surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
Patriarchal though it may be, I think it is inherently in mans nature to protect his significant other, even at the cost of his life. The reason I say nature is because, if it wasn't, these mens natural instinct would have compelled them to get out. And in a situation where your life is at stake, it's incredibly difficult if not impossible to fight against this instinct.
That being said you make a fantastic point about how the males in question were dismissed for anything other than their heroic efforts; it's also par for the course however, and I actually agree with women and children being elevated above men in the case of an emergency. When you are looking at people on the whole, it becomes less and less personal; you want the kids to survive, your kids, so that you can pass your genes on. You want the women to survive because they nurture those babies.
I just think it's a part of what we are, but I appreciate that you had the guts to bring it up, personally.
That being said you make a fantastic point about how the males in question were dismissed for anything other than their heroic efforts; it's also par for the course however, and I actually agree with women and children being elevated above men in the case of an emergency. When you are looking at people on the whole, it becomes less and less personal; you want the kids to survive, your kids, so that you can pass your genes on. You want the women to survive because they nurture those babies.
I just think it's a part of what we are, but I appreciate that you had the guts to bring it up, personally.
Augh I swear to fuck, I can't believe how many times I have forgotten to log out of that account first.
I'm gonna go out of character very briefly, because this discussion is more important than me pretending to be a zombie.
Disclaimer: I'm not making any comments out of anger. My tone is not at all harsh. That said:
It sounds to me like you haven't had any deep engagement with modern feminist movements at all. First, there is no such thing as Feminism. There are dozens of schools of thought within history's many many many many feminist movements. You don't have to agree with everything every feminist says, but you should at least take it upon yourself to understand the ideas you're trying to argue with.
If you're interested in engaging with actual feminist gamers, I recommend http://borderhouseblog.com/ You should discuss your ideas there. (Not that dtoid isn't a great place for these conversations, but there are far fewer feminists per capita here than on Border House.)
I consider myself a radical feminist (as much as any straight, white, middle-class male can be), but even I don't agree with everything published on Border House. No two feminists will agree on everything related to feminism. However, if you want a real, thoughtful discussion of modern feminism as related to gaming, there's probably no better site.
Also check out feministing.org. Not game-related, but a great site nonetheless.
Disclaimer: I'm not making any comments out of anger. My tone is not at all harsh. That said:
It sounds to me like you haven't had any deep engagement with modern feminist movements at all. First, there is no such thing as Feminism. There are dozens of schools of thought within history's many many many many feminist movements. You don't have to agree with everything every feminist says, but you should at least take it upon yourself to understand the ideas you're trying to argue with.
If you're interested in engaging with actual feminist gamers, I recommend http://borderhouseblog.com/ You should discuss your ideas there. (Not that dtoid isn't a great place for these conversations, but there are far fewer feminists per capita here than on Border House.)
I consider myself a radical feminist (as much as any straight, white, middle-class male can be), but even I don't agree with everything published on Border House. No two feminists will agree on everything related to feminism. However, if you want a real, thoughtful discussion of modern feminism as related to gaming, there's probably no better site.
Also check out feministing.org. Not game-related, but a great site nonetheless.
I know about Border House, and Kotaku hired two writers from there, as well as featuring guest editorials from there more than once. I wasn't impressed, to say it as kindly as possible.
In reality, I think everyone has lots of experience with feminism. It saturates most of modern society: education, work, culture. Gaming is only notable in gender discussion now, because it's one of the only areas that hasn't been fully overtaken by it already.
What I think is that most people have zero experience with some of the gender theories I'm talking about.
In reality, I think everyone has lots of experience with feminism. It saturates most of modern society: education, work, culture. Gaming is only notable in gender discussion now, because it's one of the only areas that hasn't been fully overtaken by it already.
What I think is that most people have zero experience with some of the gender theories I'm talking about.
If society was "completely overtaken" with feminst thought, then the US wouldnt see 78 rapes per hour and women would get equal pay for equal work.
@Zombie Orwell: Save it for Border House. I'm not going to argue about equal pay here.
Isn't this where I claim you're derailing and deflecting from the topic of this blog post in an attempt to silence me? A common tactic sexists use, or so I hear all the time from feminists.
This article was about male disposability. You still haven't really added anything of any relevance to the actual topic.
Isn't this where I claim you're derailing and deflecting from the topic of this blog post in an attempt to silence me? A common tactic sexists use, or so I hear all the time from feminists.
This article was about male disposability. You still haven't really added anything of any relevance to the actual topic.
Oh well. That's what I get for trying to be real with a middle class straight white dude. Nothing but hostility and arrogance.
Back in character now:
You are clearly a very formidable oppose-nant. May your radiance shine upon all and may your beefy hammer of justice contain DestroyParticles that murder the evil feminists who are keeping the white man down! You, sir, are very capable of Going Your Own Way.
That is a very clever reference to the Men Going Their Own Way forums! You may lavish praise upon me for my delicious prose!!
Your Leader,
Zombie Orwell
Back in character now:
You are clearly a very formidable oppose-nant. May your radiance shine upon all and may your beefy hammer of justice contain DestroyParticles that murder the evil feminists who are keeping the white man down! You, sir, are very capable of Going Your Own Way.
That is a very clever reference to the Men Going Their Own Way forums! You may lavish praise upon me for my delicious prose!!
