Feminism discussion

[Thor Odinson]

I can't speak for all feminists, but the circles I'm familiar with also do not hold men to society's bullshit arbitrary standards on what they define as masculinity. However, as the enforcers of "masculine standards" also tend to be men, it's imperative that to fully try to dismantle these as the standards, men must challenge the system that enforces it rather than blaming feminists for it. I would love for men to not have to conform to society's standards of masculinity, to be taken more seriously if they were to choose to stay with their family, to be able to freely show affection and emotion, to not be mocked in the face of abuse and sexual violence, and I think having a draft at all is stupid, but feminists aren't the people telling men they have to conform to those things.

It is very aggravating whenever we speak on women's issues someone has to bring them up, though. I think these are important issues that should be addressed in parallel with women's issues, and more people should definitely do that, but unfortunately, often it's only when women are talking about issues affecting us that someone interrupts with one of these issues when they should be addressed independently.

[Augestein]

I can't speak for all feminists, but the circles I'm familiar with also do not hold men to society's bullshit arbitrary standards on what they define as masculinity. However, as the enforcers of "masculine standards" also tend to be men, it's imperative that to fully try to dismantle these as the standards, men must challenge the system that enforces it rather than blaming feminists for it. I would love for men to not have to conform to society's standards of masculinity, to be taken more seriously if they were to choose to stay with their family, to be able to freely show affection and emotion, to not be mocked in the face of abuse and sexual violence, and I think having a draft at all is stupid, but feminists aren't the people telling men they have to conform to those things.

It is very aggravating whenever we speak on women's issues someone has to bring them up, though. I think these are important issues that should be addressed in parallel with women's issues, and more people should definitely do that, but unfortunately, often it's only when women are talking about issues affecting us that someone interrupts with one of these issues when they should be addressed independently.

I can agree with that, but the issue is that modern western feminism hits a weird spot in this regard, as if you're talking about equality, and you are addressing women's equality, men's equality must be addressed as well, or feminism ends up being what it's often misinformed to be considered: "fighting for women's increase in societal power, and not equal rights." The issue is that there aren't many issues in western culture where women aren't treated as equals. And the issue is that you have several cults of women deluding the actual problems by addressing things that don't matter. And often times, because of the mentality that the other sex shouldn't be addressed tends to cause vacuum arguments where other issues aren't addressed that can apply to both parties rather than just women. Like the instances of a man staying at home as opposed to a woman staying at home. Addressing that it's fine for a man to stay at home also addresses that it's fine for a woman to work. Conversely addressing that it is fine for a woman to work and a man to stay at home is the same thing. There's no reason to ignore either sex because the issues are one in the same. When addressed poorly, it comes across as a thinly veiled power grab.

The problem is that it's like talking about the functionality of one's body without addressing the left arm but only specifically talking about the right. I can understand why one would if it's an issue that occurs if and only if the subject in question is a woman and only relates to a woman like say... Women's suffrage, where women weren't permitted to vote and men were. The problem is we get petty vague statements with things like "women are judged by society..." And that's not enough of a pressing issue to only focus on women for as this is something that happens to a person based on (but not limited to): their age, race, ethnicity, sexuality, background, or even familial ties.

Long story short, in order for feminism to work, it needs to be addressing a problem that only applies to women. When it doesn't, it's bad because it's no longer searching for equality-- which makes it a rather self-defeating movement. This is why you see so many people throwing up their arms in frustration with feminism nowadays or even women vehemently denying that the are a feminist.

And if that's too weird, I'll write it in a possibly stranger way for expressing my thoughts. If a man is the value of 50, feminism should be arguing that a woman should be the value of 50. Saying that we shouldn't even worry about addressing what the value of men are is nonsense because how can you even ever safely state that both sexes are equal when one is basically saying "men = x and women = 35, but women should be the value of 50?" We can't properly evaluate women value without addressing men value because that's what it's supposed to be equal to. Our goal is to make sure both of these values are equal. Because in the situation where we don't address men, men value could be equal to 71 for all we know, and we're low-balling the women by setting them to 50. I don't want that, and I'm sure no one else does either.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Augestein

[Thor Odinson]

The thing is most of the exposure I have to men's issues ARE from feminist circles, so it's not like we don't talk about them. I see feminists talking about male rape survivors and the term "toxic masculinity" is coined to refer to the fact that men are pushed to idealize unhealthy manifestations of societal's standards of masculinity, rather than condemning masculinity as a whole. But it's not enough that a bunch of women are talking about men's issues, because men who push gendered standards on people won't listen to women in general, and many of them are in places of institutional power. This is why we need men themselves to step up and stick it to the system themselves. Feminism is not the enemy. The subset of feminism I subscribe to do examine the intersections between gender, race, sexuality, class, etc and the effects all these areas have in inequalities. I am aware that not all subsets of feminism do--but often, radical groups like TERFs are looked down upon by feminists as well--after all, if you're excluding trans women, you're not fighting for women's rights.

