Criticism of Feminism

@JTT,

What does WRT stand for JTT? That must be a part of internet-speak or culture I'm not familiar with - seriously - I'm asking.

Brutality toward others is deeply ingrained in the HUMAN psyche. Yes, sad but true- as is an us versus them mentality - instinctively.

I don't know how people live with the **** they do to others because they're not like them.

That's why I refuse to separate people and attach labels like that. And when you get to the point where you're separating other humans from yourself and attributing innate negatives to them on the basis of their gender - well that's just sad. I mean, I don't even read feminist literature and I recognized all those names, so it would seem to me that alot of other people must have as well, if they've garnered so much public recognition that someone like me who only scans it occasionally and peripherally knows who they are.
I think it's sad and disgusting and I honestly do think to myself, 'Did every single one of these women get raped by her father or uncle or brother or something?'
How would a person who thinks this **** be able to raise a male child if she gave birth to one? Or maybe she'd greet the birth of and treat any son she did have with the derision, lack of respect and positive expectation with which little girls are treated in places like China and India.
No - I just can't relate to any of the basic premise. Why can't men and women just be different? Why does one or the other gender have to be weak, innately malevolent or bad in some way?

In terms of Americans and acceptance of violence - yes, we have allowed ourselves to become acculturated and complacent to it.
It surrounds us and our children on all sides. That's very sad to me too. That's why I don't watch TV and went for years and years without a tv and/or video games in my house while my kids were growing up.
That's why I continue to live here in England. I feel I can walk by myself wherever I am more safely here. And it's not a feminist thing - I have less fear for my children and friends-male AND female- here too. Chances are better that none of us will get shot at the mall or in school or in the workplace here. We're ALL safer here.

In terms of acceptable levels of violence toward others JTT, do you agree with capital punishment?
And if so, for anyone other than Americans?

But as for me, as I told my son, I'd rather be taken prisoner by an American soldier if I had a choice. He might pee on my dead body, but he probably wouldn't cut off my head- you know? It's all relative.
And I'm not belittling what happens to people during war at all. I'm just saying what conclusion I've come to.
I don't think Americans are more innately violent than others people. But yes, our culture is definitely molding our psyches. That's what cultures do.

1 Reply

@failures art,

err by sucking and blowing I was referring to her quoting people with such really different perspectives and arguing the same point from both sides

one person she disagrees with because they don't value men enough, one person she disagrees with because they value men too much

she's sucking and blowing with her own arguments

she needs to pick a point and make it - she's all over the map in her rebuttal (I couldn't get all the way through her first offering - it was simply too bizarre)

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

What quotes did she read that suggested that men were valued too much? I don't recall any. I think the thrust of her criticism is very focused--that there is a narrative of male disposability that dehumanizes men and makes us indifferent to the violence that they endure.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@aidan,

"WRT" is often shorthand for "with respect to."

A
R
T

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

What quotes did she read that suggested that men were valued too much? I don't recall any. I think the thrust of her criticism is very focused--that there is a narrative of male disposability that dehumanizes men and makes us indifferent to the violence that they endure.

A
R
T

which was born out of sensitivity to criticism that the feminists are anti male...they made the collective decision that to not mention men directly clears them of this charge. Nope, to not mention 1/2 of the human population is to make all of their arguments incomprehensible, as they have taken the condition of the human females out of context, and shown the very thing that the were trying to avoid showing....IE that they dont give a **** about men and the condition of men. They want what they want, how this effects men they dont care, as it is all about them.

This is of course very typical female behavior, but men are damn fools if we let this BS fly without objection.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I think it's bigger than women not caring about men, it's that society (men and women) are indifferent to the forms of violence that disproportionately effect men.

In other words, the "be a man" or "man up" narratives are the types of oppressive memes that make men self-police themselves and remained locked in their own gender roles.

The thing she quoted from an earlier video that was disturbing to me was that it made headlines when female injuries went up as a percentage of workplace accidents, and how this was presented. When the actual numbers were inspected, there weren't more female injuries, just fewer injuries to men so female injuries made for a larger percentage of the total injuries. I think this is the kind of thing that should be important to all people, and if work place injuries are of concern to an individual, it should be because fewer injuries are happening.