Your Leader,
Zombie Orwell
Someone needs to spread the word on the immense disrespect of those hosts.
I am so sick of feminism, I hate what its become, it used to be something for females to empower themselves, now its gimme all the rights while I take away yours.
True gender equality is just that, gender equality, we're all treated the same, paid the same, etc, etc.
I am so sick of feminism, I hate what its become, it used to be something for females to empower themselves, now its gimme all the rights while I take away yours.
True gender equality is just that, gender equality, we're all treated the same, paid the same, etc, etc.
@Zombie Orwell: "That's what I get for trying to be real with a middle class straight white dude."
So you're usually fake?
And that's an awkwardly racist, classist, sexist assumption. A majorly incorrect one at that. That sure didn't take long.
"the evil feminists who are keeping the white man down!"
No one's brought up race at all here except for you. You clearly have major problems with white people though. That's probably part of the reason you're so eager to categorize yourself as a "radical feminist." That must help you sleep at night when you're tormented with ancestral guilt and self-hatred. You're an "ally." You're one of the good ones.
"You, sir, are very capable of Going Your Own Way. That is a very clever reference to the Men Going Their Own Way forums!"
So ... anyone even attempting to discuss male gender issues has to be mocked. So much tolerance. So much gender equality. It never takes long for the intolerance to come out. All I asked you to do is comment on the actual content of the article, and not completely derail the entire thing.
Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to this whole discussion. Can't wait to go to Border House since you've made such a great impression.
So you're usually fake?
And that's an awkwardly racist, classist, sexist assumption. A majorly incorrect one at that. That sure didn't take long.
"the evil feminists who are keeping the white man down!"
No one's brought up race at all here except for you. You clearly have major problems with white people though. That's probably part of the reason you're so eager to categorize yourself as a "radical feminist." That must help you sleep at night when you're tormented with ancestral guilt and self-hatred. You're an "ally." You're one of the good ones.
"You, sir, are very capable of Going Your Own Way. That is a very clever reference to the Men Going Their Own Way forums!"
So ... anyone even attempting to discuss male gender issues has to be mocked. So much tolerance. So much gender equality. It never takes long for the intolerance to come out. All I asked you to do is comment on the actual content of the article, and not completely derail the entire thing.
Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to this whole discussion. Can't wait to go to Border House since you've made such a great impression.
"The Border House is a blog for gamers. It's a blog for those who are feminist, queer, disabled, people of color, transgender, poor, gay, lesbian, and others who belong to marginalized groups, as well as allies. Our goal is to bring thoughtful analysis to gaming with a feminist viewpoint and up-to-date news on games, virtual worlds, and social media."
So in short, it ISN'T a place for average, middle class "white males" who aren't these things. So why would it even be brought up to someone who can't relate? Awareness?
Sounds like a fucking vipers nest to me, a bunch of angry outcasts just waiting to pounce on anyone who isn't immediately willing to accept their ultra-progressive viewpoints. Not that I would necessarily agree with that, but I think it's very strange to base a gaming blog on sexuality, gender, race, etc, and pidgeonhole yourself.
Oh well.
So in short, it ISN'T a place for average, middle class "white males" who aren't these things. So why would it even be brought up to someone who can't relate? Awareness?
Sounds like a fucking vipers nest to me, a bunch of angry outcasts just waiting to pounce on anyone who isn't immediately willing to accept their ultra-progressive viewpoints. Not that I would necessarily agree with that, but I think it's very strange to base a gaming blog on sexuality, gender, race, etc, and pidgeonhole yourself.
Oh well.
I've always grimfully joked with my boyfriend about how if we were ever in a life or death situation, we'd both be shot because the shooter would grow annoyed with our bickering about who's taking the bullet.
Those men who lost their lives that day in the name of their own devoted love did do the right thing.
Not because it's what a man should do but because it's what anyone who truly loves who they're with would do. Doesn't matter if you're a man with a woman or a man with a man or a woman with a woman who is getting changed into a man.
I'm not saying we should all should go getting murdered in the name of love but what I am saying is that these men where heroes.
Fuck what society thinks or why they say it's right. These men did the impossible which was to show the most selfless form of dedication when the horrible time came. I'd do it. I'm sure many of you would do it too. Gender doesn't define the amount of bravery a single individual has.
Those men who lost their lives that day in the name of their own devoted love did do the right thing.
Not because it's what a man should do but because it's what anyone who truly loves who they're with would do. Doesn't matter if you're a man with a woman or a man with a man or a woman with a woman who is getting changed into a man.
I'm not saying we should all should go getting murdered in the name of love but what I am saying is that these men where heroes.
Fuck what society thinks or why they say it's right. These men did the impossible which was to show the most selfless form of dedication when the horrible time came. I'd do it. I'm sure many of you would do it too. Gender doesn't define the amount of bravery a single individual has.
I applaud those men and hope their and anyone else's sacrifices will be honored and not just by those they protected. These people were heroes. Not because they were men though. Because they were selfless people who didnt falter in a time of crisis. That goes beyond gender/race/age/etc. Anyone who uses this situation to further any agenda, should die in a fire.
PhilK3nS3bb3n: It is possible to have an intelligent discussion about gender roles without telling people to die in a fire. I'm not sure what you think I should be ashamed of, exactly.