The angle that feminism often seeks to address is that the patriarchy hurts everyone. And yes, it's a patriarchy because most of the people in power are men, holding standards of masculinity superior to those that are ascribed to femininity, and forcing these behaviors on people of each gender, when it's really detrimental to all. As a masculine woman in western society I simultaneously have to fight the pressures of people forcing femininity on me, yet because I work in a male-dominated field, it's possible my naturally "masculine" mannerisms may play a role in being taken seriously more than my more "feminine" counterparts. This is also why men who exhibit more "feminine" traits are looked down upon, because society sees femininity as inherently worse. For example, words like "pussy, sissy" etc used in describing cowardice has a distinct association that cowardice is womanly, when cowardice is just cowardice. Feminism (done right) seeks out to both let people express themselves in a way they're comfortable with, and elevate the status of femininity in society. In theory, if femininity is truly given the same value as masculinity, and not seen as less than, then it may be easier for men to also express more traits ascribed to feminine behaviors without being looked down upon, which would in turn to allow them the breathing room to be vulnerable, to seek support for whatever violence happens to them, etc.

Again, I can't speak for all of feminism nor all feminists since it is such a large movement with diverse number of subsets, but the circles I'm in DO care about men's issues and do speak about them. On an individual level, in my own behavior, I do not hold my boyfriend to any socially-imposed standards of masculinity, nor does he do the reverse to me. We do whatever we're comfortable with, and with consent.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Thor Odinson

[Time the Crestfallen]

For example, words like "pussy, sissy" etc used in describing cowardice has a distinct association that cowardice is womanly, when cowardice is just cowardice.

I'll do a proper response latter, but 'pussy' comes from 'pusillanimous' as opposed to female genitalia. Generally anyway, there's also 'pursy' which does have a gender angle to it. Unless you already knew, in which case I'm sorry for mansplaining.

Edited October 11, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Thor Odinson]

I'll do a proper response latter, but 'pussy' comes from 'pusillanimous' as opposed to female genitalia. Generally anyway, there's also 'pursy' which does have a gender angle to it. Unless you already knew, in which case I'm sorry for mansplaining.

I do recall reading that somewhere once now that you reminded me, but modern usages of "pussy" also have that association with female genitalia and most people who aren't familiar with that etymology is likely to make that association. Sissy stands either way.

Conversely I also refuse to use "man up". I prefer "get your shit together".

Edited October 11, 2016 by Thor Odinson

[Augestein]

Yes, that's why I'm saying all need to be addressed rather than just one in that case. Saying "men must address it." Well obviously, but both must in order to actually have forward movement. It's not just a matter of talking about it.

But the thing is, is that "patriarchy" is kind of a buzzword, because men that aren't in power don't get to decide rules either, aren't benefiting from these rules, and often times the people in power aren't making rules that help them.It doesn't work here because it's not truly just "patriarchal." It's a set of arbitrary rules that people in power create to continue to keep themselves in a seat of power. If it only applied to men, I'd be included to agree with it, but it doesn't. There are plenty of women with more power than several men, and they make stupid rules that hold people (women included) down too. .It's the same way we end up with problems with "white privilege." You can't really call it "white privilege" when it only really benefits people that are the richest of white people and everyone else has a dump taken on them just as badly as anyone else -- race disregarded. "Patriarchy" creates a false pretense that it's a "men catered society" when the reality is that it's an "in power catered society." It seems that way from a quick glance but it doesn't really touch the tip of the iceberg. "pussy" doesn't really work here, because it's easier to understand that being called ANY slang genitalia is a bad thing. If a person is called a "dick" that certainly isn't a good thing. But here's the thing, and here's why I hate stuff like this, what exactly defines "femininity?" Does cooking count as a feminine trait? How about sewing? You're taught how to do this in boy scouts for instance and it's a club that's pretty much supposed to "teach you how to be a man." The entire concept of masculine and feminine is honestly one that's poorly defined and simply has invisible rules based on the whims of the group you're currently among.

I think most no individual levels are pretty neutral about things like that which is what honestly makes the problem a bit more obvious in the end of the day.

Conversely I also refuse to use "man up". I prefer "get your shit together".

