I have a problem with Feminism

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Beamers, I'm not going to call you a misogynistic pig, but I daresay you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

I have a chip on my shoulder too, when it comes to this topic. Why? Because I'm a straight man who is, and has always been, right in the middle of the gender spectrum. I have very well-developed masculine and feminine sides, that is. It's who I am -- it's in my bones, it's in my biology. Growing up in a small remote town, I copped a lot of shit for it. Somehow in the minds of conservative Americans, it's OK for a woman to be very gender-balanced, but not a man. That's NOT immutable biology -- that's a societal bias from a bygone agrarian era. I did not see nearly the same double-standard in other cultures I've experienced -- China and Thailand are two places where it's perfectly fine for a straight man to be in touch with his feminine side, IME; his masculinity hangs ONLY on his ability to make money and be a consistent provider.

Since growing up, I've gone from the deepest pits of self-hatred to now being very proud of who I am in this regard. Being very gender-balanced has been nothing but a boon for me, both professionally (healthcare) and socially (mostly bohemian, liberal progressive types). I'm able to be a husband who not only works hard and provides for his wife, but acually (gasp) communicates with her and shares her interests! I don't envy oafish dudes with big male egos -- in my experience they get themselves into more troublesome situations in life, and tend to have a much harder time with the whole marriage and close friendship things.

Just because a man is sensitive does not mean he's a coward or a weakling. It just means he's very very aware of vibes, and doesn't write off his feelings and intuitions as pure flimflam. Try being a judge, or a psychologist, a family physician, or a journalist, without being sensitive, and I almost guarantee you'll be a middling one. These are all male-dominated, highly respected professions.

I fail to see in what way being sensitive or emotionally passionate automatically precludes a man from being a fine protector and provider. Being masculine and tough is a matter of how a man ACTS on his feelings, not how strongly he feels them or whether or not he lets himself feel them.

The Sensitive New Age Guy was a media fad that never touched all levels of society. I grew up in the 90s, and I never saw any shortage of macho men and women who preferred them. Now that I think about it, the SNAG never really went away as a media fad. It's now called emo.

Being who I am, on principle I really can't not support women who have, and want to exercise, a well-developed masculine side. My wife is like this, and she's still damn feminine and sexy when it's time for that.

 

[Rogue Robot]

i do have to agree with MDAO, but beamers, if you're going to have a discussion, please do not just include material to back up only your belief (or whatever you wish to call it) that men and women are genetically coded to do xyz and doing anything out of that is breaking the social norm, because it's not.

humans prefer different types of humans. as MDAO said, he loves his wife who has a well-developed masculine side, much like myself, but she knows, and i know, when to put that down and be feminine and sexy. i think the same applies in the other direction. we have evolved past neanderthal communication and behavior, correct?

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^^^ Correct. I have definitely learned (in some instances the hard way), when it's time to 'be a man about it'.

I agree with the macho men that being a 'real man' involves being able to take pain. But this is a matter of daring to do the right thing when it isn't nearly the most convenient or pleasant thing to do. Doing painful or unpleasant things for no other reason than to show other men you're 'hard' is missing the point; that's just being a showoff, and showing off is for the insecure and the stupid.

One of evolutionary psychology's drawbacks is that it's very past-oriented. It's no guide to what we should be aiming for in the present and future. It DOES show us what we've got to work with, to a large extent, and that's one of its strengths. But it's all to easy to commit the fallacy of using EP to justify conservative or even reactionary agendas. Let's not forget that evolution is still happening; we're still adapting as a species to a changing (nay, RAPIDLY changing) environment, by celebrating and supporting those groups and individuals who thrive the best under new environmental challenges. I say that in today's world, one of these newly well-adapted groups is definitely people who sport reduced sexual dimorphism in their behavior. But that's not to say more 'traditionally' gendered individuals don't still have their place either. Horses for courses. Why hate?