@Stephanie K: "Gender doesn't define the amount of bravery a single individual has"
I agree of course. My whole argument is about socialization of gender roles, not about men being biologically braver. There are female soldiers and cops, and fire fighters, and so on and we all know they've saved people selflessly.
What I'm suggesting though is pretty obvious; that male gender socialization encourages this kind of behavior at every step of the way. Yes, being selfless for anyone is admirable - but how does society impact a person's decision to do that? Mario on NES is about jumping over lava, risking your life and going through hell to save the princess. Tons of movies push this too. I think it's a really simplistic view that ignores this kind of thing completely like it's not a factor.
Ever saw Titanic, with the women and children being rushed onto the life rafts? Ever heard a news report with casualty estimates: "including x amount of women and children." Or take for example, the tone and content of the news story I just linked to up above.
I thought this was kind of common sense stuff honestly.
@Stephanie K: "Gender doesn't define the amount of bravery a single individual has"
I agree of course. My whole argument is about socialization of gender roles, not about men being biologically braver. There are female soldiers and cops, and fire fighters, and so on and we all know they've saved people selflessly.
What I'm suggesting though is pretty obvious; that male gender socialization encourages this kind of behavior at every step of the way. Yes, being selfless for anyone is admirable - but how does society impact a person's decision to do that? Mario on NES is about jumping over lava, risking your life and going through hell to save the princess. Tons of movies push this too. I think it's a really simplistic view that ignores this kind of thing completely like it's not a factor.
Ever saw Titanic, with the women and children being rushed onto the life rafts? Ever heard a news report with casualty estimates: "including x amount of women and children." Or take for example, the tone and content of the news story I just linked to up above.
I thought this was kind of common sense stuff honestly.
I can't decide if it's amusing or sad to watch social justice crusaders fall back to everything they claim to hate as soon as they're challenged in their own style. The lesson I learned again today courtesy of Orwell is that hate, bigotry, and prejudice are fine as long as they're aimed at acceptable groups.
They did a heroic thing, but that does not make it the right thing. It shouldn't be called that. Continued portrayal as the right thing makes not doing it wrong. Call it selfless and heroic; both hold it in higher esteem and are more fitting than simply "not wrong."
They did a heroic thing, but that does not make it the right thing. It shouldn't be called that. Continued portrayal as the right thing makes not doing it wrong. Call it selfless and heroic; both hold it in higher esteem and are more fitting than simply "not wrong."
They sacrificed theirselves to save their loved ones, which is a great thing.
I want to know if those hosts would do the same for someone, regardless of gender.
Like Phil said, anyone using that to further their own agenda is an asshole.
I want to know if those hosts would do the same for someone, regardless of gender.
Like Phil said, anyone using that to further their own agenda is an asshole.
Shinta, don't be defensive at me. I'd hope you knew me enough by now to know if I directed that at you, I would have actually directed it at you. No, that was directed towards people who twist situations like this to fit their agendas while ignoring what happened. Think politicians and such. I have no use and no intelligent response for people like that.
... what Nanbu said, and what Stephanie K said (not to be sexist by agreeing with the women here, but their answers tend to echo my own feelings on the matter).
I learned a new word a few days ago... "victimocracy". It's a lovely word. It refers to a cultural trend. If you are female, non-caucasian, elderly, young, gay, transgendered, non-gendered, handicapped, or have a non-christian religion, then there are specific laws in place to protect you - because you are a walking, talking potential victim. There is also power in being an official victim and we live in a culture where being a victim not only affords political rights, but also social rights. There is money to be made in advocating for victim groups, or even in being a victim-group member. You might be fired because you act like an asshole on the job, but if you are an official victim, then you can sue for wrongful dismissal and claim victimhood... and most companies will eventually pay out because they don't want to be tainted by the specter of being victimizers. Ironically, the only group of people unable to claim victimhood are adult white males... and now this group is often claiming victim status on the basis that they are the only group not able to claim legal victim status... which makes them a victim.
We can blame everything on our victim status... and we can use it as an excuse for our own actions. We've become a nation of victims... and everyone apparently wants to claim that status... and maybe make some money off of being one. We are victims of history, of the environment, of the education system, of health issues, of our gender, of coffee that is served too hot. We demand compensation.
Yes... there are many brands of feminism. Feminism is an industry. It's taught in schools, it's studied at at academic level, it's in government (in BC we even had a Ministry for Women and Children... an entire wing of government devoted to just women and children).
Yes, there are wrongs in our society. Yes, they need to be righted. Claiming that men are victims of feminist partiarchal theory though is not the way to go about it. Joining the victimocracy just means that everyone will continue to argue about who is the bigger victim. Maybe we all just need to stop thinking of ourselves as victims.
We can do anything, we can be anything. Every single one of us is capable of overcoming whatever stands in our way - regardless of our age, social status, health, religion, ethnicity, skin color, weight, sex, gender or whatever the next "victimocracy" status might be.
That anyone was killed in that event was a tragedy. It needn't be examined to see who was the bigger victim or even if the killer himself was a victim. It really shouldn't be a contest.
/old lady rant.