As do I, and I'm not even sure where the term : "Man up" came from. It just sounds weird. It's like a more idiotic way of saying "Grow up."

Edited October 11, 2016 by Augestein

[Thor Odinson]

And I am saying that feminists ARE addressing it--and more often than not that's the main source of where men's issues ARE addressed are seen--it's just not enough that we are talking about it. Especially in a nuanced way that doesn't also put women down, like a lot of alleged pro-men groups. I am all for actual men's issues being discussed and getting the attention it deserves. I mean hell last time I checked we're out there fighting for longer maternity leave, but also getting men to have paid paternity leave as well, because both parents should play a role in their child's upbringing.

Look man, I don't ascribe to that any trait is inherently feminine or masculine either, but society breaks them down into masc/fem--and I thought I was abundantly clear with context of my other phrasing that when I say femininity it's to denote the society's expectation's of femininity rather than any trait actually inherent to women. For example: society allows women to be more emotional and vulnerable and that's seen as feminine in society, but then treat displays of emotion and vulnerability itself as a bad thing. Simultaneously it expects women to be that way, and shames women for both conforming to it and not conforming to it. Stoic men are generally not frowned upon like stoic women are, but emotional men still are frowned upon. I too, hate the way that traits are ascribed to masculine/feminine/etc and I really hate when people say "oh that woman is so strong but still feminine at the same time!!!" but in discussions like this, they are useful in denoting the set of behaviors and expectations that society places upon people, and not any traits inherent to either group.

Historically, however, the rules have been to keep men in power--by forcing men and women into arbitrary roles and then devaluing the role in which women is placed in. And I have mentioned the intersectionality issue, where a person may face problems because of x but not y, whereas some other people may face issues in both x and y. Another person may have problems of y, but not x, etc. Obama still deals with racism, even though he's the POTUS. A white person can recognize white privilege in that they may not get stopped and frisked, but also experience issues with class or gender. In western society the situation have improved drastically, but there's still remnants thereof in the institution which we must work to remove.

Lastly, I believe I do mention this often, but I am Chinese. As a feminist I don't only look at issues with western society, but also with Chinese communities and China itself. Just because America gets it relatively good doesn't mean the rest of the world does. And even with America it really depends on the area. I recognize that I am fortunate to live in a state that doesn't have its head up its ass (for the most part, it's still not as progressive as it could be), but that's not the case with many other states.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Thor Odinson

[Time the Crestfallen]

NOTE: I was wrong. It's the modern usage that has a gendered slant. Pursy is just calling someone fat. I've forgotten how to English. I should probably go to sleep.

Also, there's only one thing I don't agree with 100%. That was a good post Thor.

This is why we need men themselves to step up and stick it to the system themselves.

True, but in there still isn't much of a platform for discussing men's issues at all. Especially since, as you touched on, for every subset of feminism that wants men to stand up for themselves there's one that wants men to sit down and shut up. I could list more than a few incidents where people operating under the excuse of feminism in order to shut down legitimate attempts to correct ways in which men are disadvantaged. Assuming you're referring to men's issues in the first place, we need to stop treating anyone and everyone who brings up men's issues as automatically misogynistic (even if the reputation is partially deserved).

The angle that feminism often seeks to address is that the patriarchy hurts everyone. And yes, it's a patriarchy because most of the people in power are men, holding standards of masculinity superior to those that are ascribed to femininity, and forcing these behaviors on people of each gender, when it's really detrimental to all. As a masculine woman in western society I simultaneously have to fight the pressures of people forcing femininity on me, yet because I work in a male-dominated field, it's possible my naturally "masculine" mannerisms may play a role in being taken seriously more than my more "feminine" counterparts. This is also why men who exhibit more "feminine" traits are looked down upon, because society sees femininity as inherently worse. For example, words like "pussy, sissy" etc used in describing cowardice has a distinct association that cowardice is womanly, when cowardice is just cowardice. Feminism (done right) seeks out to both let people express themselves in a way they're comfortable with, and elevate the status of femininity in society. In theory, if femininity is truly given the same value as masculinity, and not seen as less than, then it may be easier for men to also express more traits ascribed to feminine behaviors without being looked down upon, which would in turn to allow them the breathing room to be vulnerable, to seek support for whatever violence happens to them, etc.

Again, I can't speak for all of feminism nor all feminists since it is such a large movement with diverse number of subsets, but the circles I'm in DO care about men's issues and do speak about them. On an individual level, in my own behavior, I do not hold my boyfriend to any socially-imposed standards of masculinity, nor does he do the reverse to me. We do whatever we're comfortable with, and with consent.

[Thor Odinson]

True, but in there still isn't much of a platform for discussing men's issues at all. Especially since, as you touched on, for every subset of feminism that wants men to stand up for themselves there's one that wants men to sit down and shut up. I could list more than a few incidents where people operating under the excuse of feminism in order to shut down legitimate attempts to correct ways in which men are disadvantaged. Assuming you're referring to men's issues in the first place, we need to stop treating anyone and everyone who brings up men's issues as automatically misogynistic (even if the reputation is partially deserved).

I definitely do think there should be more standalone discussions of men's issues and a better platform in doing so, and I do agree that there's a subset of feminists that are pretty anti-men, which IMO is not what the core of feminism is about. I think there is some nuance to that, though, because often times men tend to dominate discussions and sometimes women just want men to listen a bit more, but I do agree that we should not silence men--which is why I mentioned parallel platforms. Ultimately I think it's beneficial for all of us to work together to dismantle the inequalities. I just think it would help if more men's groups would discuss those issues without someone coming in and shitting all over feminism---because it's really not necessary! The goals we want would really end up helping each other. Conversely, I also condemn all the people who claim to be feminists, but really aren't doing anything useful.

But definitely I agree that we need to also address the issues facing men as well. That's for sure.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Thor Odinson

[Augestein]

And I am saying that feminists ARE addressing it--and more often than not that's the main source of where men's issues ARE addressed are seen--it's just not enough thatwe are talking about it. Especially in a nuanced way that doesn't also put women down, like a lot of alleged pro-men groups. I am all for actual men's issues being discussed and getting the attention it deserves.

Of which we are in agreement. But as the Blind Idiot says, there's enough people in the world trying to shut down men for speaking out against this or even speaking for instance. Let's use an example again: abortion. There shouldn't even be an actual debate about whether men should be able to speak on the subject. Under normal circumstances, children require a man to be born, so considering that he makes half of it, why are we even asking if he should be able to have an opinion on the subject? Instead article after article is hotly debated on whether men should even be allowed to speak on the subject rather than the actual ethics behind abortion itself. While there are articles on abortion, it's an absolutely asinine amount of effort, research, and time devoted to a rather cut and dry answer -- yes, both sexes should be able to address this problem sense both sexes are involved with baby making.

Look man, I don't ascribe to that any trait is inherently feminine or masculine either, but society breaks them down into masc/fem--and I thought I was abundantly clear with context of my other phrasing that when I say femininity it's to denote the society's expectation's of femininity rather than any trait actually inherent to women. For example: society allows women to be more emotional and vulnerable and that's seen as feminine in society, but then treat displays of emotion and vulnerability itself as a bad thing. Simultaneously it expects women to be that way, and shames women for both conforming to it and not conforming to it. Stoic men are generally not frowned upon like stoic women are, but emotional men still are frowned upon. I too, hate the way that traits are ascribed to masculine/feminine/etc and I really hate when people say "oh that woman is so strong but still feminine at the same time!!!" but in discussions like this, they are useful in denoting the set of behaviors and expectations that society places upon people, and not any traits inherent to either group.

And that's why I asked the question as aspects are deluded even nowadays and were always murky. Example, cooking. Masculine or feminine? "Patriarchy" doesn't address the problem because in this case it's not intrinsically based on the fact of "masculine" traits and more on not being similar to the people in power-- which just so happen to be men. This is confusing the issue more than anything else which is why I feel it should be stated. In other cultures at least, there IS some consistency with the masculine and feminine traits, but in your case, it's not just an issue with the men. It's an issue with both men and women. So we can't just slap "patriarchy" is the problem here, because it's not just a pushing of masculinity to power, but rather *enough* women are consistently pushing themselves, and feminine traits, into a powerless or at the very least, subservient position. At the very least, I believe that words such as "patriarchy" cloud and blindside the real problem.

Historically, however, the rules have been to keep men in power--by forcing men and women into arbitrary roles and then devaluing the role in which women is placed in. And I have mentioned the intersectionality issue, where a person may face problems because of x but not y, whereas some other people may face issues in both x and y. Another person may have problems of y, but not x, etc. Obama still deals with racism, even though he's the POTUS. A white person can recognize white privilege in that they may not get stopped and frisked, but also experience issues with class or gender. In western society the situation have improved drastically, but there's still remnants thereof in the institution which we must work to remove.

