User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 26

  1. #1
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default But what about the men?

    This is a long but interesting read, if you're interested in gender-related issues.

    Book chapter: But what about the men?

    The title of this book is based on a well-worn trope in the feminist community, “what about teh menz?” It’s a dismissive trope, and has come into being with good reason. In many feminist spaces, most particularly on the internet, it is difficult to establish a decent dialogue about women’s issues without various men intruding, insisting that circumcision rates in the U.S. must be addressed instead of the issue of female genital mutilation in Africa, insisting that male rape victims must be discussed instead of female rape victims. These persistent conversation-derailers have succeeded in making a bad name for themselves, and given rise to the “what about teh menz?” trope as a boilerplate dismissal of these tired distractions from the addressing of women’s issues that is the raison d’être of most feminist communities.

    There’s a problem with that, though. Once the dismissal is done and the conversation is dragged forcibly back onto the rails… what about the men?
    more excerpts:

    We live in a sexist society, one where gender programming starts at birth (though the advent of the sonogram has allowed parents to get a head start by painting the nursery pink or blue and stocking up in advance on gendered toys and clothes) and is so pervasive as to be inescapable. Feminism has done an excellent job analyzing and challenging the ways that these assigned and enforced gender roles damage and deform the lives of women. The same tools of analysis can be applied to the damage and deformation that men suffer. And that damage, sad to say, is severe.
    Men who do not fit the box of hegemonic masculinity get all kinds of stigmatized. For instance, consider men who want to help raise their children. Stay-at-home dads and men on the “mommy track” often face disapproval and the belief that they “laze around all day” or “aren’t real men.” In public, men are all too often patronized as “Mr. Mom” or treated as though it’s exceptional and startling that they want to spend time with their children; it’s depressingly common for men openly interested in childcare to be called pedophiles.
    The problem of gendered, sexist expectations of men is enormous, and deeply ingrained into the culture. How are we to even begin dismantling such profoundly entrenched and damaging ideas? By using the same skills and tools that have worked before.
    Feminism tends to focus on women[....]Then, too, many feminists have done excellent work in dealing with men’s problems. Stronger rape laws and paternity leave are just two of the benefits men have received because of feminism[...]However, this valuable work has just made the problem clearer by highlighting how much more needs to be done. Freedom is not a zero-sum game. Liberating men from restrictive gender roles and gendered oppression is intrinsically bound up with liberating women from the same things.
    Many men get a bad first impression of feminism from zealous young feminists who, regardless of their intentions, alienate the heck out of men. Some of those men will later see the nuance that they initially missed and come to understand the value of feminist thinking. Many, perhaps most, will not. This is not a net win for feminism. Most feminist spaces, online and in the real world, are not particularly welcoming to men. Even given that there are often good reasons for that, how many men have been lost to gender egalitarianism forever because they didn’t put in the extra effort to overcome that perceived hostility, or because they had already had their bad first impressions cemented and were not willing to change their minds? What might have been accomplished by not chasing away so many potential allies?
    Ultimately, however, there’s another reason why feminism needs men[...]it is impossible for feminism to accomplish its goals without men; liberating any gender requires liberating all genders.[...]Generally speaking, any stereotype or assumption about women carries with it an implicit stereotype or assumption about men, and vice versa.[...]
    Men are all slobs… women should be keeping house.
    Men always want sex… women never want sex.
    Men don’t cry… women are hysterical.
    Women are expected to know how to take care of children… men can’t be expected to even know how to change a diaper.
    Women are only valuable for their looks… men are all shallow.
    Women are all gold-diggers… men are only valuable for their success and money.
    [...]Misandry mirrors misogyny.
    misandry and misogyny are inherently linked: if you eliminate one without the other, it will only mutate into a new sexist form. For instance, “the second shift” is when women who work outside the home come home and still do a disproportionate amount of the chores. It’s the classic consequence of liberating women so they can work outside the home without having their femininity questioned, but not liberating men so they can lift up a dishrag without having their masculinity questioned. By not liberating men, feminism traps women in a sexist situation that is little, if any, improvement.
    The thing about the kyriarchy is that there aren’t a bunch of people in a shadowy headquarters, twirling their mustaches as they plot how to best use their Oppression Beams and Discrimination Rays to cause misery and suffering on earth. It would be easier if there were, because we could blow up their headquarters, make a wry quip, and roll the closing credits on social injustice. Instead, the kyriarchy is made up of real people, some of whom are saints and some of whom are bastards and most of whom are just muddling through as best they can. The kind of people that love their families and give to charity and foster kittens and sometimes get angry at drivers who don’t know how to use turn signals. Ordinary people. And it’s those people who are perpetuating the kyriarchy, the sick system that oppresses all of us.

    Unlearning your kyriarchal conditioning is a process. Nobody is as good as we deep down know we ought to be: you, us, Mother Teresa, famous people who write about feminism for big-name print magazines, everyone messes up. The point is to learn to do it less. As Samuel Beckett once said, “Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
    I thought this was an interesting read not because it was particularly revolutionary (many of the ideas here have been brought up numerous times by feminists and otherwise, both here and elsewhere) but because it's a fairly well-written exploration of the issues that (imo) doesn't seek to demonize feminism, women, or men.