I learned a new word a few days ago... "victimocracy". It's a lovely word. It refers to a cultural trend. If you are female, non-caucasian, elderly, young, gay, transgendered, non-gendered, handicapped, or have a non-christian religion, then there are specific laws in place to protect you - because you are a walking, talking potential victim. There is also power in being an official victim and we live in a culture where being a victim not only affords political rights, but also social rights. There is money to be made in advocating for victim groups, or even in being a victim-group member. You might be fired because you act like an asshole on the job, but if you are an official victim, then you can sue for wrongful dismissal and claim victimhood... and most companies will eventually pay out because they don't want to be tainted by the specter of being victimizers. Ironically, the only group of people unable to claim victimhood are adult white males... and now this group is often claiming victim status on the basis that they are the only group not able to claim legal victim status... which makes them a victim.
We can blame everything on our victim status... and we can use it as an excuse for our own actions. We've become a nation of victims... and everyone apparently wants to claim that status... and maybe make some money off of being one. We are victims of history, of the environment, of the education system, of health issues, of our gender, of coffee that is served too hot. We demand compensation.
Yes... there are many brands of feminism. Feminism is an industry. It's taught in schools, it's studied at at academic level, it's in government (in BC we even had a Ministry for Women and Children... an entire wing of government devoted to just women and children).
Yes, there are wrongs in our society. Yes, they need to be righted. Claiming that men are victims of feminist partiarchal theory though is not the way to go about it. Joining the victimocracy just means that everyone will continue to argue about who is the bigger victim. Maybe we all just need to stop thinking of ourselves as victims.
We can do anything, we can be anything. Every single one of us is capable of overcoming whatever stands in our way - regardless of our age, social status, health, religion, ethnicity, skin color, weight, sex, gender or whatever the next "victimocracy" status might be.
That anyone was killed in that event was a tragedy. It needn't be examined to see who was the bigger victim or even if the killer himself was a victim. It really shouldn't be a contest.
/old lady rant.
Yeah, I've always felt that as a white male my life has been totally undervalued by society. Super great argument.
@Elsa: I think a key point here is who is socially acceptable to be the victim. You are damn right, this society sucks BECAUSE of this victim bullshit...
...but to add fuel for thought here, ever wonder why the idea of "victimocracy" only shows up now? When "white males claim to be a victim because they are the only ones who can't?"
Just thought I would see what you have to say on that.... as someone who has little to no tolerance for "victims" and is sick of all the shit.
Back to the main point:
1) This is kinda what guys are expected to do... or were expected. It's just part of who we are. Call it part of the "care-taker" roll if you like, but until recently our society has always tasked men with being the soldiers, bringing the income home, and protecting the women should something horrible happen. Right now we are in a confusing time where a belief that this is wrong and unequal is changing this, but attitudes take longer to change then rolls do... especially one like this where 9 out of 10 times, the man is just physically bigger, so he is going to be the more effective shield of the couple. (Sorry, but biology has everything to do with that.) So while Women like Stephanie may say they would do it, they are in the minority. This will probably remain a man thing for many more years.
2) Please please PLEASE stop trying to defend Feminism, people. At one time it was a good idea. Now the label is basically owned by assholes out for themselves... aka feminazis. This may sound mean, but that's the reality of the real world. Time to pick up a new label, ladies.
...but to add fuel for thought here, ever wonder why the idea of "victimocracy" only shows up now? When "white males claim to be a victim because they are the only ones who can't?"
Just thought I would see what you have to say on that.... as someone who has little to no tolerance for "victims" and is sick of all the shit.
Back to the main point:
1) This is kinda what guys are expected to do... or were expected. It's just part of who we are. Call it part of the "care-taker" roll if you like, but until recently our society has always tasked men with being the soldiers, bringing the income home, and protecting the women should something horrible happen. Right now we are in a confusing time where a belief that this is wrong and unequal is changing this, but attitudes take longer to change then rolls do... especially one like this where 9 out of 10 times, the man is just physically bigger, so he is going to be the more effective shield of the couple. (Sorry, but biology has everything to do with that.) So while Women like Stephanie may say they would do it, they are in the minority. This will probably remain a man thing for many more years.
2) Please please PLEASE stop trying to defend Feminism, people. At one time it was a good idea. Now the label is basically owned by assholes out for themselves... aka feminazis. This may sound mean, but that's the reality of the real world. Time to pick up a new label, ladies.
@Megabyte... I'm not sure why the concept of a victimocracy has arisen... but from what reading I've seen on the topic, much of it has to do with the inequity in our laws.
Killing a man because he is gay is a hate crime, and the penalty is usually much stronger than killing a man just because you don't like him. Some feel that killing is killng and the penalties should be the same. Rape and spousal abuse have been co-opted as women's issues, with support structures aimed at women - when men too are victims and yet the laws, emergency housing and procedures are all designed to deal with a female (and I know of a male victim of spousal abuse... it was a difficult legal situation). There are fewlaws to protect men from employment discrimination... and it DOES exist. As a recruiter who did temporary and permanent job placements, the majority of the time I ran into discrimination was when trying to place a male secretary. Many firms simply did not want a male as a secretary (ironically this was prevalent among law firms who want a female at the front desk, not a male).
Essentially, many of the current laws are the results of "victim-groups" pressing for (and achieving) better legal, economic or social protections for their own group, as opposed to equal treatment. Advocacy groups are essentially creating inequality.