Of course, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for people to even fight for equal rights. And a white person can still be frisked if they aren't considered "normal" looking enough. The issue is when getting searched as a minority is immediately called out rather than actually being given clear, consistent rules for why people are being searched and it becomes lost in a swarm of individual versus societal prejudices rather than determining if it's a micro-level problem or a macro-level problem. I myself only seem to be searched in airports (and by that, I mean unfairly searched, as in I'm "randomly chosen" every single time to do a full strip search practically) , but the rule never seems to apply to me anywhere else that I'm on the move. I can't even begin to address such a problem because of the lack of consistency. So I remain silent on it because I can't understand what exactly is the problem in the first place-- and just screaming race for me doesn't work when I can't replicate it in various environments.

Lastly, I believe I do mention this often, but I am Chinese. As a feminist I don't only look at issues with western society, but also with Chinese communities and China itself. Just because America gets it relatively good doesn't mean the rest of the world does. And even with America it really depends on the area. I recognize that I am fortunate to live in a state that doesn't have its head up its ass (for the most part, it's still not as progressive as it could be), but that's not the case with many other states.

And I'm not of a pure blooded ancestry, so we might not be from the same boat, but I do have a bit of an understanding of non-western society as well. In America, I'm not exactly in the best of states for behavior on things, and the problem is that I find certain declarations of problems more confusing and murky than actually helpful. It's why I mentioned women's suffrage for instance because this is a clear cut goal. Before the 19th amendment women couldn't vote but men could, and it had long sense passed that people of different races could vote, so the only people that were truly having problems voting at the time were women demographics (ignoring age with standing for a minute because I don't think anyone had realize this WAS a problem beforehand). I more so got to talking when we were getting vague things like "The pressure against those things for men is less in magnitude than the pressure in favor of those things in female" not only is that not necessarily true, but it's still no reason to shuffle things like this under the boss because it's dubbed as something of "less in magnitude." If subsets of people are still suffering from it, it's a problem when it's outside of an individual person.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Augestein

[Tryhard]

Of which we are in agreement. But as the Blind Idiot says, there's enough people in the world trying to shut down men for speaking out against this or even speaking for instance. Let's use an example again: abortion. There shouldn't even be an actual debate about whether men should be able to speak on the subject. Under normal circumstances, children require a man to be born, so considering that he makes half of it, why are we even asking if he should be able to have an opinion on the subject? Instead article after article is hotly debated on whether men should even be allowed to speak on the subject rather than the actual ethics behind abortion itself. While there are articles on abortion, it's an absolutely asinine amount of effort, research, and time devoted to a rather cut and dry answer -- yes, both sexes should be able to address this problem sense both sexes are involved with baby making.

A man ejaculates once (or however many times). A woman goes through a series of discomfort for approximately nine months sustaining a baby and is discouraged from doing certain things (extraneous activities, drinking alcohol), and eventually culminates in going through labour which sounds like fun fun fun. The man doesn't even need to be around at the time of childbirth. It's a far greater undertaking for the woman.

I'm not saying that the man's voice should be of no consequence (and he should be able to have an opinion at the very least lol), but it makes no sense to call it 50/50 or that "he makes half of it", because he doesn't (I feel as though you are saying that a man is necessary for procreation, which is obvious but not exactly helpful). While I agree with you that it is usually necessary to look at both genders to try to find equality, it's rather different in a biological issue like this.

More or less I can agree with most of the other things you are saying.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Tryhard

[FrostyFireMage]

I think Feminism is mostly unneeded - at least in the countries where the movement is most prevalent. Both men and women have advantages/disadvantages based on their gender, yet most MRAs are considered either whiny neckbeards or chauvinistic pigs.

It's a sad thing that most modern-day "feminists" are more concerned with inconsequential stuff than issues in countries where women face prosecution on a daily basis.

[Water Mage]

I think the issue of thr comparisons between male and female rights is the fact that whenever someone talks about one of them the other one is brought up, when people speak of female rights, someone will say "But what about men?". However the opposite is also true, whenever people talk about men's rights, someone will undoubtedly bring up "But what about women?" and compare the two.

It feels like that the issue gender equality is slowly becoming a competition, when it shouldn't one at all. Both should be talked about equally.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Water Mage

[Time the Crestfallen]

It feels like that the issue gender equality is slowly becoming a competition, when it shouldn't one at all. Both should be talked about equally.

Becoming? It pretty much already is, and it's less of a 'competition' and more of an metaphorical gender war. Pretty much anything done for the benefit of one gender will be seen as coming at the expense of the other, and that's without getting into the not-so-different hypocrisy and assorted bullshit you see from 'feminists' and 'men's rights activists' nowadays.

Edited October 11, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Augestein]

A man ejaculates once (or however many times). A woman goes through a series of discomfort for approximately nine months sustaining a baby and is discouraged from doing certain things (extraneous activities, drinking alcohol), and eventually culminates in going through labour which sounds like fun fun fun. The man doesn't even need to be around at the time of childbirth. It's a far greater undertaking for the woman.

I'm not saying that the man's voice should be of no consequence (and he should be able to have an opinion at the very least lol), but it makes no sense to call it 50/50 or that "he makes half of it", because he doesn't (I feel as though you are saying that a man is necessary for procreation, which is obvious but not exactly helpful). While I agree with you that it is usually necessary to look at both genders to try to find equality, it's rather different in a biological issue like this.

More or less I can agree with most of the other things you are saying.

That doesn't mean that he still shouldn't be around to talk about the subject itself. I never even said "50/50" or attributed any numbers here. The issue is whether he should have a voice or not. And the answer should be obvious from there. He should. Perhaps not with as much weight, but he shouldn't be completely stymied from speaking. And if that's not a good comparison, let's do other things. A woman should be able to speak on the draft, sure, she can't be drafted, but she should be able to speak on the subject. A person, man or woman, should be able to speak about living with a birth defect whether they have one or not; that's the only way we can actually have fair equality on these subjects.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Augestein

[Tryhard]

That doesn't mean that he still shouldn't be around to talk about the subject itself. That's the issue. I never even said "50/50" or attributed any numbers here. The issue is whether he should have a voice or not. And the answer should be obvious from there. He should. Perhaps not with as much weight, but he shouldn't be completely stymied from speaking.

If that's what you mean, then fine and I agree. "He makes half of it" is a phrase that rubs me the wrong way though. It is rather regrettable that the majority of anti-abortion leaders in America (i.e the ones who pass laws to make abortion as inconvenient as possible to discourage women from getting abortions) are men who will never be pregnant. Edited October 11, 2016 by Tryhard

[Thor Odinson]

And that's why I asked the question as aspects are deluded even nowadays and were always murky. Example, cooking. Masculine or feminine? "Patriarchy" doesn't address the problem because in this case it's not intrinsically based on the fact of "masculine" traits and more on not being similar to the people in power-- which just so happen to be men. This is confusing the issue more than anything else which is why I feel it should be stated. In other cultures at least, there IS some consistency with the masculine and feminine traits, but in your case, it's not just an issue with the men. It's an issue with both men and women. So we can't just slap "patriarchy" is the problem here, because it's not just a pushing of masculinity to power, but rather *enough* women are consistently pushing themselves, and feminine traits, into a powerless or at the very least, subservient position. At the very least, I believe that words such as "patriarchy" cloud and blindside the real problem.

Of course, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for people to even fight for equal rights. And a white person can still be frisked if they aren't considered "normal" looking enough. The issue is when getting searched as a minority is immediately called out rather than actually being given clear, consistent rules for why people are being searched and it becomes lost in a swarm of individual versus societal prejudices rather than determining if it's a micro-level problem or a macro-level problem. I myself only seem to be searched in airports (and by that, I mean unfairly searched, as in I'm "randomly chosen" every single time to do a full strip search practically) , but the rule never seems to apply to me anywhere else that I'm on the move. I can't even begin to address such a problem because of the lack of consistency. So I remain silent on it because I can't understand what exactly is the problem in the first place-- and just screaming race for me doesn't work when I can't replicate it in various environments.

And I'm not of a pure blooded ancestry, so we might not be from the same boat, but I do have a bit of an understanding of non-western society as well. In America, I'm not exactly in the best of states for behavior on things, and the problem is that I find certain declarations of problems more confusing and murky than actually helpful. It's why I mentioned women's suffrage for instance because this is a clear cut goal. Before the 19th amendment women couldn't vote but men could, and it had long sense passed that people of different races could vote, so the only people that were truly having problems voting at the time were women demographics (ignoring age with standing for a minute because I don't think anyone had realize this WAS a problem beforehand). I more so got to talking when we were getting vague things like "The pressure against those things for men is less in magnitude than the pressure in favor of those things in female" not only is that not necessarily true, but it's still no reason to shuffle things like this under the boss because it's dubbed as something of "less in magnitude." If subsets of people are still suffering from it, it's a problem when it's outside of an individual person.

Tryhard summed up the issue with abortion pretty nicely.