I guess what I don't' understand is why not embrace a larger mantle of humanism instead of feminism? I certainly don't care for a silly term like "masculinist." I still see issues that effect women, and can fight for them. What can't humanism as a philosophy do that feminism can to promote equality and promote a more fulfilled and happy life?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

I think it's bigger than women not caring about men, it's that society (men and women) are indifferent to the forms of violence that disproportionately effect men.

Yes, men have been guilt tripped with success....we put up with this abuse because we feel guilty for what we believe our fathers and grandfathers did, as well as some of our peers. It is 90% BS though, but we are too poorly educated to know better. We have been played like a fiddle by the feminists, who have generally been very skilled at playing their power games. That same story that promotes male guilt also promotes women not feeling guilty about their abuse of men, as even if the man in question does not deserve his fate some man does, and his father and grandfather deserved to be put on the rack but escaped justice, so **** him. You watch how many young women treat men...they are often cold abusive bitches, and they dont think twice about how they treat men. According to them women are victims, and have they earned the right to abuse men at will, so dont bother to complain about how they act.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Forget success. That's the least of my concern. Successful people are doing fine. I'm worried about exploited people and those who aren't successful.

Skilled labor is an area of our society that goes unappreciated and we turn our nose up at the people who work these jobs. We've redesigned work into an image of something that doesn't resemble labor at all. I don't blame people for wanting a cushy job, but it makes me cringe when I hear people say things like "you don't want to end up flipping burgers or cleaning toilets do you?" I liked the Penis Mom story because it was about a woman who earnestly felt a sense of duty to be there for the heavy lifting and to get muddy and messy. That's the kind of equality I hope for.

A
R
To me that's a humanist principle, and it's not genderized at all.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

but it makes me cringe when I hear people say things like "you don't want to end up flipping burgers or cleaning toilets do you?"

that is the modern equivalent of "you dont want to be a serf do you?" You are switching gears here, between gender inequality and class inequality. Our willingness to put up with so much inequality is common here, but the differences are great enough that you need to talk about the problems seperately if you want to make any headway on them.

Question: what kind of life would you have with a paycheck of $210 a week? That is about what burger flippers and toilet cleaners get after taxes, if they are lucky enough to find a job where they can get 35 hours a week, which is often hard to come by....

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I don't view it as switching gears. These fields of work that men work in. There is no prohibition in female welders, or other labor intensive jobs. We drive by a construction site in air-conditioned cars and see dirty men building things and think thank goodness that's not me. The tacit programming here is that these people are less than us, and since the jobs are being mostly filled by men, I worry that we additionally internalize and genderize these observations.

We think about CEOs, doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants. We like the idea of both genders in these positions. We work to make all these opportunities available to both, as it should be. At the same time, the electricians, plumbers, and other messy jobs are still the base of our society--no less important. Where is a message to young girls to get messy and fix your plumbing? That's not a negative message. In many ways it's empowering and also promotes equality.

Recently LEGO went under fire for a new product line targeting young girls. Lots of pink blocks and what not. The themes were about shopping and looking for puppies. The product has some people upset because it reinforces many female gender roles, but isn't that only half the story? If the pink Legos are at home shopping online and looking for missing kitties, the "boy" Legos are out in the city in the fireman, police, etc jobs. I don't care to put anyone in a domestic prison, but I'm no less concerned with the idea that hard and dangerous labor should be an option for women, but a duty for men.

Even when JTT stopped in this thread to talk about US military stuff, he said the CIA kills "women and children." Why is the phrase "women and children" so pervasive in our psyche? Is it actually more objectionable to kill a woman than a man? Are our lives worth less? Why genderize the value of death? These kinds of things bother me. I find suffering objectionable independent of gender.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

There was no contradiction in my position, it's not "moving the goal posts." My position has consistently been that what feminism is needs to be identified, and who the legitimate spokesmen of feministm are. That's exactly why i ased if you allege those women can be characterized as prominent speakers for feminism.