In regards to feminism... I absolutely totally agree that the concept has become twisted and almost obscene. I do think that the original concept of "social, economic and legal equality" should apply - and should apply equally to everyone. I also think that we should continue fighting for equality where it doesn't exist (in certain Countries where there is legal discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, age, race, ethnicity, religion, etc.).
In terms of gender roles... women give birth, men don't. Men are physically larger and stronger than most women. There are some aspects of biology that simply can't be changed. I think that as a whole, society would be much better off if we celebrate our individuality, our differences, what makes each of us unique... instead of trying to form victim-groups to advocate... instead of trying to make us homogenous and all the same. There can be equality while recognizing differences. "Feminism" needs to be more about individual choice within a framework of equality rather than groups argueing about how best to form a united front so that they can place blame somewhere. Advocacy should be more about celebration of what we can do... rather than blame for what we can't do (or won't do).
(for example, much of the economic inequality is not because men hold women back, but rather because women often choose to stay home with the children, take part-time jobs, or refuse promotions that involve 80 hour work weeks and relocating the family. This is changing and it's perfectly acceptable for men to stay home and raise the children or move for the wife's job... but mostly it's women holding themsevles back - not men. The blame is being placed on the wrong gender for why women as a whole do not have the same earnings as men)
(and it's first thing in the morning... so if this makes no sense, it's lack of coffee!)
:)
Killing a man because he is gay is a hate crime, and the penalty is usually much stronger than killing a man just because you don't like him. Some feel that killing is killng and the penalties should be the same. Rape and spousal abuse have been co-opted as women's issues, with support structures aimed at women - when men too are victims and yet the laws, emergency housing and procedures are all designed to deal with a female (and I know of a male victim of spousal abuse... it was a difficult legal situation). There are fewlaws to protect men from employment discrimination... and it DOES exist. As a recruiter who did temporary and permanent job placements, the majority of the time I ran into discrimination was when trying to place a male secretary. Many firms simply did not want a male as a secretary (ironically this was prevalent among law firms who want a female at the front desk, not a male).
Essentially, many of the current laws are the results of "victim-groups" pressing for (and achieving) better legal, economic or social protections for their own group, as opposed to equal treatment. Advocacy groups are essentially creating inequality.
In regards to feminism... I absolutely totally agree that the concept has become twisted and almost obscene. I do think that the original concept of "social, economic and legal equality" should apply - and should apply equally to everyone. I also think that we should continue fighting for equality where it doesn't exist (in certain Countries where there is legal discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, age, race, ethnicity, religion, etc.).
In terms of gender roles... women give birth, men don't. Men are physically larger and stronger than most women. There are some aspects of biology that simply can't be changed. I think that as a whole, society would be much better off if we celebrate our individuality, our differences, what makes each of us unique... instead of trying to form victim-groups to advocate... instead of trying to make us homogenous and all the same. There can be equality while recognizing differences. "Feminism" needs to be more about individual choice within a framework of equality rather than groups argueing about how best to form a united front so that they can place blame somewhere. Advocacy should be more about celebration of what we can do... rather than blame for what we can't do (or won't do).
(for example, much of the economic inequality is not because men hold women back, but rather because women often choose to stay home with the children, take part-time jobs, or refuse promotions that involve 80 hour work weeks and relocating the family. This is changing and it's perfectly acceptable for men to stay home and raise the children or move for the wife's job... but mostly it's women holding themsevles back - not men. The blame is being placed on the wrong gender for why women as a whole do not have the same earnings as men)
(and it's first thing in the morning... so if this makes no sense, it's lack of coffee!)
:)
oh it makes a lot of sense. I think we agree on a a lot, but I figured I'd throw a monkey wrench just to see what thoughts come back. :)
But I will say as far as your example goes of discrimination against males for secretaries, I really can't argue against it. The way I see it, the companies have the right to choose who to hire for any reason.
HOWEVER, it is also our right as potential customers to these companies to choose who we do business with based on whatever grounds we want, including if they discriminate. This is how true change has to happen... not forcing rules on people who dont believe in them (as clearly by their behaviors as those law firms showed you). It's slower, but it's a more true change.... and allows for such individuality (and yes, I agree about that too).
But I will say as far as your example goes of discrimination against males for secretaries, I really can't argue against it. The way I see it, the companies have the right to choose who to hire for any reason.
HOWEVER, it is also our right as potential customers to these companies to choose who we do business with based on whatever grounds we want, including if they discriminate. This is how true change has to happen... not forcing rules on people who dont believe in them (as clearly by their behaviors as those law firms showed you). It's slower, but it's a more true change.... and allows for such individuality (and yes, I agree about that too).
Just a quick comment to Elsa.
Feminism is no more about homogeneity than anti-slavery laws. Feminism is a broad concept so it's difficult to refer to in absolutes but the vast majority of the time it's about celebrating variance, not stamping it out. Social equality is a far cry from existential monotony.
A second point: gender roles are the social constructs allocated in accordance with biological traits, they are not the biological traits themselves. Loosening or destroying gender roles is not about changing biological traits but rather changing society's attitudes of the people with any given set of biological traits. A good example is the whole "pink is for girls" attitude, a very recent trend in modern society - only less than 100 years old - but so prolific now as to be generally (and erroneously) maintained as a natural and universal law.