Cooking is actually fairly easy--in the domestic sphere, it's seen as a woman's job. In the professional arena, it's actually one of the most hostile fields for women out there. This is due to, at least in part, that in the case of cooking, it's only a woman's job when it's done for free--which brings up another issue, which is the systemic devaluing of domestic labor. Domestic labor is seen as "less than" professional labor partially because it's historically attributed to women, and partially because it's unpaid. I feel that if there's some kind of subsidization for parents to stay at home for their child, perhaps that would incentivize parents of either gender to become stay-at-home parents more, since the impact of losing another salary would not be as strong and financially they would not be solely dependent on their spouses.

Women pushing themselves into subservient positions is not contradictory to patriarchy, but rather due to the social pressures and standards set by patriarchy. For a more extreme example, foot binding in China has been around for centuries, only abolished in the early 20th century after the fall of the Qing dynasty. There is no argument that ancient China is a patriarchal society. It's also the grandmothers and mothers that forcibly enact foot-binding upon their daughters, and those daughters on to their daughters, because in ancient Chinese society, women by large are socialized to accept their subservient role, and believe they must conform to these standards, however abhorrent they are. In ancient China, because women are very unlikely to be financially independent at the time, and outside of a few very limited options, most will get married. A woman without bound feet, it is believed then, is not marriageable material, and the grandmothers and mothers are, from their perspective, acting out of the best interest of the daughter.

In modern western society I sincerely hope there's nothing as vile as foot-binding going on, and I hope I'm right, but the idea stands--depending on the area or upbringing some women will perpetrate the same restrictions society places upon her, believing it to be "a woman's place". If that's what she wants for herself on an individual level, under feminist ideals she has the right to make that choice for herself and herself only. That choice should not be made by anyone but the individual alone. In modern society, both in the east and the west, however, I have noticed a trend of women pitting ourselves against each other instead of giving each other support. I recently learned of a slew of slang that often go 'xx-bitch (where bitch can also be doubly translated as whore)' where xx is some kind of beverage, mostly green tea, to denote a type of woman that people look down upon, and it's a term o staften used by women. It's quite demeaning. However, if more women stand in solidarity with each other instead of shaming each other for being women, this would be a much less-common phenomenon. Unfortunately it's quite common.

And I'm not saying we shouldn't shame individual women for being pieces of shit, because women are perfectly capable of being shit human beings just like any other group out there. Unfortunately, often women are shamed through no fault of their own, and just are judged for being the "wrong" type of women.

The reason why things are murky are a product of intersectionality and also individuals acting out upon their (sometimes poor) judgement. I do agree that it gets complex, but it's complex because us human being are complex people with multiple facets. Sometimes an injustice happens because of a larger issue and systemic discriminatory practices, which sucks, and to change those practices requires dismantling the system in which allows those practices to foster. Sometimes it's the issue of that one particular asshole who just really hates something and decides to act upon that. Dealing with those, well...depends on the situation, I guess. I do think we need to look at issues with nuance more that the issues aren't super clear cut, which is why discussions like this is useful.

My stance does partially come from my bi-cultural experiences and partially from experiences of many other women. If nothing I say can convince you the effects of patriarchy then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Thor Odinson

[FrostyFireMage]

I think the issue of thr comparisons between male and female rights is the fact that whenever someone talks about one of them the other one is brought up, when people speak of female rights, someone will say "But what about men?". However the opposite is also true, whenever people talk about men's rights, someone will undoubtedly bring up "But what about women?" and compare the two.

It feels like that the issue gender equality is slowly becoming a competition, when it shouldn't one at all. Both should be talked about equally.

In which case "equalism" should be practiced more, not feminism

[Res]

Cooking is actually fairly easy--in the domestic sphere, it's seen as a woman's job. In the professional arena, it's actually one of the most hostile fields for women out there. This is due to, at least in part, that in the case of cooking, it's only a woman's job when it's done for free--which brings up another issue, which is the systemic devaluing of domestic labor. Domestic labor is seen as "less than" professional labor partially because it's historically attributed to women, and partially because it's unpaid. I feel that if there's some kind of subsidization for parents to stay at home for their child, perhaps that would incentivize parents of either gender to become stay-at-home parents more, since the impact of losing another salary would not be as strong and financially they would not be solely dependent on their spouses.

Goodness, yes. I have a friend who was a professional chef for twenty years, and rose to a significantly high level (she helped open many restaurants, there's articles about her if you google her name). She's an incredibly tough woman, very strong-minded, and she says the industry was absolutely ghastly to her. She says she would often have to hide for a few minutes in the freezers to have a cry, and if you met her you would find that pretty hard to believe!

Also, thank you, Thor, for all of your comments; they've been excellent.