Let's not forget about emergence either. Properties of groups / populations are a completely different ballgame from properties of individuals. I'm not saying you confused the two, beamers and yougene. I just feel that in any discussion of human behavior and tendencies, this warning is warranted. Simply put, there's nothing inherently wrong with running to the beat of a different drummer than most.

Finally, let's not forget that there's someone for everyone and some livelihood for everyone, the world's most feminine man and the world's most masculine woman nonwithstanding.

Oh, and beamers, can you cite a source for the theory you demolish being foundational to feminism? I wasn't aware that all feminist theorists necessarily start from the premise that gender is a predominantly social construct.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Ah, I see, beamers. You and I are not in dispute on this. Thanks for clarifying.

I really do think a lot of modern-day feminazis are womyn who are on a crusade because they've been treated badly or belittled or discriminated against simply because of their sex. This is unfortunate, but I think a lot of them don't choose their battles wisely. Vindictive is vindictive, no matter how well one dresses it up.

I encourage any women who feel like reliving the 'golden age' civil rights era of feminism to get involved in the struggles of women in parts of the world where they're REALLY opressed, the worst of which are not in the West.

 

[Rogue Robot]

I really do think a lot of modern-day feminazis are womyn who are on a crusade because they've been treated badly or belittled or discriminated against simply because of their sex. This is unfortunate, but I think a lot of them don't choose their battles wisely. Vindictive is vindictive, no matter how well one dresses it up.

One of my very close friends is what many would describe as your typical angry dyke feminazi. I seldom agree with many of her views with what she does, but it's gotten to the point of "to each their own" between us.

I think you've hit the nail on the head by saying many, but not all, don't choose their battles wisely.

It's really irritating to me when I go into a new gender/women's studies class that focuses on the history and continuation of feminism, and professors and students find out my major (soil geology). I'm often asked if I feel like I've been mistreated in my department and that I should change my major. To me, changing my major would be one of those instances where I SHOULDN'T change it because of fighting the patriarchy and yadda yadda. I do what I like, and I happen to like studying dirt, which is typically a man's field. I don't feel oppressed because this is something I chose to do.

All in all, different people take feminism to varying degrees, and it's always going to be that way.

 

[ebola?]

Okkk, I am really trying to understand, not just rail against Feminists

My apologies. I can zoom into polemic-mode needlessly.

GENERALALLY, I believe that many behaviours that that men and women display are the result of our genetic heritage rather than being culturally imposed.

On what grounds do you make this generalization?

I think Men are naturally more aggressive and woman more maternal ON AVERAGE. Yet this seems to be something that feminists reject. To what sence then does mainstream feminism believe that our genetics define our behaviour?

I don't think that feminism, within the mainstream or otherwise, is uniform on this issue.

To be explicit, I don't think that it is epistemologically sound to think of culture and biology in this way, that is additively, nor does it make sense to ask whether genes or environment do "more". I find it more useful to think of genes and environment as mutually constitutive or in reciprocal interaction. Genes alone don't do ANYTHING. Any set of genetic material depends on an environment to be set in motion, and different environments can lead the same set of genes to effect different consequences. Similarly, the environment as we know it would not exist without genetically driven organisms, and varying sets of genes can lead similar environments to have different consequences for their organisms.

Culture and biology can be similarly conceptualized.

So all this said, I think that there are likely some sex-linked genetic effects that cause relatively uniform effects in disparate environments. I will never bear children, nor will I readily lactate without a bunch of rigamarole. However, most of the interesting action takes place in the culture-biology interaction.

I have talked before at length with some pro feminist people about this bringing up the different roles and behaviors of the differing sex in animals and all they reply is that 'we are more evolved than animals and we have control over our drives' Which I personally believe is a furphy based on the irrational actions of people every day and the generally fucked up state of the world.

I don't really get your last sentence here. Anyway, this is not really how I'd answer the question; rather, I would look to how cultural variation interfaces with biology in varying ways, throughout human history, the globe, and personal developmental trajectories.