Thirdly, pretty much every study into the wage gap identifies a substantial portion of it that can't be the result of circumstance, preference, experience, hours, or an uneven distribution of position. In other words, even when social variables are taken into account, there is almost always shown to be a difference that can only be explained by discrimination.
And even if that wasn't the case, given how women make up about 50% of any given population, isn't it odd how the professional world does little to relate to that spread? Suppose discrimination in the workplace was eradicated and wage disparity still existed, you still need to explain why there is such a large set of social variables that graphs women significantly lower than men on the payscale. You could hardly look at such statistics and maintain that things are socially equal between the sexes when it's proof of the exact opposite. Writing it off as due to the personal preferences of women falls short from identifying the real cause and actually supports homogeneity of each gender far severely than any feminist progression. I'd say it deserves more attention than that.
Feminism is no more about homogeneity than anti-slavery laws. Feminism is a broad concept so it's difficult to refer to in absolutes but the vast majority of the time it's about celebrating variance, not stamping it out. Social equality is a far cry from existential monotony.
A second point: gender roles are the social constructs allocated in accordance with biological traits, they are not the biological traits themselves. Loosening or destroying gender roles is not about changing biological traits but rather changing society's attitudes of the people with any given set of biological traits. A good example is the whole "pink is for girls" attitude, a very recent trend in modern society - only less than 100 years old - but so prolific now as to be generally (and erroneously) maintained as a natural and universal law.
Thirdly, pretty much every study into the wage gap identifies a substantial portion of it that can't be the result of circumstance, preference, experience, hours, or an uneven distribution of position. In other words, even when social variables are taken into account, there is almost always shown to be a difference that can only be explained by discrimination.
And even if that wasn't the case, given how women make up about 50% of any given population, isn't it odd how the professional world does little to relate to that spread? Suppose discrimination in the workplace was eradicated and wage disparity still existed, you still need to explain why there is such a large set of social variables that graphs women significantly lower than men on the payscale. You could hardly look at such statistics and maintain that things are socially equal between the sexes when it's proof of the exact opposite. Writing it off as due to the personal preferences of women falls short from identifying the real cause and actually supports homogeneity of each gender far severely than any feminist progression. I'd say it deserves more attention than that.
With respect to the subject of this article, It's important to note that almost all of the discussion about the sacrifice made by these men hasn't just been that they were heroic and sacrificed themselves.
It's always come back to something like: This is just what a good man does. (The CNN article epitomized this idea). The idea is the brutal reality that a man is expected to die for his female lover.
What they did was heroic. But to say that what they did is what any good "man" would do is a travesty. It is decidedly sexist, but it also cheapens the very real and very heroic sacrifice these men made.
@Stephen Beirne
You're definitely wrong about the wage gap, and the feminist trope of the "second shift" is also woeful nonsense.
Also you should get a fuck you for coming in here and derailing the topic with a demonstrably bullshit feminist trope about how discriminated against women are in the workplace.
It's always come back to something like: This is just what a good man does. (The CNN article epitomized this idea). The idea is the brutal reality that a man is expected to die for his female lover.
What they did was heroic. But to say that what they did is what any good "man" would do is a travesty. It is decidedly sexist, but it also cheapens the very real and very heroic sacrifice these men made.
@Stephen Beirne
You're definitely wrong about the wage gap, and the feminist trope of the "second shift" is also woeful nonsense.
Also you should get a fuck you for coming in here and derailing the topic with a demonstrably bullshit feminist trope about how discriminated against women are in the workplace.
Yeah, wow. You weren't kidding Collateral E. This CNN article is jaw dropping.
[i]"From all accounts, these young men were average, working men in their 20s. (We know a little about Jon Blunk, but not much, and we know even less about the others.) Like all men, they had their own struggles. After his death we learned that Blunk had an ex-wife and two children living in Nevada. He was scheduled to visit them to resolve marital issues. This isn't to take anything away from Blunk or the other two heroes, but to illustrate that, in spite of shortcomings, men can still recognize what it means to be a good man and act like one.
This is especially important given the state of many men today. Record numbers of men aren't working or even looking for work. Record numbers aren't marrying or even acting as fathers to their children. These men need heroes to imitate whom they can relate to in everyday life, not just make-believe superheroes who catch their imagination for an hour or two. They need heroes like the Aurora three."[/i]
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/opinion/bennett-aurora-three/index.html
Did I read that wrong, or did they basically just say that men today are failures nationwide, but they can at least still step up and be a "good man" by being a bullet sponge? I'm kind of floored by this article. Jesus.
"In an age when traditional manhood has been increasingly relegated to fiction -- capes, masks and green screens -- these three men stand as real-life heroes. Their actions remind us that good triumphs over evil, not just in movies, but also in reality."
[i]"From all accounts, these young men were average, working men in their 20s. (We know a little about Jon Blunk, but not much, and we know even less about the others.) Like all men, they had their own struggles. After his death we learned that Blunk had an ex-wife and two children living in Nevada. He was scheduled to visit them to resolve marital issues. This isn't to take anything away from Blunk or the other two heroes, but to illustrate that, in spite of shortcomings, men can still recognize what it means to be a good man and act like one.
This is especially important given the state of many men today. Record numbers of men aren't working or even looking for work. Record numbers aren't marrying or even acting as fathers to their children. These men need heroes to imitate whom they can relate to in everyday life, not just make-believe superheroes who catch their imagination for an hour or two. They need heroes like the Aurora three."[/i]
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/opinion/bennett-aurora-three/index.html
Did I read that wrong, or did they basically just say that men today are failures nationwide, but they can at least still step up and be a "good man" by being a bullet sponge? I'm kind of floored by this article. Jesus.
"In an age when traditional manhood has been increasingly relegated to fiction -- capes, masks and green screens -- these three men stand as real-life heroes. Their actions remind us that good triumphs over evil, not just in movies, but also in reality."
@Collateral E
You may want to reread the blog and the comments. The conversation had drifted towards the subject of feminism long before I showed up. It's not derailing when you're addressing already present misconceptions.
As for the wage gap and double burden (which I didn't refer to, by the way - check your facts) they are both very much real and proven. For quick reference, check out the sources here.
You may want to reread the blog and the comments. The conversation had drifted towards the subject of feminism long before I showed up. It's not derailing when you're addressing already present misconceptions.
As for the wage gap and double burden (which I didn't refer to, by the way - check your facts) they are both very much real and proven. For quick reference, check out the sources here.
@Stephen.... Feminist theory is very diverse. There ARE groups of women that believe in a matriarchy where women should govern women... there are radical separatist lesbian feminist therories that call for complete separation from men... but even aside from the more radical feminist theories, most feminist groups or movements seek some form of acceptance or common following... which is what I was referring to in reference to "homogenous" - which is probably not the right term. Most feminists don't "celebrate" the broad disparity in theories and most outright reject those females that don't advocate for their own gender and might prefer a partiarchal society where they are protected (as is the case with certain religions).
In terms of the wage gap, it's gradually narrowing, but a large part of the wage gap is due to choices women (rightly or wrongly) make. My own concern is that blame is often placed on men as a whole and the feminist movement tends to largely ignore female complicity in the problem.
I don't think that men should start playing the victim game and assigning socialogical blame. It gets into a contest of who the bigger victim is and the issues start to get more and more vague. I have no issue with advocacy groups that call for a specific change...for example men's groups that push for male custody of children in a divorce... a specific issue that can be legally corrected by changes to custody procedures and how the "best" parent is determined in custody proceedings... but I do have issues with any group that claims general oppression with no specificity and no suggested corrective procedures that are generally accepted.
The whole "partiarchal" society thing is one of those vague things where pretty much everyone can claim to be a victim. It serves no purpose other than to unite men against women and women against men. Negative thinking and the blame game gets people nicely riled up... but provides few answers to any actual injustices.
@Collateral E... huh? The conversation had already derailed to feminism and in fact the topic of the blog was based somewhat on feminist patriarchal theory... so not sure why you think that Stephen's comment was out of place in any way??
In terms of the wage gap, it's gradually narrowing, but a large part of the wage gap is due to choices women (rightly or wrongly) make. My own concern is that blame is often placed on men as a whole and the feminist movement tends to largely ignore female complicity in the problem.
I don't think that men should start playing the victim game and assigning socialogical blame. It gets into a contest of who the bigger victim is and the issues start to get more and more vague. I have no issue with advocacy groups that call for a specific change...for example men's groups that push for male custody of children in a divorce... a specific issue that can be legally corrected by changes to custody procedures and how the "best" parent is determined in custody proceedings... but I do have issues with any group that claims general oppression with no specificity and no suggested corrective procedures that are generally accepted.
The whole "partiarchal" society thing is one of those vague things where pretty much everyone can claim to be a victim. It serves no purpose other than to unite men against women and women against men. Negative thinking and the blame game gets people nicely riled up... but provides few answers to any actual injustices.
@Collateral E... huh? The conversation had already derailed to feminism and in fact the topic of the blog was based somewhat on feminist patriarchal theory... so not sure why you think that Stephen's comment was out of place in any way??
@Elsa
In that sense of an ideology that asks to be widely incorporated, every single ideology is 'homogeneous.' I doubt there exists any single set of beliefs that rejects itself and its values as illegitimate. But I don't think any realistic fear of homogeneity can be extended that far. Yes, feminism (that broad umbrella which states that women should be treated as if they're people) would like it if everyone were to treat women equally to men. Most feminists actually do celebrate heterogeneity in people and ideas. This tolerance does not extend to misogynistic ideas, however, nor should it.
If your concern is that the feminist too easily absolves women for their complicity in propagating sexist norms, that is all the more reason for you to participate in feminist communities. I would disagree with you that this is an unexplored avenue by and large on feminist sites and circles - in my experience, most feminists are quite vocal of the ingrained behaviour in women and men both. Those who seem willing to give women carte blanche are the rarer breed. At any rate, shunning feminism because it doesn't sufficiently condemn those complicit in patriarchal norms is itself a form of complicity with patriarchal norms!
As for the subject of "victimocracy", sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one, too. The thing is that there is validity in the points Shinta makes in the blog about how this media outlet denigrated men by valuing them in accordance with their willingness to sacrifice themselves for "their women." It's simply another facet to gender essentialism. Since women are fragile and need protecting, men are to be strong and protect; women are to sacrifice themselves for children, men are to sacrifice themselves for women. It's another symptom of the same social system that feminists decry: the patriarchy. When feminists say "gender roles affect men too", this is an example of what they mean.
Where Shinta falls flat is in his claim that this media attitude rebukes feminism - in fact, it only reinforces it. He can frame it as "men have it bad, ergo women don't have it worse" all he wants and try to make it about why feminism is harmful rather than letting it be about why rigid gender roles are harmful. I agree that defers from the point.
With regards to general corrective procedures that work as a rule of thumb, I'm not quite sure what you mean. The solution offered 99% of the time a complaint is made, either implicit or explicit, is "don't be a dick", possibly with an explanation of why this thing was dickish and how best to avoid it in future. In the case of the media outlet above, this means changing their behaviour to no longer reflect the meaning outlined in the critique. In the case of Rebecca Watson and the elevator fiasco, it means learning from this feedback so as not to be creepy in future. In the case of Ron Rosenburg's comment about Lara Croft, it means not to assume all your players will be male and to stop thinking men can't relate to women. Given how varying and widespread all the aspects of sexism (as an abstract) in western society tend to be, there isn't really any all-encompassing solution other that "don't be a dick" that isn't a massively oversimplified generalization.
In that sense of an ideology that asks to be widely incorporated, every single ideology is 'homogeneous.' I doubt there exists any single set of beliefs that rejects itself and its values as illegitimate. But I don't think any realistic fear of homogeneity can be extended that far. Yes, feminism (that broad umbrella which states that women should be treated as if they're people) would like it if everyone were to treat women equally to men. Most feminists actually do celebrate heterogeneity in people and ideas. This tolerance does not extend to misogynistic ideas, however, nor should it.
If your concern is that the feminist too easily absolves women for their complicity in propagating sexist norms, that is all the more reason for you to participate in feminist communities. I would disagree with you that this is an unexplored avenue by and large on feminist sites and circles - in my experience, most feminists are quite vocal of the ingrained behaviour in women and men both. Those who seem willing to give women carte blanche are the rarer breed. At any rate, shunning feminism because it doesn't sufficiently condemn those complicit in patriarchal norms is itself a form of complicity with patriarchal norms!
As for the subject of "victimocracy", sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one, too. The thing is that there is validity in the points Shinta makes in the blog about how this media outlet denigrated men by valuing them in accordance with their willingness to sacrifice themselves for "their women." It's simply another facet to gender essentialism. Since women are fragile and need protecting, men are to be strong and protect; women are to sacrifice themselves for children, men are to sacrifice themselves for women. It's another symptom of the same social system that feminists decry: the patriarchy. When feminists say "gender roles affect men too", this is an example of what they mean.
Where Shinta falls flat is in his claim that this media attitude rebukes feminism - in fact, it only reinforces it. He can frame it as "men have it bad, ergo women don't have it worse" all he wants and try to make it about why feminism is harmful rather than letting it be about why rigid gender roles are harmful. I agree that defers from the point.
With regards to general corrective procedures that work as a rule of thumb, I'm not quite sure what you mean. The solution offered 99% of the time a complaint is made, either implicit or explicit, is "don't be a dick", possibly with an explanation of why this thing was dickish and how best to avoid it in future. In the case of the media outlet above, this means changing their behaviour to no longer reflect the meaning outlined in the critique. In the case of Rebecca Watson and the elevator fiasco, it means learning from this feedback so as not to be creepy in future. In the case of Ron Rosenburg's comment about Lara Croft, it means not to assume all your players will be male and to stop thinking men can't relate to women. Given how varying and widespread all the aspects of sexism (as an abstract) in western society tend to be, there isn't really any all-encompassing solution other that "don't be a dick" that isn't a massively oversimplified generalization.
Other wonderful articles on this aurora shooting:
http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-07-why-men-should-be-willing-to-die-for-women
Not even sure what to say about that, but at least the comments rightly identify the fact that it is reinforcing traditional gender roles. What it is indicative of is how disingenuous feminism is in the approach to gender roles. But this should be obvious to anyone that follows modern feminism in general.
@Elsa -
It had toed into feminism when it comes to gender roles. I.E. how feminism does or does not impact the gender role views in different ways. That doesn't make it an appropriate place to start vomiting every reason women are 'oppressed.'
@Stephen -
Regardless of whether the "second shift" was referred to, bringing either it or the wage gap up is a pure diversion. Both of which are nonsense, and both of which have nothing to do with this subject of gender roles, particularly expectations of male gender roles in general.
http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-07-why-men-should-be-willing-to-die-for-women
Not even sure what to say about that, but at least the comments rightly identify the fact that it is reinforcing traditional gender roles. What it is indicative of is how disingenuous feminism is in the approach to gender roles. But this should be obvious to anyone that follows modern feminism in general.
@Elsa -
It had toed into feminism when it comes to gender roles. I.E. how feminism does or does not impact the gender role views in different ways. That doesn't make it an appropriate place to start vomiting every reason women are 'oppressed.'
@Stephen -
Regardless of whether the "second shift" was referred to, bringing either it or the wage gap up is a pure diversion. Both of which are nonsense, and both of which have nothing to do with this subject of gender roles, particularly expectations of male gender roles in general.
louis vuitton taschen lv online louis vuitton vuitton shops LV handtaschen lv handtaschen ugg boots sale ugg boots gunstig ugg boots g¨šnstig ugg sale ugg boots ugg online shop ugg boots ugg deutschland ugg boots sale ugg billig ugg boots g¨šnstig