I'll pose to you the same situation i posed to Hawkeye. If a whack-job, religious right holy roller calls for crusade against all Muslims, can you reasonably claim he speaks for all Christians, for all conservatives? I would say no. At best, he can be said to speak for a lunatic fringe of fundamentalist Christians who are able to reconcile hatred of other religious confessions with the own religious views.

You're delusional. I exclude Hillary Clinton as a spokesman for polemical feminism because she is a politician--that's what she does. Feminist polemics are not what she does. How hard is that? Í'm not excluding anyone for not meeting "my" definition of feminism, i exclude them because they are not recognized spokesmen for polemical feminism. Given that you have not provided a definitino of feminism or feminist, how is one to judge the validity of your claims, or the claims of the woman in the video, for whom, apparently, you are a proxy.

I did watch the video, and i used the Browmiller quote for precisely the reason that Brownmiller is a recognized spokesman for polemical feminism, while Clinton and the English MP are not. That was the point, whether or not it sank in with you. I'm saying that Brownmiller's ideas are far more reasonably subject to this discussion than anything an English MP or the Secretary of State. This is evidence of the extent to which her bullshit is all over the road--she gives equal weight to the points of view of people who are not polemical feminist as she does to someone who is. It appears that, in fact, it is according to her (and you, her proxy) that just about anyone can be labeled a feminist spokesman, especially if you think their statements are fodder for criticism.

Once again, labeling oneself a feminist is hardly convincing. The hypothetical holy roller preacher to whom i referred would label himself a Christian. Could on reasonably say he were speaking for all Christians. I am not obliged to provide a definition for feminism or feminists--this is not my rant, it's yours. In the phony rhetoric of the woman in the video, i'm just "deconstructing" it. So keep your snarking "knowing eyes" comments to yourself. So long as you don't define either feminism or feminist, this is just a bait thread. If you claim that anyone calling him- or herself a feminist is one, and anything he or she says is characteristic of feminism, you're all over the road, and this is still just a bait thread. Don't try to weasel out of your obligation to define terms in order to reasonably discuss your screed by attempting to shift that burden to me. You started this bullshit, you own it.

Don't give me that nasty bullshit about bile and righteous indignation either--you're a legend in your own mind, but you really aren't that important. I can come comment on this thread whenever i wish to do so, whether you like it or not. That's what we all do here, in case that has escaped you.

However, let's talk about moving the goal posts. You write: I'm curious if any prominent feminists . . . --Oh, i see, it's not really just anyone who calls herself a feminist, it's prominent feminists now. Can you tell us who those are, or how they can be identified?

Your last paragraph reads like some of Chicken Little's paranoia. Who says you can't criticize feminism? Who says it's taboo to discuss this? Who has said that any criticism is an assault? Grow up. I am as entitled to criticize the bullshit in this thread as you are to criticize what you are pleased to describe as feminism--all while dodging the burden of providing a working definition from your point of view.

0 Replies

@failures art,

I watched the video, smart ass, more's the pity. Perhaps you can give me the title of the published works on feminism by the English MP, or Hillary Clinton, or any other of the individuals whom she pulls out of her ass. A few of them might be, most of them are not. Don't make **** up. If you think memorizing the screed in that video is so damned important, then go through it yourself again, give us a list of names, and of the titles of their published works of polemical feminism.

I'm not saying they are or are not reliable spokesman, although i am highly skeptical. I'm asking why you (as proxy to the woman in the video) say they are. Once again, you're just trying to weasel out by shifting the burden to me.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

I don't view it as switching gears. These fields of work that men work in. There is no prohibition in female welders, or other labor intensive jobs. We drive by a construction site in air-conditioned cars and see dirty men building things and think thank goodness that's not me. The tacit programming here is that these people are less than us, and since the jobs are being mostly filled by men, I worry that we additionally internalize and genderize these observations.

Okay, now I'm starting to feel stereotyped by you. 'WE' don't all drive by construction sites in air-conditioned cars and see dirty men building things and think thank goodness that's not me. WE don't all think those people are less than us and that since those jobs are mostly filled by men, internalize and genderize these observations.

