's studies. I for one like reading about critical sociology of any sort but people who aren't trained in it often distort it and this bothers me. For example take a look at this video:
Here we see an odd perversion of both sides of the coin. Men's Rights is an odd movement if you can call it that. It runs in direct opposition, conceptually if taken incorrectly, to women's rights. Then "feminists" who do not understand the underlying propositions of their "field" as it were protest "mens rights activists" who don't fully understand theirs either. I think both sides are dumb but my point here is that the woman who argues that the feminists protesters are in the right is an example of someone who doesn't fully understand but thinks they do.
In the end the women have a right to protests a men's right talk. Thats fine, but they cannot block fire exits. That is fact and is irrefutable. However, the woman doesn't discuss the merits of men's rights, no one does. There is no discussion, its simply "women activitsts" blocking "mens activitists" from reaching their destination. Men do not have special rights, and women don't have special rights and neither should have rights that differ from the other. Both groups want "equality" but they want different "equalities".
In the end, feminism is about understanding the experience of women in the world and how being a woman impacts their interactions with society around them. Men's studies look at the experience of men in the world, and how being a man impacts their interactions with society around them.
Sometimes you realise, yes, women are being excluded from thing Y or X. Not on purpose or specific decision necessarily but because of historical influences on current society. Like anything with a historical context, it takes time to influence change and see improvements. In the same way, men do have problems in the world by virtue of being men as well.
So for me, as long as someone understands the underlying history behind feminism or masculinism as it were, then they can talk all they want as long as it is a coherent argument. However, most of the time this isn't the case and you get a perversion. I don't roll my eyes at feminism when it is posted. But I do groan at people who argue for the sake of arguing.
The feminist critique has valid points regarding video games. However we need to also consider the history as well. Why do we always save the princess? Well because Nintendo's vastly successful franchises of Mario and Zelda created a formula. Hero is boy, boy saves girl, girl is princess. This narrative isn't new to society, it is ingrained in historical narratives. These narratives are ingrained because of past perspectives on the role of women in society. So is something like Mario sexist? No, but it does perpetuate a particular discourse of patriarchy by its very nature of drawing historically from the idea of princess saving and chivalry of the knight in shining armor.
But does this mean that games are sexist? Not necessarily. The game isn't saying anything in particular about women being inherently weak. People fail to realize that while it might borrow from a discourse you also have to examine the female in the game. In Mario its Peach. She is ALWAYS being kidnapped. She as a character is weak, and as a singular woman, is weak. This is the flipside.
In addition, we can criticise these games for always making men the dominant role. Stoic, silent, strong and self sufficient. But also ultimately responsible for the world as it were. If we look at this as a discourse of masculinity, it is clearly very very focused on the "ideal" man from a character stand point that not many men can actually live up to. This can cause problems of its own when "being a man" is defined by "being the hero".
I am starting to get off topic here though and writing a book. In the end nothing is black or white and critique is good. But balancing critique with understanding is key. To simply say for example that Bioshock infinite is sexist (which is common lately) is outright wrong. To explain how discourses are presented in Bioshock is A-OK.
However we need to realise that Bioshock is infinitely complex. No single main story character is a caricature. They all have motivations, they all have some level of complexity. Except for Fink, he is pretty flat as a character. But comstock, booker, elizabeth, Daisy, the Lutece's all of these characters are more than singular. There is juxtaposition within them all that goes beyond shallow discourses of manly men and timid women. So for me, personally I hate to see them belittled as singular shallow descriptors to fit a position taken by any particular person to further their ideological position. That is the kind of thing I roll my eyes at. Stripping something down to fit your position and ignoring the rest is horrible and disingenuous. So while feminism is great (I would call myself a feminist in a certain way) its perversion is all too common and its presentation too shallow by many many people. Especially on the internet.
(Sorry for the book, might expand on this in a blog later with regards to infinite and the whole "feminist" critique).
By some definitions, feminism means anti-discriminatory toward the female sex. + Show Spoiler +
So... yeah im anti discrimination against women. I'm a feminist. Who would admit their not? This doesn't make me feel any more a part of some secret cult than saying I'm an athiest.
Need to separate the word from a group of people or modern movement even more 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.
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.
Why are you so angry? Women aren't barred from promiscuity, they are discourage and not limited. Man suffers from similar outlooks as well though in smaller degrees. The difference in treatment of promiscuity is present because promiscuity has different implications. A woman has an advantage in knowing who an offspring may belong to. A loyal female partner makes it less likely a man, traditionally the provider, is raising someone else's child. With contraception and DNA testing this is less of an issue, and social attitudes toward such things are changing as well, albeit at a slower rate. Nevertheless, marital laws are still far from fair. If you want to stop difference in treatment of the sexes, then you may wish to start with the equality in the legal system so there is one less talking point for the patriarchy.
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.
I just want to say I like your post and it is smart. But to be fair the point of feminism is technically to criticize things. I only say this because it has its lineage as a discipline and theoretical framework in critical sociology (within the modern sociological paradigm) which emerged in the late 50s and 60s as a reaction to things like the atomic bomb and WW2. That we should question everything because those in charge do not necessarily know best (which in itself borrows from Marxism).
At its core, feminism seeks to examine critically the structures and discourses that shape and influence the discourses surrounding women and femininity in society. As a result, it must look at the way "woman" is presented in society in some way. Now, to your credit this isn't necessarily to criticize patriarchy or men in general. But rather to examine and be critical of things that are taken for granted as assumptions about women. Academically it is supposed to draw attention to things that one would otherwise ignore and accept as "natural".
Though I guess if you are using the term "criticize" to mean "pejorative criticism" then I would completely agree with you.
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.
Why are you so angry? Women aren't barred from promiscuity, they are discourage and not limited. Man suffers from similar outlooks as well though in smaller degrees. The difference in treatment of promiscuity is present because promiscuity has different implications. A woman has an advantage in knowing who an offspring may belong to. A loyal female partner makes it less likely a man, traditionally the provider, is raising someone else's child. With contraception and DNA testing this is less of an issue, and social attitudes toward such things are changing as well, albeit at a slower rate. Nevertheless, marital laws are still far from fair. If you want to stop difference in treatment of the sexes, then you may wish to start with the equality in the legal system so there is one less talking point for the patriarchy.
Excuse the aggressivity.
True, marital law remains somehow problematic. It is problematic because it still enclose couple in a monogamous scheme while behavior and social attitudes are changing, slowly for sure as you mention it. For exemple polyamory (it is on wikipedia).
The problem is not per se the marital law but what we associate to it: exclusivity, man to woman marriage, and historically it is filled with man's control over woman. Yet it is obvious people marry and probably share control over each others. But it is the symbol that remain which may cause harm. To this end, someone not married, a girl or a boy, is free to have relations with anyone. Yet social attitudes often punish this kind of behavior. It is more often toward girls. My point is, they socially "punish" such behaviour because they still see (a) the woman in a traditionnalist way, meaning marital subordination. (b) women are still denied property on their own body because of the social attitudes. Since the marital law is intricated in a patriarchal-like system and since it spills over social attitudes towards women, it is fair to say that pointing at girls having sex with who ever they want is a patriarchal act.
What makes me angry is people trying to emphasis social differences based on undocmented biological differences. This is no different from racism from the past centuries yet it seems acceptable because it's only women, eh. Nobody denies the difference between men and women but to build social exclusion/inclusion on these criteria is far from being legitimate.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8RSOC.jpg)