I would also like your take on the link I posted in my original post please Ebola.
Thanks

I would like some additional context. What do you think that this example says about your perspective?

But just because we can change gender roles, doesn't necessarily mean we should. From a strictly utilitarian (and stereotypically male) POV, feminism seeks to despecialise our roles and leave us weaker as functioning couples for the real or perceived inequality between the sexes.

I disagree. I think that feminism seeks to create space for INCREASED specialization, tailored to unique individuals, not cookie-cutter gender-roles.

Beamers:

Our brains are clearly sexed and develop differently, we are only just leanring the exact role testosterone plays in the development of the male brain, there is significant sexual dimorphism in humans.

I still think that this isn't properly conceptualized. The consequences of increased testosterone, and indeed whether it will lead to increased aggressiveness or what kind of aggressiveness, are mediated by cultural practice. What more, non-hormonal factors can influence hormonal expression.

Feminism's greatest lie is that gender and gender roles are just societal constructs, WRONG, they are inherently biological, deeply rooted in our genes and hormones. Our environment cannot easily override that fact, but our genes and hormones can.

1. You are replying to a straw man of your own designs.
2. On what grounds do you argue that biology can override social practice but not vice versa?

At 18 months old males and females already show vast differences in their behaviour that we cannot simply pin on "environment" or "social conditioning", for example when 18 month old children were separated from their parents by a small barrier, the typical male response was to cry, but also to break down the barrier, the typical female response was to just cry and make no attempt at breaking the barrier.

At 18 months, humans have already been exposed to a great deal of socialization. Empirical studies have confirmed that parents treat children of each gender differently from the beginning.

Another feminist lie, this whole "civilisation" thing is only a temporary fascade, you see the nature of our animal drives creeping into our "civilised" behaviour all the time, just pick up any local newspaper.

Hah. I think that this "civilization" thing is here to stay, even if advanced technology falls by the wayside. "Even" paleolithic humans show cultural variety.

I do base my beliefs in the evidence and evolutionary psychology does feminism's insistence that gender roles are merely constructs no favours.

Nonetheless, PC or not, I don't think that this justifies ignoring additional data from other disciplines of psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. Particularly since evolutionary psychology is the least justified empirically.

you will find and there's no shame in men acting like men and women acting like women.

However, there is also no shame in men who act like women and vice versa.

Are the men in your society (I don't know where you live) and in your life really out just to keep you down? Are things really that bad for you?
Has there been any reconciliation between the sexes?

Is this what most contemporary feminists are arguing?
...
I think that MDAO's posts here are well done.

ebola

 

[lifeguardsleeps]

From my understanding, and I have tried really hard to understand, Feminism is the theory that men and women are exactly alike and that socialization is what accounts for the difference in the sexs.

some feminists do believe that, but that belief has been discredited. now a days i dont think most feminists believe that. we believe that while men and women have biological differences women still deserve to be treated equally to men. it might seem like that is what we are saying because we are pointing out that a lot of things said about women being biologically inferior are wrong. we are saying women are not biologically inferior they are just biologically different and have gotten oppressed a lot based on it and that is wrong.

One, Men being aggressive and getting into fights at the pub etc, socialisation to be masculine dickheads? Maybe, or maybe it has something to do with Testosterone, a steroid hormone. What happens when bodybuilders start boosting up their testosterone, I dunno, things like Roid rage. Give a woman the same hormones and you will see similar aggressive behaviour. Thats not socialization.

in our society it is seen as a good thing for a man to be agressive and win physical fights with other men to show he is physically stronger than them. even if a man and a woman both were on steroids and got agressive because of it, the man's agression would be seen as more socially acceptable and the woman's agression would be seen as less socially acceptable. i dont know if men are naturally more agressive because of hormones, but i do know that being agressive is more valued in men than it is in women, so that leads to men feeling that it is okay to be agressive and women trying to stifle their agression.

It seems to me ridiculus that even in just the past 100,000 years of evolution that the different daily tasks of living for the diferent sexs, ie hunting or cooking/gathering hasnt had an effect on our respective biologys yet I have been abused by militant feminist Nazis for suggesting that woman and men are equal but different. Nothing more, nothing less.

if you feel attacked by feminism, it is probably a counter attack.

but anyways. there arent many good records about what was going on in the cave man days, and i believe that men have interpreted history in a way that favors them and makes it seem like men were always dominant. we do not know what gender roles were like back then. it has been suggested that back in that time women were more valued than men in society.

Am I missing something? Is there something I dont get? Have I got the concept behind feminism wrong?

Yes.

 

[lifeguardsleeps]

It's then quite funny to use the term 'feminism', i.e. only mentioning one side of the coin. Egalitarianism is a much better term.

I like to say feminism, because women are the ones getting oppressed who need to achieve equality. i think we should be 'only mentioning one side of the coin' because males are the dominant group and dont need to achieve equality.

Right on, and before anyone brings up stats on disparity let us not forget that we still aren't doing equal jobs. Men die or are injured in the workplace at a rate that far outpaces women. I also get the impression that women expect all the nice clean white collar jobs. They don't realise that equality means there are some really shitty jobs out there that men do. I guess some appreciation and acknowledgement of that would be nice.

a lot of women get discriminated out of physical labor type jobs because people assume they are not as strong as men. i work at a grocery store and all the girls get put on cashier and 90% of the stockers are boys. i know this isnt as dangerous as say firefighter or coal miner, but i dont know if they are assuming we dont want to be on stock because we want a nice clean pink collar job... where you are on your feet all day and have no chance to move up. a lot of girls on cashier want to be on stock and are as strong as the boys, but they always make us be cashier. so stop assuming we dont want physical jobs. a lot of us do but we are kept out of them.

to me equality doesnt mean we have to take a physical job such as coal miner, but that we have the choice to take it, just like men dont have to be coal miners, but they can be if they want to, and right now there is still a lot of discrimination standing in the way of that.

I really think that in western liberal democracies we've come a long way. A lot of western nations now have had female heads of the country and higher positions in Government, if they can do it, so can any female that wants too.

just because some females are getting a head doesnt mean this is the reality for most females. we still face a lot of discrimination. maybe you dont notice your priviledge because you are male and take it for granted. http://colours.mahost.org/org/maleprivilege.html

a) things really aren't that bad for women in western liberal democracies and

how the fuck would you know?

b) there are enough places in society where men are also disadvantaged or discriminated against.

patriarchy hurts men too. that doesnt mean they are the oppressed gender.

Please remember this is 2008 and not the 60's. Sure there may still be room for improvement, but it's good to keep a level perspective.

how the fuck would you know? you dont face sexism in your every day life like i do. it is probably so invisible and normal to you that you dont even notice.

 

[neonads]

I disagree. I think that feminism seeks to create space for INCREASED specialization, tailored to unique individuals, not cookie-cutter gender-roles.

This is true, but my original statement still stands. We must first be despecialised before we can gravitate to our new roles within the deregulated society. There is continuous momentum keeping things the way they are. Father's will not readily risk the upbringing of their sons by suppressing 'boyish' behaviours for fear of later self-esteem issues and confidence. Even if they teach equality, these children will still grow up in a patriarchial society and be expected to follow the crowd. Still, there are those that go against the grain and are especially vocal but I have a hunch that there will always rise equally vocal opposites.

Feminism's goals, IMO, will only be achieved through a 'revolution' which will create all sorts of radicals. For humans, that's par for the course though, innit?

i work at a grocery store and all the girls get put on cashier and 90% of the stockers are boys.

That's just smart business practice. Smelly, uncouth boys need to be kept out of the public eye as much as possible, and the owner will not be able to discriminate against boys in employment selections. What else are they to do?

I get what you're saying though. I think discrimination still exists because some jobs have a very strong tradition of male-male apprenticeship. The Master-Apprentice relationship is considered sacred because it's more than just learning job related skills. It's like boot camp for life skills, and the Master can be quite harsh if necessary. The presence of women brings in a disharmony as the Master will feel like an ogre, and the apprentice may seek out the female for emotional support. The only way for a woman in this situation to not cause disharmony would be to act as if she wasn't there and who would expect that?

This is where I think feminism oversteps the mark. Male-male relationships. For all of the male dominance throughout history, female-female relationships have been considered off-limits to boys and men. Besides, having taboos means more excitement for all when breaking them.

 

[negrogesic]

really?

 

[sunset117]

Hi I got on this thread late and dont want to read every page but I skimmed thru

Op, ur missing the main points of feminist philosophy. Go read judith butler to clarify

 

[rant*N*rave]

Okay, I haven't read all of this thread, but, to all you fuckers saying "OH BUT IT'S NOT SO BAD FOR WOMEN SO SHUT UP!" - YES, YES IT IS SO BAD. I'm majoring in the sciences in school and I work in the development department of a software company, and I *constantly* run into sexist men who treat me like shit and sometimes even actively try to put a stop to my success. My college adviser literally told me to take the wrong classes (I would have lost all my honors credit toward my degree because of one required class) and he specifically told two male students to take the class I needed to take even though they weren't even in the honors program. A high school math teacher added an additional test to a make-up test I had to take (I had been sick the day of the test) and the question was one he had shown us in class and specifically said we would never be tested on because it was too hard. He didn't add that question to the other two makeup tests that he gave to boys. (He added a different one, and that's why he didn't get in trouble - because "he added a question to everyone's test"...) Even in my shit jobs in service/sales, I've had guys get raises before me even though all of my numbers were better. I had a physics lab once that I was repeating material in (I transferred schools and my credits didn't work out ), and I was the only girl in the class - I was treated like a fucking moron by everyone in it, including the TA, even though I had already covered every piece of material, and in more depth, only a few months before and had done extremely well.

Most men aren't like this, but many still THINK that way even if they don't act on it all the time (and they DO act on it from time to time, see: retarded physics lab boys), and the bigger but: it only takes one asshole to ruin a career. Had I not been leery of my college adviser (something seemed off) and gone and double checked what he told me, I would have lost four years of my honors work in college and would have graduated without honors. Had I not been an excellent student in my math class and had enough As not to worry about it, that makeup test could have severely hurt my grade. And those are only two instances that happen to spring to mind as I type this, and that is in only 8 years of academia and a few years of the working world - I have a hell of a lot more to go.

Feminism is not about hating men, or even about equality, it's about EQUITY and about non-discrimination for EQUAL ability and action. Talk all you want about the wage disparity being because women "don't take men's jobs," it's a load of bullshit and there's no way around it - women, especially black women, make SUBSTANTIALLY less than men IN THE SAME POSITIONS. That's where those numbers come from. They're not comparing male steel workers to female seamstresses; they're comparing male executives to female executives, male lab techs to female lab techs. (And besides, it's a specious argument to even begin with, because there's no way for anyone to know if "women's jobs" pay less than "men's" unless they happen to own a research agency or have a verifiable source for that info.) And this is what feminists want - the guarantee of equal treatment for EQUAL ACTION, and the guarantee of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, but NOT equal outcome.

Men are stronger and faster than women, end of story. Do you want my little 5'4" white girl ass playing in the NBA? Or being in your fireman's brigade when you need to be rescued out of a burning building? Hell no. And that's not what we're asking for. If I go and try out for the NBA, I want a fair shake, and I want to be rejected because my skills aren't good, not because I'm a woman. If I can't meet the standards of a firefighter, I shouldn't be a firefighter. But at the end of the day, this still has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a woman, it has to do with the fact that I am a PERSON with a UNIQUE SET of abilities AND weaknesses. And I should be treated as such based on my merits or lack thereof with complete disregard of anything that defines me physically or psychologically.