Truth be told, I have huge respect for anyone who can work and make things with his/her hands, fix things, construct things, etc., etc. There's a world of difference in the level of skill, training and YES, education required to become a plumber, electrician, or builder than that called to flip hamburgers in McDonald's and clean toilets.
And let's be real here, toilet cleaning and waiting on and cleaning up after people has historically and primarily been the province of feminine workers- USUALLY unpaid as a matter of fact.
So, this is just getting silly and a little beyond the pale now.
I don't know anyone who scoffs at the job a skilled builder, mechanic, plumber, electrician, etc. does.
I certainly don't know anyone who scoffs at what firefighters and paramedics do.
And I do know for a fact, because I worked at Job Corps in New York State, a program that provided education toward a GED and training in a skilled trade for young people who had dropped out of school, that a tiler, working in New York City and a member of the tiler's union there was able to make more than I did per annum his or her first year on the job. And I am a certified teacher with a master's degree and twenty years experience.
So, I don't have those misconceptions or preconceptions or derogatory thoughts about what those men are doing and that they're worse off than me. And please don't tell me that you think all women do.

Quote:

We think about CEOs, doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants. We like the idea of both genders in these positions. We work to make all these opportunities available to both, as it should be. At the same time, the electricians, plumbers, and other messy jobs are still the base of our society--no less important. Where is a message to young girls to get messy and fix your plumbing? That's not a negative message. In many ways it's empowering and also promotes equality.

Yeah, and where is the message that a young girl can't leave the house without hair extensions, fake nails, juicy written across her butt and face slathered with make-up and ready for the camera at any given second coming from?
Who is it that is giving these girls these messages? I'd like to wring his or her neck.
I know it aint me...is it you in any way? In other words, does a girl have to feel that she has to look and act a certain way to get your attention or admiration?
We're all part of it - it's the culture we've all created.
The boys I knew when I was growing up would never have expected me to go to all the fuss these girls today have to go to to make themselves look different than what they really are.
I think boys today expect something else - they must-why else would girls have to do all this fake **** they do today?
They aint doing it for their mothers, aunts, grandmothers or sisters!

Quote:

Recently LEGO went under fire for a new product line targeting young girls. Lots of pink blocks and what not. The themes were about shopping and looking for puppies. The product has some people upset because it reinforces many female gender roles, but isn't that only half the story? If the pink Legos are at home shopping online and looking for missing kitties, the "boy" Legos are out in the city in the fireman, police, etc jobs.

Again, I know many women my age who are fire fighting personnel, paramedics, EMT's, prison guards, etc. But yeah, I don't see many younger women going into those fields anymore- you're right. Why? Maybe you're not allowed to wear hair extensions or fake nails on the job.

Quote:

I don't care to put anyone in a domestic prison, but I'm no less concerned with the idea that hard and dangerous labor should be an option for women, but a duty for men. Even when JTT stopped in this thread to talk about US military stuff, he said the CIA kills "women and children." Why is the phrase "women and children" so pervasive in our psyche? Is it actually more objectionable to kill a woman than a man? Are our lives worth less? Why genderize the value of death?

I think that because women and children are generally smaller and more vulnerable, in a polite society that still practices the remnants of chilvary, a stronger and less vulnerable being might see it as his/her job to protect the smaller, physically more vulnerable members of society.
I know as a woman, if there's a child in need, it is my job to help that child. If there is a smaller, weaker, older or infirm man or woman in need, I've been taught it's my job to help that person if they need help.
Most women are smaller and more physically vulnerable than most men - as are most children.
It all comes back to being a humanist really - you help those who most need help in situations when they need help.
I don't call that unfair - I call that kind and compassionate.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with paying someone the same amount of money for doing the same amount or type of work as someone else of a different gender.
That'd be talking apples and oranges.

Quote:

These kinds of things bother me. I find suffering objectionable independent of gender.

Me too. And I find stereotyping objectionable independent of gender.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Quote:
I don't view it as switching gears. These fields of work that men work in. There is no prohibition in female welders, or other labor intensive jobs. We drive by a construction site in air-conditioned cars and see dirty men building things and think thank goodness that's not me. The tacit programming here is that these people are less than us, and since the jobs are being mostly filled by men, I worry that we additionally internalize and genderize these observations.

Okay, now I'm starting to feel stereotyped by you. 'WE' don't all drive by construction sites in air-conditioned cars and see dirty men building things and think thank goodness that's not me. WE don't all think those people are less than us and that since those jobs are mostly filled by men, internalize and genderize these observations.

I never said less than us, but I think you may be missing the base of my point. Do you drive by a construction site, and say to yourself, I'd rather be there? I think there is often a tacit implication in the way we as a society (I wasn't trying to stereotype you) look at hard labor as the punished role of those in our society who under-perform. I certainly don't fee we honor these people with the same dignity as a doctor or engineer. I worry that there is a genderization of what are successful jobs/careers and what aren't.

aidan wrote:

Truth be told, I have huge respect for anyone who can work and make things with his/her hands, fix things, construct things, etc., etc. There's a world of difference in the level of skill, training and YES, education required to become a plumber, electrician, or builder than that called to flip hamburgers in McDonald's and clean toilets.

I'm very glad to hear you express this. Perhaps the inclusion of McDonalds was poor by me. I only included it because I feel bad when people at any income are put down. I do realize though that it was a poor choice as an example of skilled labor. Low skill labor jobs are also important to upward mobility, and to be fair, I don't feel many food service industry jobs like this demonstrate gender concerns.

aidan wrote:

And let's be real here, toilet cleaning and waiting on and cleaning up after people has historically and primarily been the province of feminine workers- USUALLY unpaid as a matter of fact.
So, this is just getting silly and a little beyond the pale now.

In a domestic sense, you're correct, but on the larger scale I disagree. On the level of a society, dirty work and hard labor (including unpaid labor) has fallen on the backs of men through history.

aidan wrote:

I don't know anyone who scoffs at the job a skilled builder, mechanic, plumber, electrician, etc. does.

I do know people who do. I also know people who ignorantly say things that they don't realize are really dehumanizing. I know lots of people who enjoy the comforts of society, but spend precious little time thinking about who puts in the work to maintain it.

aidan wrote:

I certainly don't know anyone who scoffs at what firefighters and paramedics do.

I don't think many people do. I don't think I suggested people do.

aidan wrote:

And I do know for a fact, because I worked at Job Corps in New York State, a program that provided education toward a GED and training in a skilled trade for young people who had dropped out of school, that a tiler, working in New York City and a member of the tiler's union there was able to make more than I did per annum his or her first year on the job. And I am a certified teacher with a master's degree and twenty years experience.

How many people do you think have your degree of exposure to this kind of information? Certainly this information is part of why you respect the people who drive by in your car working in the rain and mud, right?

Is it possible that people without that kind of perspective might undervalue these people?

aidan wrote:

So, I don't have those misconceptions or preconceptions or derogatory thoughts about what those men are doing and that they're worse off than me. And please don't tell me that you think all women do.

This isn't what I was getting at. If you're a young boy, you might in your head say: "One day, I may be a construction worker." Young girls aren't being told that they are better that that, but I think that with the breaking down of domestic barriers, they are being pushed aggressively to pursue other paths. Do you believe many girls spend much time thinking about arc welding? Why shouldn't they?

aidan wrote:

Quote:
We think about CEOs, doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants. We like the idea of both genders in these positions. We work to make all these opportunities available to both, as it should be. At the same time, the electricians, plumbers, and other messy jobs are still the base of our society--no less important. Where is a message to young girls to get messy and fix your plumbing? That's not a negative message. In many ways it's empowering and also promotes equality.

Yeah, and where is the message that a young girl can't leave the house without hair extensions, fake nails, juicy written across her butt and face slathered with make-up and ready for the camera at any given second coming from?
Who is it that is giving these girls these messages? I'd like to wring his or her neck.
I know it aint me...is it you in any way? In other words, does a girl have to feel that she has to look and act a certain way to get your attention or admiration?
We're all part of it - it's the culture we've all created.