    It might be interesting to some of of you, particularly some of the men here who have very strong opinions about how "feminism" relates to men. It was written by two men, not "feminists", in case that information helps you process it in a more neutral way.

    Thoughts?

    (if someone posted this already and I missed it, let me know and my apologies)
    -end of thread-

  2. #2
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    I for one appreciate this. I know women still have significant issues to overcome and I don't like to be a dick, but all too often there's just this pervasive feeling that "we" are wrong and "we" are the ones who need to make all the change. Putting men into an "other" category IS alienating. I for one feel a sense of strong personal responsibility for my actions in general. So, when people give me flak I try to look at myself and evaluate my actions impartially and see how they can be interpreted. Oftentimes, I just cease to care if the other person is unwilling to do the same. To me, that is classic victimization WHICH PERPETUATES THE STEREOTYPE and blames everything on an outside force (in this case often men) rather than trying to build -connection- and relating your experiences in a way that leads to mutual sympathy, kindness, forgiveness, and healing. I mean, let's be honest. All of us have had bad experiences with the "opposite" gender. That's just a part of life.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  3. #3
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    These are good points, but I wish speakers on gender issues would be more clear as to their personal motivations for being part of the movement. The high-level goals like "liberation" or the "end of oppression" are nice rhetorical techniques, but they allow far too much space for the readers to project their own meanings onto the words. A statement of concrete goals would allow readers to determine the nature of those high-level purposes, along with allowing for a clearer determination of whether a writer's views correlate with one's own.

    For example, bell hooks wrote about how second-wave feminists of all classes and races worked together for the "empowerment of women." What people realized too late was that while lower and working-class women, along with women of color, were fighting for empowerment as the elimination of social disadvantage and economic and social equivalence of all men and women, upper-middle class women were tending to fight for empowerment as the elimination of barriers to women holding positions of power in the existing hierarchy. Once the latter had been accomplished, those women shifted toward the entrenchment of their own new-found power, while neglecting the issues important to people of other classes and races.

  4. #4
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    @onemoretime - yeah, it's hard to really get a sense of what the authors are suggesting. They do a good job laying out the issues but are very vague about how we should be "Unlearning [our] kyriarchal conditioning". Based on the article, it seems to me that they are advocating for:

    1) personal efforts to avoid...condoning (?) gender stereotypes (man or woman, good or bad) as much as possible in our everyday lives

    2) for either feminists to be more aware of problems for men, or for "masculism" to take off as a movement advocating for men's rights that doesn't rely on "evil feminists are trying to make women dominant, we must fight them!" kind of reasoning. Seems like they're aiming more for the first one, or maybe both.
    -end of thread-

  5. #5
    Senior Member tinker683's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    @onemoretime 2) for either feminists to be more aware of problems for men, or for "masculism" to take off as a movement advocating for men's rights that doesn't rely on "evil feminists are trying to make women dominant, we must fight them!" kind of reasoning. Seems like they're aiming more for the first one, or maybe both.
    I should hope for the former and not the latter. The latter often tends to produce a shit load more conflict from what I've seen.
    "The man who is swimming against the stream knows the strength of it."
    ― Woodrow Wilson

  6. #6
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    My thoughts:

    There are certain actions that men do more than women, generally. There are certain motivators men have that women don't, again, generally. Differences exist, this is just reality.

    There are two spheres of western life, private and public. Ideally, as recognized by public systems, any two people should be considered equal. Privately, it should be up to the individuals. This is my problem with feminism, it attempts to influence the private sphere. Or rather, my problems with feminism only come when I percieve it to be over stepping its bounds.

    Publicly, it's like, well duh....

    As for the recent trend for the "slight domestication of men", what it comes down to is two people creating a situation that works for them. If two people see it to their advantage to take on relationship roles contrary to current standards, then that's on them..you wish them luck in life, you move on.

  7. #7
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    I don't know how I feel about this.


    On one hand, the non-genderization of society pretty much undermines a billion year's worth of work.

    On the other, society is becoming non-gendered.


    I guess I don't feel anything. It's just gonna... happen.

  8. #8
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    @onemoretime - yeah, it's hard to really get a sense of what the authors are suggesting. They do a good job laying out the issues but are very vague about how we should be "Unlearning [our] kyriarchal conditioning". Based on the article, it seems to me that they are advocating for:

    1) personal efforts to avoid...condoning (?) gender stereotypes (man or woman, good or bad) as much as possible in our everyday lives

    2) for either feminists to be more aware of problems for men, or for "masculism" to take off as a movement advocating for men's rights that doesn't rely on "evil feminists are trying to make women dominant, we must fight them!" kind of reasoning. Seems like they're aiming more for the first one, or maybe both.
    Those are still too vague for my preferences. The first requires merely a change in personal attitude. The second either demands something of a group that it has no requirement to provide, or the creation of a group that has no specific goals.

  9. #9
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Those are still too vague for my preferences. The first requires merely a change in personal attitude. The second either demands something of a group that it has no requirement to provide, or the creation of a group that has no specific goals.
    What would you like to see happen?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  10. #10
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    What would you like to see happen?
    On their part, or generally?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-27-2014, 10:54 PM
  2. What about the reaction against X Box?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 05:28 PM
  3. What about the four last functions?
    By Tamske in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-13-2009, 07:43 PM
  4. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO