Feminism and gender roles

[lollipopspot]

<Moderation note - this meta-discussion regarding feminism and gender roles was moved from a thread where it detracted from the personal insight sought so we moved the posts here so a more general discussion can occur>

 

basically I've always hated, despised, loathed, on how strong, tough, life, reality, society, culture, expects of us guys, that's how much I detest gender roles.

 

Then you should read up on and be sympathetic towards radical feminism, because the basis is that gender roles are constructed, and limit both sexes.

Edited August 29, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[johndoe2]

I really resent paying taxes. I would pay, like, none at all if I could do that. But it has to be done.

So your saying the reality of life is that we often have to do things we hate?

Of course it is.

Well, it appears you and I agree on something.

 

Then you should read up on and be sympathetic towards radical feminism, because the basis is that gender roles are constructed, and limit both sexes.

Um, you mean Dworkin? MacKinnon? French? Because I've read plenty of stuff from that camp, asking a man to read up on and be sympathetic to radical feminism seems kinda like asking a Jew to read the works of Alfred Rosenberg and try to sympathize with him. "All men are rapists and that's all they are" doesn't evoke much sympathy from me, nor should it.

[elaine567]

"All men are rapists and that's all they are"

 

Yeah, just choose the most extreme controversial statement possible, keep repeating it, as if it characterises a whole movement and in doing so, dismiss women's fight for true equality completely.

 

Every group has its extremists, women's groups are no different. Changing the norms in society is not easy, there are always those who prefer the way things are, and those who will seek to discredit those who want true equality for women, by citing the extremist sound-bite as if it speaks for the whole movement.

 

With true equality, women would feel comfortable asking men out regularly on dates. Gender constructions would eventually fold and the OP I am sure would be happier in that world, hence Lollipopspot's contention that he investigate feminism.

[lollipopspot]

Um, you mean Dworkin? MacKinnon? French? Because I've read plenty of stuff from that camp, asking a man to read up on and be sympathetic to radical feminism seems kinda like asking a Jew to read the works of Alfred Rosenberg and try to sympathize with him. "All men are rapists and that's all they are" doesn't evoke much sympathy from me, nor should it.

 

No, actually, that's not the correct interpretation.

 

It's about gender roles, and what they do to men and women. Not about essential nature.

 

Interestingly, you actually do think there's something wrong with your essential nature, that you don't fit into the gender stereotype. So you're running around confused and bitter and don't know how to parse it, and you aren't able to understand the argument that actually might help you see more light. Continue on your way, it's certainly working out well for you.

Edited August 29, 2015 by lollipopspot

[johndoe2]

No, actually, that's not the correct interpretation.

For some things, there is no interpretation that is not still abysmal. Radical feminists hate men. An anti-Semite can say that he only hate 'Jewish ideas' (usually in reference to Marx and Engels or maybe Hayek and Friedman) and not Jews per se, and give some nice roundabout interpretation of it. But that doesn't chance what they are. The Dworkins and McKinnons of the world today our just the Otto Weinegers of yesteryear.

 

It's about gender roles, and what they do to men and women. Not about essential nature.

Gender roles are determined by nature, almost in their entirety. This is not to say they are inescapable; quite the opposite, today they are easily escapable, due to technology. But gender roles were determined by biological differences between males and females. Some of these biological differences of course impose themselves on even the most advanced societies though. For example, male and female brains (in rodents as well as primates) are exposed to different hormomes from the uterus to adulthood, influencing the cognitive development and influencing behavioral trends. So no, gender norms are not socially constructed. They were not invented by men to keep women down. They follow from the historical implications of our physical differences. Again, mostly rendered redundant by technological advancement (modern medicine, contraception, and modern industry, etc.).

 

Our mating rituals follow from this as well. In most other complex species males are the initiators; this includes the species we are most closely related to. Unless you believe in kangaroo patriarchy or sea otter patriarchy or bonobo patriarchy, these are, mostly, merely the socio-cultural expression of biological differences. And these ones are, to some extent, inevitable. No matter how much Andrea Dworkin the OP might read, it'll never change the fact that women still prefer men to be the initiators.

 

Interestingly, you actually do think there's something wrong with your essential nature, that you don't fit into the gender stereotype. So you're running around confused and bitter and don't know how to parse it, and you aren't able to understand the argument that actually might help you see more light. Continue on your way, it's certainly working out well for you.

I understand the argument perfectly. It's just wrong.

[johndoe2]

Yeah, just choose the most extreme controversial statement possible, keep repeating it, as if it characterises a whole movement and in doing so, dismiss women's fight for true equality completely.

 

Every group has its extremists, women's groups are no different. Changing the norms in society is not easy, there are always those who prefer the way things are, and those who will seek to discredit those who want true equality for women, by citing the extremist sound-bite as if it speaks for the whole movement.

 

With true equality, women would feel comfortable asking men out regularly on dates. Gender constructions would eventually fold and the OP I am sure would be happier in that world, hence Lollipopspot's contention that he investigate feminism.

1) She specifically suggests he investigate radical feminism. In other words, the extremists.

 

2) Many of the feminists I've known only support equality when it works for them, and oppose it when it doesn't. They tend to have no problem with alimony, conscription, etc. They don't like earning less money, but seem to take no issue with living longer (fin fact: the UN actually considers how much longer women live than men a positive indicator of equality). By and large, the definition of equality employed seems to be Orwellian in nature.

 

There are certainly some egalitarian-minded feminists, the ones like Cathy Young, but it's hard to ignore the fact that most other high-profile feminists tend to hate them.

 

3) This 'changing gender norms' should be a two way street, but is almost never treated as such. I.e., you can't on one hand campaign for more women in high paying jobs while still reinforcing institutions (like alimony and child support) which impose greater financial burden on men, rendering them more in need of higher salaries. You can't make demands on one half of the population to give way for the other half with no reciprocity and expect it to work out.

[johndoe2]

Very, very well said. I had planned on having my own rebuttal to her remarks, but you did a much better job than I would have.

Thank you.

[lollipopspot]

Gender roles are determined by nature, almost in their entirety....

 

I understand the argument perfectly. It's just wrong.

 

No, you really don't understand a thing about it. And it's also one of the few things that could possibly help relieve your feelings of social inferiority about not fitting into your gender role.

 

But I think your interpretation is great, beta. It's clearly making you very happy.

[Woggle]

I support feminism as long as it is truly about equality. I will not support people that hate me. It's just not happening.

[salparadise]

I support feminism as long as it is truly about equality. I will not support people that hate me. It's just not happening.

 

Ditto. Or subscribe wholesale to radical philosophies that paint one gender as victims of the other... see everything in black and white, run around spring loaded for confrontation, attribute evil motives to innocent compliments or gestures.

 

I love evolved, progressive women... but if they're drinking the feminist cool-aid, well, it's just not an attitude that I care to be around. I'm looking for peace and serenity in my life, and a flag-waving, prosthelytizing female is pretty much the opposite of that. No thanks.

[johndoe2]

No, you really don't understand a thing about it. And it's also one of the few things that could possibly help relieve your feelings of social inferiority about not fitting into your gender role.

 

But I think your interpretation is great, beta. It's clearly making you very happy.

Gotta love that a radical feminist is trying to shame a man for being a 'beta male.' You seem to have more in common with PUA/'player'/male chauvinist types than I do. Btw, for future reference, resorting to ad hominem betrays a lack of confidence in the soundness of your position. And the "convert to my ideology or you'll never be happy" isn't any more convincing than the slightly varied "convert or be damned" 'argument' Just a couple rhetorical tips.

[warrenorabbits]

I'm a man and a convinced feminist. A year ago, I was anything but.

 

The reason why I was not a feminist? The extremists. They like to paint all men as hedonistic and oppressive rapists and woman-haters, and they are none too subtle about that view on Facebook and social media.

 

My rule of thumb is this: if you can mentally replace the group being attacked (such as "men") with the word "blacks" in the same sentence and get a statement that's clearly racist, then you're being too general and merely participating in a form of something-ism that happens to be more socially acceptable. Most of the statements I've heard from radical feminists fail this test by a mile. Presuming to know the motives and natures of all men is just as wrong as racism, and for exactly the same reasons.

 

So, for a while, I just tuned the radical feminists (whom I assumed were "regular feminists") on my Facebook wall out and completely blocked feminism from entering my mind. And why wouldn't I, when feminism seemed to just be one giant, insulting, over-general attack on my entire half of humanity?

 

The turning point for me was the NYC "catcalling" video and the reaction to it. The video didn't talk down to me and didn't generalize -- it just showed me. It made two things much more visceral: (1) the fact that women are not treated with equal respect and (2) the fact that, in most public settings, they have to be much more careful than a man would have to be in the same setting. Both these facts really offended my sense of justice. Most importantly and generally, after discussing the video with some of my female relatives and friends, I came to the conclusion that feminism is really just a move to educate society about those and similar inequalities, and to try to erase them.

 

I couldn't let radicals turn me off to such a good cause, any more than I could let an Israeli terrorist organization turn me anti-Semitic.

 

My advice is to just ignore the radicals. They're set in their ways, reading their views will just make you angry and bitter, and you probably can't do anything to convince them that they are wrong. Some of them, unfortunately, may have been victims of sexual violence and so the subject may be sensitive. Instead, just talk to women you know, many (if not all) of whom probably have stories about unequal treatment. Even my most conservative older aunts, whom you'd think least likely to be feminist, volunteered with a lot of pain that they had recently been sexually harassed on the street even as it was clear that they were married. Let humanity, not a hashtag, define your view.

Edited August 29, 2015 by warrenorabbits

[toolforgrowth]

Gotta love that a radical feminist is trying to shame a man for being a 'beta male.' You seem to have more in common with PUA/'player'/male chauvinist types than I do. Btw, for future reference, resorting to ad hominem betrays a lack of confidence in the soundness of your position. And the "convert to my ideology or you'll never be happy" isn't any more convincing than the slightly varied "convert or be damned" 'argument' Just a couple rhetorical tips.

 

That behavior is one of the main reasons why I turned in my feminist card. I used to be a male feminist, but third wave pushed me away for good. Fine with me, I'm not the one losing out.

 

Women need the male vote to advance their interests. Disenfranchising them only hurts their movement.

 

I see far more men standing up to feminism today than when I was in college seventeen years ago. It's pretty awesome to see.

 

Feminism has made more men eschew marriage than anything else in modern history. I have no incentive to marry and procreate; I have no rights in those situations. So I got the snip and refuse to marry again.

 

On the flip side, feminism has done some pretty good things. I agree that women are capable and independent. That means I don't have to pay for them or go out of my way. I agree that they're perfectly capable of doing those things on their own. They don't need my money and resources. That has a direct benefit on my bottom line.

 

Feminism has priced women out of the market. They've inflated the value they bring to relationships. When something costs too much to be worth acquiring, then people simply stop buying it.

[johndoe2]

The turning point for me was the NYC "catcalling" video and the reaction to it. The video didn't talk down to me and didn't generalize -- it just showed me. It made two things much more visceral: (1) the fact that women are not treated with equal respect and (2) the fact that, in most public settings, they have to be much more careful than a man would have to be in the same setting. Both these facts really offended my sense of justice. Most importantly and generally, after discussing the video with some of my female relatives and friends, I came to the conclusion that feminism is really just a move to educate society about those and similar inequalities, and to try to erase them.

 

I couldn't let radicals turn me off to such a good cause, any more than I could let an Israeli terrorist organization turn me anti-Semitic.

.

So, you equate not being a feminist to being anti-woman?

 

And I don't doubt that many feminist groups do things to help women. But if a Slavic nationalist group does things to help Slavs, how does that convince me that Slavic nationalists want equality between Slavs and other peoples?

 

What do you make of the fact that groups like the NOW actively oppose equality in custody settlements between men and women? How many feminists do you know have ever thought of seeking to abolish conscription or make it gender neutral? How many feminists who live to complain about the income gap that exists between men and women also complain about the life expectancy gap or the suicide gap?

 

So as I see it, most publicly visible feminists (call them 'radical' if you want, they seem to be accepted as mainstream) seem to seek equality only when it's beneficial to their own kind, and often actively oppose it when it isn't. It has never looked to me like egalitarian movement, but rather a sort of gender nationalist movement.

 

If a Croat goes to the negotiating table and the mediator self-identifies as a Serbianist, but insists that Serbianists only want equality between Serbs and Croats, the Croat would be right to be suspicious. And unfortunately I think that's the way things have played out. Abstract declarations of support for equality don't cancel out particular instances of not supporting it or opposing it. Anyone can say "I'm not a racist", doesn't actually say whether or not they are.

[autumnnight]

True feminism was supposed to be about giving women choices. The modern, radical feminists will deride any woman who doesn't make "the right" choices. Want to see a radical feminist's venom come out? Ask them what they think of a SAHM who respects her husband...

[Maleficent]

My problem with people turning away from feminism because of radical feminism is that there is less leverage for the feminism that actually fights for equality.

 

This just makes the radicals more powerfull with less people calling out their bull****.

 

That's why I'm still a feminist - but I still call out exagerations from radicals.

 

I don't think not being a feminist or even being anti-feminist makes you anti-woman. The same way me being anti-MRA doesnt make me a man hater...

[Maleficent]

True feminism was supposed to be about giving women choices. The modern, radical feminists will deride any woman who doesn't make "the right" choices. Want to see a radical feminist's venom come out? Ask them what they think of a SAHM who respects her husband...

 

Isn't there a Family Guy episode about that?

?

[Woggle]

My problem with people turning away from feminism because of radical feminism is that there is less leverage for the feminism that actually fights for equality.

 

This just makes the radicals more powerfull with less people calling out their bull****.

 

That's why I'm still a feminist - but I still call out exagerations from radicals.

 

I don't think not being a feminist or even being anti-feminist makes you anti-woman. The same way me being anti-MRA doesnt make me a man hater...

 

If more feminists called out the extremists it wouldn't have become a dirty word to so many.

[BronzeAgeJaeger217]

For some things, there is no interpretation that is not still abysmal. Radical feminists hate men. An anti-Semite can say that he only hate 'Jewish ideas' (usually in reference to Marx and Engels or maybe Hayek and Friedman) and not Jews per se, and give some nice roundabout interpretation of it. But that doesn't chance what they are. The Dworkins and McKinnons of the world today our just the Otto Weinegers of yesteryear.

 

 

Gender roles are determined by nature, almost in their entirety. This is not to say they are inescapable; quite the opposite, today they are easily escapable, due to technology. But gender roles were determined by biological differences between males and females. Some of these biological differences of course impose themselves on even the most advanced societies though. For example, male and female brains (in rodents as well as primates) are exposed to different hormomes from the uterus to adulthood, influencing the cognitive development and influencing behavioral trends. So no, gender norms are not socially constructed. They were not invented by men to keep women down. They follow from the historical implications of our physical differences. Again, mostly rendered redundant by technological advancement (modern medicine, contraception, and modern industry, etc.).

 

Our mating rituals follow from this as well. In most other complex species males are the initiators; this includes the species we are most closely related to. Unless you believe in kangaroo patriarchy or sea otter patriarchy or bonobo patriarchy, these are, mostly, merely the socio-cultural expression of biological differences. And these ones are, to some extent, inevitable. No matter how much Andrea Dworkin the OP might read, it'll never change the fact that women still prefer men to be the initiators.

 

 

I understand the argument perfectly. It's just wrong.

 

So in all species of animals the male is the initiator? Makes me wonder if the links I read were not accurate

[elaine567]

My problem with people turning away from feminism because of radical feminism is that there is less leverage for the feminism that actually fights for equality.

 

This just makes the radicals more powerfull with less people calling out their bull****.

 

That's why I'm still a feminist - but I still call out exagerations from radicals.

 

True equality for women doesn't suit many people, it still challenges the norm, it makes them feel uncomfortable.

People like to be comfortable, if they grew up with traditional gender roles or as we have now, slightly modified traditional gender roles, they therefore will defend them in any way possible.

Both men and women will defend the norm in the face of change.

Humans in general tend not to like change.

Feminism has changed how women are viewed, it has made massive leaps forward, but there is still a very long way to go. Civilised nations, when it was pointed out to them, realised that treating women like chattels and slaves was not "right", but now we are in a different phase.

I believe that feminism is experiencing a back lash, because true equality necessarily involves the ceding of male power, and that is a huge thing. The powers that be, do like that, men in general do not like that, some women happy in their self appointed roles do no like that either. Feminism rocks the boat, and some people are just happier under the decks manning the oars, than up on deck steering the ship. Women to gain true equality will have to be allowed to steer the ship and man the oars.

 

Women in the workplace great, but when those women then press for true equality, there it becomes messy, it becomes frightening, it becomes costly and big business do not like that. Fine when women were a cheap, flexible, labour source, but they now want real equality??!!! Panic.

Thus the propaganda machine comes into force and "feminism" is a dirty word, it needs quashed, it needs weakened. True equality is very scary for those who happen to like their male privilege.

"We went so far to appease them, we are NOT going any further..."

[madjac74]

By radical feminism do you mean you guys will actually put the toilet seat up rather than stand there and cry and point at it wondering why you have to put it down?

[Maleficent]

If more feminists called out the extremists it wouldn't have become a dirty word to so many.

 

A lot of feminists are calling out the extremist. But anti-feminists have their heads so far up their butts whenever the word feminism is uttered that they don't see it.

[mrldii]

By radical feminism do you mean you guys will actually put the toilet seat up rather than stand there and cry and point at it wondering why you have to put it down?

 

Nahhhh...Proper Toilet Seat positioning has nothing to do with equality; it's based in common courtesy.

 

An 'up' positioned toilet seat in the middle of night means I have to grow a substantially larger *ss to not fall through and end up soaking wet; a 'down' positioned toilet seat in the middle of the night only causes a problem for those men who are more than 12" in circumference.

 

 

 

Seeeee? It's a logical *issue*, not an emotional one.

[Maleficent]

True equality for women doesn't suit many people, it still challenges the norm, it makes them feel uncomfortable.

People like to be comfortable, if they grew up with traditional gender roles or as we have now, slightly modified traditional gender roles, they therefore will defend them in any way possible.

Both men and women will defend the norm in the face of change.

Humans in general tend not to like change.

Feminism has changed how women are viewed, it has made massive leaps forward, but there is still a very long way to go. Civilised nations, when it was pointed out to them, realised that treating women like chattels and slaves was not "right", but now we are in a different phase.

I believe that feminism is experiencing a back lash, because true equality necessarily involves the ceding of male power, and that is a huge thing. The powers that be, do like that, men in general do not like that, some women happy in their self appointed roles do no like that either. Feminism rocks the boat, and some people are just happier under the decks manning the oars, than up on deck steering the ship. Women to gain true equality will have to be allowed to steer the ship and man the oars.

 

Women in the workplace great, but when those women then press for true equality, there it becomes messy, it becomes frightening, it becomes costly and big business do not like that. Fine when women were a cheap, flexible, labour source, but they now want real equality??!!! Panic.

Thus the propaganda machine comes into force and "feminism" is a dirty word, it needs quashed, it needs weakened. True equality is very scary for those who happen to like their male privilege.

"We went so far to appease them, we are NOT going any further..."

 

I agree with all of this but stuff like 'all men are rapists' needs to be called out.

 

But to be honest, no one I know has been able to justify anti-feminism with anything other than radical feminism. It kind of feels like they know being anti-feminism is being anti-women but they also know it's wrong so they look for justifications we can't argue against.

 

And as much as you are trying to make them understand the difference between radical and actual feminism, the more they cover their ears and go 'lalalalalalalalalalal!'

 

To be honest, I've sort of given up on that fight. I just stay away from these men and surround myself with the ones who understand the difference. And this brings me back to my first post: feminism has less support so the radicals are stronger)

 

I'm not making a gross generalization here - I'm just telling how it is in my 'entourage'

[autumnnight]

I've never met anyone who actually doesn't believe in equality for the genders. I know people who believe men and women are different (as do I). Put people who actually want women to be "less"? Nope.