Feminism and Gender

[luchog]

The victimization thing I have noticed as well, and it really bothers me.

The other thing that really bothers me is downplaying issues affecting men. Often these issues are trivialized, ignored, or outright mocked. Sometimes when they are acknowledged, it's because they have a negative affect on women.

What really annoys me with the fringe feminists isn't so much the overt misandry; it's the underlying misogyny, one might even say self-hatred, involved in their constant portrayal of women as powerless victims.

 

[slingblade]

Well, in a nutshell, that's what feminism is. It's primary focus is equality in all aspects of life (social, economic, etc.) for all people with no consideration for gender. There are certainly appropriate venues for inappropriate jokes (ha!), but one thing to always consider is that you, Tricky, moderator, are a man, and therefore are in a different set of circumstances than a woman. I'm going to use the P word: you have male privilege (as do I), and it's hard to look past that. It's jarring, even, when it gets pointed out to you.

I crack my knuckles a lot, in the style of pushing down on top of my hand. My wife pointed out to me that when we were first dating, it made her think I was going to hit her, since I would do it while we were talking. I would never dream of harming my wife, but I realize now what it would look like, due to obvious cultural factors.

Also, one final thing: consider the implications of you assuming that feminists want to be treated like men, rather than feminists wanting women and men to be treated equally!

Pretty much the latter half of the highlighted, for me.

I'm not a man. I'll never be a man. I know there are some aspects of life that will never be completely equal between women and men for that reason.

But if Tricky and I are seated at the same workspace, making the same whangdoodler component for the same frazzknocker, I'd be pretty pissed off if we didn't earn the same base wages.

I won't call myself a feminist ever again though. I got my behinder end handed to me in Social Issues for daring to suggest that, and you only have to hit me with that two-by-four once.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Every response you make to one of my posts is aggressive and presumptive. Why the belligerent tone? Why the assumption that I'm disagreeing with you?

And every response of your to a post of mine is a whin(g)e about my tone rather than a address of the content.

Why assume that I am attacking you?

Why assume that I am disagreeing you?

My whole point was that this is due to cultural gender bias (I disagree with the term "patriarchy").

You disagreement with terminology doesn't render the terminology incorrect.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I won't call myself a feminist ever again though. I got my behinder end handed to me in Social Issues for daring to suggest that, and you only have to hit me with that two-by-four once.

Can I call you a feminist, then? You're a feminist.

 

[jiggeryqua]

In my experience, it has. Fortunately, it's been getting better instead of worse overall; at least IME. The transphobic types are becoming more marginalized, as GLBTs in general gain more acceptance overall.

It's perhaps worth noting that while some feminisms (the bad ones we're not supposed to mention ) deride equality, yer actual public (who are largely identifying as 'not feminist') are advancing equality and acceptance at a fair old clip.

 

[jiggeryqua]

You disagreement with terminology doesn't render the terminology incorrect.

And that isn't an argument for the validity of the terminology.

 

[mijopaalmc]

And that isn't an argument for the validity of the terminology.

So far nothing but a personal disagreement with terminology has been presented. Arguments from personal incredulity are by definition fallacious.

 

[jiggeryqua]

So far nothing but a personal disagreement with terminology has been presented. Arguments from personal incredulity are by definition fallacious.

And the fallacy you're using is, I think, ad populum? Because the word is used, it has some validity? You support it, Avalon doesn't, neither of you has said anything useful.

 

[AvalonXQ]

And every response of your to a post of mine is a whin(g)e about my tone rather than a address of the content.

I'll take that as an unwillingness to acknowledge my issues with your posts or attempt to resolve them.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You disagreement with terminology doesn't render the terminology incorrect.

And your assertion of the terminology doesn't render it correct.

The terminology is itself sexist and inaccurate. In some cultures, including the one I grew up in, it is primarily the matriarchs that perpetuate and enforce gender stereotypes. There is nothing particularly "patriarchal" in a society that universally degrades any actions by men or women that buck traditional gender roles.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

And your assertion of the terminology doesn't render it correct.