Agreed. We are. It is you. It is me. Young boys are being programmed too. I think the kinds of ways they are encouraged to behave is structured on the attention they receive/rewarded with.

aidan wrote:

The boys I knew when I was growing up would never have expected me to go to all the fuss these girls today have to go to to make themselves look different than what they really are.

What about the girls expectations of the boys. If we are going to talk about gender roles and expectations, we should address how these interactions move in both directions.

aidan wrote:

I think boys today expect something else - they must-why else would girls have to do all this fake **** they do today?
They aint doing it for their mothers, aunts, grandmothers or sisters!

Why should we assume or insist that everything we do is done for the attention of the opposite gender? Is everything I do to impress women? What if I want to impress men or fit in with other men? Isn't it just as plausible that girls act out expectations from inter-gender relationships? Why assume that boys are the cause of "juicy" sweatpants. I've always thought sweats were a weird thing to wear, especially when paired with some Uggs. I don't think this attracts boys as much as it is a peer uniform among girls.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
Recently LEGO went under fire for a new product line targeting young girls. Lots of pink blocks and what not. The themes were about shopping and looking for puppies. The product has some people upset because it reinforces many female gender roles, but isn't that only half the story? If the pink Legos are at home shopping online and looking for missing kitties, the "boy" Legos are out in the city in the fireman, police, etc jobs.

Again, I know many women my age who are fire fighting personnel, paramedics, EMT's, prison guards, etc. But yeah, I don't see many younger women going into those fields anymore- you're right. Why? Maybe you're not allowed to wear hair extensions or fake nails on the job.

I have no speculations on this matter. I'll add this as a thought though: Imagine if a man had suggested that women don't do these jobs because of hair and nails?

aidan wrote:

Quote:
I don't care to put anyone in a domestic prison, but I'm no less concerned with the idea that hard and dangerous labor should be an option for women, but a duty for men. Even when JTT stopped in this thread to talk about US military stuff, he said the CIA kills "women and children." Why is the phrase "women and children" so pervasive in our psyche? Is it actually more objectionable to kill a woman than a man? Are our lives worth less? Why genderize the value of death?

I think that because women and children are generally smaller and more vulnerable, in a polite society that still practices the remnants of chilvary, a stronger and less vulnerable being might see it as his/her job to protect the smaller, physically more vulnerable members of society.

That might be the case in older wars, but when we're talking about a Predator Drone strike, the difference between the world's toughest man, and a paraplegic child go to zero.

I think we have few reasons to maintain such a belief given the new face of war.

Outside of the war setting, under other circumstances, if a woman shoots a man and kills him, she's 60% less time come sentencing than if the roles had been reversed. Isn't this a bad standard? Wouldn't a goal of equality be for equal sentencing for crimes committed?

aidan wrote:

I know as a woman, if there's a child in need, it is my job to help that child. If there is a smaller, weaker, older or infirm man or woman in need, I've been taught it's my job to help that person if they need help.

You know this as a human, not as a human. Wouldn't you agree?

aidan wrote:

Most women are smaller and more physically vulnerable than most men - as are most children.

Certainly, but the torture, rape, and death of even the most powerful beings should carry the same moral value.

aidan wrote:

It all comes back to being a humanist really - you help those who most need help in situations when they need help.

That's my hope.

aidan wrote:

I don't call that unfair - I call that kind and compassionate.

Agreed.

aidan wrote:

And it has absolutely nothing to do with paying someone the same amount of money for doing the same amount or type of work as someone else of a different gender.
That'd be talking apples and oranges.

I think we are in agreement that equal pay for equal work is a good principle.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
These kinds of things bother me. I find suffering objectionable independent of gender.

Me too. And I find stereotyping objectionable independent of gender.

I think we as a society do it to men more than we acknowledge. We've become more sensitive to how we project many stereotypes.

To draw an analogy. White people have exercised some of the most noteworthy acts of racism in the history of our world. That said, racism has never been an exclusively white problem. I think that some sexism is tolerated because we have generalized sexism as a male issue. This has in a social sense made sexism a form a male pathology, and I think that's shallow.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Even when JTT stopped in this thread to talk about US military stuff, he said the CIA kills "women and children." Why is the phrase "women and children" so pervasive in our psyche? Is it actually more objectionable to kill a woman than a man? Are our lives worth less? Why genderize the value of death? These kinds of things bother me. I find suffering objectionable independent of gender.

You're right, Art. Instead of "women and children", innocents might be better.

For a guy who finds suffering objectionable you sure remain awfully silent. In fact, you seem to go further than that. You make excuses for those that have, for well over a century, taken active steps to expose millions of innocents to torture, rape and murder.

Perhaps, I find suffering objectionable if it's an American, is a better description.

0 Replies

@failures art,

You know, art, it might make things a lot more straightforward if you just state your grievances against the statements & actions of those you perceive to be "feminists".
You might get a more interesting discussion that way.

Anything to avoid another video with that woman!
aghhh! Wink

Look, anyone can go Google & come up with any number of pro or anti quotes on any issue going.
No particular skill involved.
But then to dress up a glad-bag of disparate quotes from women of all sorts, from different periods, as some sort of coherent "feminists are bad" statement & expect to be taken seriously?
I don't think so.
(She's even included Valerie Solanas, from SCUM. The Society for Cutting Up Men. Who shot Andy Warhol. I mean, really .... just how many of us would have taken such a nut case seriously? She is hardly a major influence on any feminist I've ever known!)

I keep asking myself: why she is doing this? Confused

Why does she, in her clumsy sort of way, feel the need to disparage what she imagines "feminism" to be?
What's in it for her?
The only conclusion I can come to is that she wants to make her "name" in some particular circles?
Perhaps to impress conservatives in her area? Does she plan to stand for local office or something & needs to establish her conservative credentials? Or something ..... ?

1 Reply

I suppose I need to show up here.

But I have to read this turkey first.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Good luck with that, osso! Wink

1 Reply

@msolga,

Thanks. I can be sharp on occasion and also be too busy yawning. I'll add that I don't always agree with myself.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

I never said less than us, but I think you may be missing the base of my point.

Well, yeah you did:

You wrote:

Quote:

I don't view it as switching gears. These fields of work that men work in. There is no prohibition in female welders, or other labor intensive jobs. We drive by a construction site in air-conditioned cars and see dirty men building things and think thank goodness that's not me. The tacit programming here is that these people are less than us, and since the jobs are being mostly filled by men, I worry that we additionally internalize and genderize these observations.

You wrote:

Quote:

In a domestic sense, you're correct, but on the larger scale I disagree. On the level of a society, dirty work and hard labor (including unpaid labor) has fallen on the backs of men through history.

Well, I guess that depends on how you define 'dirty work and hard labor'. I think farmer's wives would beg to differ with your assessment of who has done it. In my opinion, it's probably been pretty evenly divvied up - the dirty work and hard labor - for men it's been called a job and they've gotten a paycheck - for women it's historically been their lot in life.
And I'm not complaining. I'm just observing- women, in their admittedly behind the scene and supporting roles have worked just as hard in building America as men have.
I mean while the farmer was out there plowing the field, what do you think his wife was doing? Polishing the silver? Come on...both my parents were raised on farms in Texas. I KNOW how hard my grandmothers and all the women around them had to work to support those efforts.

You wrote:

Quote:

I do know people who do. I also know people who ignorantly say things that they don't realize are really dehumanizing. I know lots of people who enjoy the comforts of society, but spend precious little time thinking about who puts in the work to maintain it.

I don't. I guess it speaks to the differences in what sort of people you and I are surrounded by on a daily basis.
I don't like snobs. As soon as I ascertain someone is a snob - I distance myself from that person.
There's a guy at my work who said to me in all seriousness, 'I don't dislike poor or black people - I just dislike the way they act.'
After I stopped laughing at how incredibly stupid and unenlightened and blind to his own prejudices he'd just proven himself to be, I've since limited our interaction to 'Hey Pete - how you doin'' 'Yeah - have a good day.'
I don't have much else to say to him seeing as how he can't even hear or interpret what he himself is saying.

You wrote:

Quote:

How many people do you think have your degree of exposure to this kind of information? Certainly this information is part of why you respect the people who drive by in your car working in the rain and mud, right?