Also thank you, Tryhard, for your abortion comment.

I think Feminism is mostly unneeded - at least in the countries where the movement is most prevalent. Both men and women have advantages/disadvantages based on their gender, yet most MRAs are considered either whiny neckbeards or chauvinistic pigs.

It's a sad thing that most modern-day "feminists" are more concerned with inconsequential stuff than issues in countries where women face prosecution on a daily basis.

This is kind of a strawman.

Are other countries worse off in terms of gender equality? Absolutely.

However, it's not the place of countries like the U.S. to do anything. We already interfere enough as it is. If the opportunity to support women in other countries arises, say, through the use of donations, that's one thing, (we could also speak out by withdrawing any support/alliance, but that's another issue altogether) but otherwise it's not our fight and it can come off as saviourism to do otherwise. Plus it undermines what a lot of women in those countries are already doing.

Feminism is largely seen as 'not needed' in countries like the U.S. (btw, I'd still place gender equality here at a lower level than in many countries in Europe) because of feminism.

Also, who judges what is and isn't inconsequential? The small stuff is still worth addressing when it can build up to become bigger issues. The recent developments of the U.S. election have been shocking.

BTW, I do hold that there is white privilege, and non-white women are far worse off than white women - intersectionality is very important, as Thor mentions.

[Moblin Major General]

In other news, Pakistan just passed a law saying honor killing is punishable by a mandatory 25 years w/o parole. It only took the death of a famous model and actress, but forgiveness on the part of the victim's family(which, more often than not, was also the killer's) is no longer a viable defense. Now, if they could stop beating rape victims, that would be great.

[Res]

Woohoo! That's great news.

[Thor Odinson]

I'm glad to hear that.

[eclipse]

That's the first step in the right direction. The law needs to be expanded to cover cases where the woman is maimed, but left alive (like throwing battery acid in her face).

[Moblin Major General]

That's the first step in the right direction. The law needs to be expanded to cover cases where the woman is maimed, but left alive (like throwing battery acid in her face).

That's the next logical step, but logical steps can take years to make if you didn't already know that.

[Rezzy]

A man ejaculates once (or however many times). A woman goes through a series of discomfort for approximately nine months sustaining a baby and is discouraged from doing certain things (extraneous activities, drinking alcohol), and eventually culminates in going through labour which sounds like fun fun fun. The man doesn't even need to be around at the time of childbirth. It's a far greater undertaking for the woman.

I'm not saying that the man's voice should be of no consequence (and he should be able to have an opinion at the very least lol), but it makes no sense to call it 50/50 or that "he makes half of it", because he doesn't (I feel as though you are saying that a man is necessary for procreation, which is obvious but not exactly helpful). While I agree with you that it is usually necessary to look at both genders to try to find equality, it's rather different in a biological issue like this.

More or less I can agree with most of the other things you are saying.

Pregnancy and labor are easy compared to the actual raising of children. Once a man helps conceive a child, he's on the hook for the financial well being of the child at the very least. If he's not ready to be a parent psychologically or financially yet, he's SOL, and has no say. Conversely, if the women does not want the child, and the man does, he has no say.

I think both men and women should have a say. Many of the most vocal women on the subject I've interacted with have never had children either, but I don't want to think my experience in actually having kids makes me the end-all be-all authority on the subject. But just as I hate it when people try to ignore or silence me or whatever for being a women, I hate it when people try to say a man's opinion is any less valid because he doesn't have a uterus.

In other news, Pakistan just passed a law saying honor killing is punishable by a mandatory 25 years w/o parole. It only took the death of a famous model and actress, but forgiveness on the part of the victim's family(which, more often than not, was also the killer's) is no longer a viable defense. Now, if they could stop beating rape victims, that would be great.

That's a great step in the right direction. We'll have to see if it's actually enforced.

Isn't honor killing, by definition, the family killing a person? I don't know how this barbaric practice has persisted for so long. I could never foresee an action that would lead me to want to kill my own children.

@Thor: It sounds like you've had a rough time of it, and from what I've heard and read form other sources, it sounds like China is definitely a more misogynistic culture (I don't mean to sound racist, sorry if I do). It's even gotten to the point where there's a "woman shortage" due to female selective abortion and infanticide. Hopefully as the generations go on, you and others will experience this less. I've never felt sexism from my family, but once I moved into medical school and residency is when I really started to see it first-hand. And the worst cases were from the older attendings, in the 60+ range. It was much rarer in the younger doctors and staff, which I think bodes well for the future, at least in Midwest America, where is where I draw my experience from.