The terminology is itself sexist and inaccurate. In some cultures, including the one I grew up in, it is primarily the matriarchs that perpetuate and enforce gender stereotypes. There is nothing particularly "patriarchal" in a society that universally degrades any actions by men or women that buck traditional gender roles.

In the modern sense, it's the "traditional gender roles" themselves which are patriarchal, though.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In the modern sense, it's the "traditional gender roles" themselves which are patriarchal, though.

How?

 

[mijopaalmc]

And the fallacy you're using is, I think, ad populum?

Nope, language is inherently social endeavor. I can say that color of the sky is chartreuse with lilac polka dots, but that doesn't mean that other people are going to understand the color of the sky to be chartreuse with lilac polka dots.

Because the word is used, it has some validity?

That's the point of social endeavors. Individuals may have their own personal understandings of concepts, but their personal understanding of concepts won't be understood by the group as a whole if those understandings differ significantly from group understanding.

You support it, Avalon doesn't, neither of you has said anything useful.

Yeah, yeah, AvalonXQ has also been trying to redefine "rape" and "consent", but that doesn't mean AvalonXQ's having non-consensual sex with someone won't lead to a charge and/or conviction for rape.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yeah, yeah, AvalonXQ has also been trying to redefine "rape" and "consent", but that doesn't mean AvalonXQ's having non-consensual sex with someone won't lead to a charge and/or conviction for rape.

Your posts have become intellectually dishonest.

I challenge you to find a single post of mine that attempts to redefine either "rape" or "consent"

I certainly resisted the redefining of "attack" by bookitty, but that's hardly the same thing, is it?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

How?

Well, at least as I understand them, the modern definition of traditional gender roles are the man is the leader/breadwinner of the household and the woman is the mother and house cleaner. Men are leaders in the workplace, women are secretaries, men are soldiers and women are nurses, etc.

 

[mijopaalmc]

And your assertion of the terminology doesn't render it correct.

And 1+1=3 for sufficiently large values of 1.

Redefining terms based on you personal dislike of their meaning renders communication meaningless.

The terminology is itself sexist and inaccurate. In some cultures, including the one I grew up in, it is primarily the matriarchs that perpetuate and enforce gender stereotypes. There is nothing particularly "patriarchal" in a society that universally degrades any actions by men or women that buck traditional gender roles.

And you have just put your finger on one of the fundamental issues in cross-cultural feminism.

But that doesn't mean the terminology developed within cis-cultural feminism is invalid for use within cis-cultural feminism.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Your posts have become intellectually dishonest.

I challenge you to find a single post of mine that attempts to redefine either "rape" or "consent"

I certainly resisted the redefining of "attack" by bookitty, but that's hardly the same thing, is it?

You might want to consider you insistence that a sexual act is not rape is there is no intent to harm the victim.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Well, at least as I understand them, the modern definition of traditional gender roles are the man is the leader/breadwinner of the household and the woman is the mother and house cleaner. Men are leaders in the workplace, women are secretaries, men are soldiers and women are nurses, etc.

Ah, so the "men are leaders" component of that generalizes to "patriarchal".
That's reasonable. My opposition has been that modern application of these roles has mostly eviscerated that element, so the idea of men running things is not usually part of the gender roles I see actively enforced.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Ah, so the "men are leaders" component of that generalizes to "patriarchal".
That's reasonable. My opposition has been that modern application of these roles has mostly eviscerated that element, so the idea of men running things is not usually part of the gender roles I see actively enforced.

That doesn't mean that there isn't still a bias towards perceiving men as leaders.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You might want to consider you insistence that a sexual act is not rape is there is no intent to harm the victim.

I never stated that.

Please go back and read my actual posts, rather than what your prejudices believe they should say.