Yeah, you're probably right about the fact that I have had more and different exposure to this sort of information that many people have, but in my own life, because I've seen what the people who fulfill these jobs and lend their skills to society add on a practical level to our ability to function on a daily basis - I've ALWAYS valued it.
To me, the person who can build the house from nothing with his or her hands is more amazing than the person who can draw the plans for it on a piece of paper - yeah.
But maybe that's just because I know I could never do it, so I admire those people who can. I don't know.

You asked:

Quote:

Is it possible that people without that kind of perspective might undervalue these people?

See above. But if they do undervalue these people, they're stupid if they want a roof over their head and indoor plumbing and reliable transportation.

You asked:

Quote:

Do you believe many girls spend much time thinking about arc welding? Why shouldn't they?

I think they should if that's where their skills, talents and aptitude and ability leads them.

You asked:

Quote:

What about the girls expectations of the boys. If we are going to talk about gender roles and expectations, we should address how these interactions move in both directions.

I think a positive in terms of girls expectations of boys today as opposed to earlier times is that girls are more conditioned today to know they need to be able to support themselves. There's not so much dependence anymore on the man/husband as breadwinner. I have to say we do seem to have achieved more equality in our perceptions of gender roles in that respect.

You asked:

Quote:

Why should we assume or insist that everything we do is done for the attention of the opposite gender? Is everything I do to impress women? What if I want to impress men or fit in with other men? Isn't it just as plausible that girls act out expectations from inter-gender relationships? Why assume that boys are the cause of "juicy" sweatpants. I've always thought sweats were a weird thing to wear, especially when paired with some Uggs. I don't think this attracts boys as much as it is a peer uniform among girls.

You may be right about this. I hadn't thought it through to that point - but yeah - you may be right.

You asked:

Quote:

Imagine if a man had suggested that women don't do these jobs because of hair and nails?

In some cases, I'd have to agree with him.

You wrote:

Quote:

Outside of the war setting, under other circumstances, if a woman shoots a man and kills him, she's 60% less time come sentencing than if the roles had been reversed. Isn't this a bad standard? Wouldn't a goal of equality be for equal sentencing for crimes committed?

Yes, this is bad practice and not implementation of equal treatment under the law. I don't agree with this at all, and believe it should be changed.
I wrote:

Quote:

I know as a woman, if there's a child in need, it is my job to help that child. If there is a smaller, weaker, older or infirm man or woman in need, I've been taught it's my job to help that person if they need help.

You answered:

Quote:

You know this as a human, not as a human. Wouldn't you agree?

I think you meant to say, 'You know this as a human, not as a woman'.
And yes, ideally that would be true. But I also know as a woman, I have been acculturated to be nurturing and maternal toward children and people in need. In my particular case, it's also instinctive. It's not a duty or an onus that acculterated gender roles have placed upon me, it's a reflex or an instinct. And it is with alot of women - not all - but many.
You wrote:

Quote:

I think we as a society do it to men more than we acknowledge. We've become more sensitive to how we project many stereotypes.

To draw an analogy. White people have exercised some of the most noteworthy acts of racism in the history of our world. That said, racism has never been an exclusively white problem. I think that some sexism is tolerated because we have generalized sexism as a male issue. This has in a social sense made sexism a form a male pathology, and I think that's shallow.

Like I said, I don't relate to most feminist literature and what I read as a sort of separatist manifesto. I don't think much of it is true or productive as a way of thought.
I've never felt victimized having been born a woman. I have always felt lucky. Again, I realize this is because of where and when I was born as well as having had the good luck to be surrounded by people who never devalued or limited me based solely on my gender. I acknowledge this is not the case for many women.
But, all in all, I am glad I was born female. It appears to me to be more stressful and harder to be male with all its attendent expectations. But again, this may just be because I AM female, so I am more comfortable with the expectations that I am familiar with as opposed to what I see as different and less familiar and so less easily achieved and performed expectations of being male in our society.
Interesting subject though - thanks for bringing it up.

1 Reply

Criticism of Feminism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know