Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: General Battuta on February 03, 2011, 12:14:10 am
-
Very interesting read (http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/nyt062093.htm) about the way in which women are constantly forced to disclose information and send signals, both linguistically and socially.
-
I agree it's sad that there are no unmarked women, but to be human is to be marked.
Too much pressure is put on women and I definitely believe women are still unequal in our society. On the other hand, if one day I choose to wear a tee-shirt and jeans, people will think of me as working class - a nice shirt and slacks? Cubical dweller.
If I grow my hair out, people literally ask me if I'm a jew, if I shave my head, people wonder if I'm in a gang. Everything about me gives people cues.
I think this article speaks to society. . . the part of society that works in an office. The men may have been "unmarked" in that context, but on the subway going to work they would have been easily identifiable.
There is no truly unmarked style for anyone. It's part of the reason nudism hasn't taken off, and even if it did, we'd be comparing stylings of body hair. The fact is, you can walk around an office and see a bunch of guys who are 'unmarked' and it probably says that they either don't know how to dress nicely, or that they don't know how to dress interestingly, or that they feel uncomfortable in a suit.
-
Very interesting read (http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/nyt062093.htm)
Hey! I read that essay in high school! Good read then, still a good read now.
-
A nice read. I find things like this interesting, as it gives light to things we may not think about normally.
-
Maybe that's why guys all look the same to me.
-
Very interesting read (http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/nyt062093.htm) about the way in which women are constantly forced to disclose information and send signals, both linguistically and socially.
A nice read, sure, but to say that women are forced to do anything of the sort is hyperbole.
-
Very interesting read (http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/nyt062093.htm) about the way in which women are constantly forced to disclose information and send signals, both linguistically and socially.
A nice read, sure, but to say that women are forced to do anything of the sort is hyperbole.
I don't think it's hyperbole.
-
it's not hyperbole :\
on the other hand, though, it does give women somewhat of an advantage in that there are a TON of options to choose from, and some of them are bound to be more flattering than others
if we get acne, we can dab on a bit of make up to make it less obvious, put on some mascara to enhance our eyes, etc
but if a guy gets caught doing that, he might catch some hell for it
but on the other hand AGAIN, make up is the norm for us... so if we are lazy one morning or if we don't like makeup, etc, that *says* something about us.. which kinda sucks.
-
Very interesting read (http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/nyt062093.htm) about the way in which women are constantly forced to disclose information and send signals, both linguistically and socially.
A nice read, sure, but to say that women are forced to do anything of the sort is hyperbole.
I don't think it's hyperbole.
Well, of course it is, because obviously women are not actually forced. The fact that there's always people around who assume things based on your choice of clothing or hairstyle doesn't force you to disclose information and send signals. When someone makes (silly) interpretations of your personal choices then that's not forcing you into anything.
Sure, on a societal level you can say that "X are forced to do Y", but that's also (practically) always hyperbole since it's (practically) always factually incorrect. As an alternative, something along the lines of "the way in which women are constantly observed for both linguistical and social information and signals" would be more accurate and far less hyperbolic (or at least I wouldn't complain about that anymore).
-
Everything you do says something for someone that's looking, don't give it that much of an importance.
-
Yeah, but as the linked screed lays out, some of the marking is a consequence of very fundamental systems (like language) that are essential to livelihood. You could argue that women have the choice not to speak English, or to never respond to questions like 'what prefix should I use on your name', but if you make that contention I suspect we're using very different definitions of 'forced' - you just can't exist in American society without engaging with these systems.
To create a totally hyperbolic example, if you're born into a cage where the only food is human flesh, you have the choice not to become a cannibal, but it's not a choice you can realistically take; I'd be happy to say you're forced into cannibalism. Same with the choice to opt out of, say, the English language.
-
Very interesting read (http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/nyt062093.htm) about the way in which women are constantly forced to disclose information and send signals, both linguistically and socially.
A nice read, sure, but to say that women are forced to do anything of the sort is hyperbole.
I don't think it's hyperbole.
Well, of course it is, because obviously women are not actually forced. The fact that there's always people around who assume things based on your choice of clothing or hairstyle doesn't force you to disclose information and send signals. When someone makes (silly) interpretations of your personal choices then that's not forcing you into anything.
Erh.. I guess it depends on your definition of forced? I mean, yeah, I can walk around in pretty miniskirts and heels and stuff if I want to, but if I venture near a road I may have to deal with creepy old guys honking at me or catcalling or some ****. To avoid that, I have to wear baggy clothes, and where I used to live, I would also cover up my long hair because it identified me as female.
In other situations, it's even more obvious. Who is a manager going to hire, the girl who is wearing make up with styled hair and fashionable clothes, or the girl wearing no make up at all, plain unstyled hair, and frumpy clothes? Attractive women earn more, and for the vast majority of us, you have to put a fair amount of effort into reaching the "standard" level of beauty. Even women who you think aren't wearing make up most likely are, they just might not be wearing much, or are very good at applying it.
There's also the issue of shaving. Everything below the eyebrows MUST GO. I know girls who don't shave, but they are very hippieish, and most of them have started shaving in the last couple years anyhow.
For guys, it's situational. If you're just walking around campus, t-shirt and jeans, polo and khakis, whatever, you're in standard dress. Unless your shirt says something particularly out of place, your clothes don't really say anything about you. "Jeans and a tshirt" for girls is just as varied as anything else. Are they skinny jeans? Bootcut? Torn? Embroidered? Boyfriend jeans? What color are they? Is the tshirt baggy or fitted? V-neck or crew? Color? How girly is the design on it? Is it plain? Heels, sandals, sneakers, or boots? How fashionable are they? Do they match her belt/purse? Is her hair in a ponytail, let loose, messy bun, etc, etc? Is it dyed? How is it cut? Are her eyebrows tweezed? Is she wearing enough foundation? Too much? How thick is her eyeliner? Lip gloss, lip balm, or lipstick? Is she wearing jewelry? What kind? Are her ears pierced? Are her nails painted? It goes on and on and on and on....
And no, you can't accurately use those markers all the time to evaluate a chick. But most of us do think about everything we wear and what signals it puts out and all that.
-
I don't understand why this is looked on as something wrong. Long ago we evolved to to value females that adjusted their appearance. Pretty soon all females began adorning themselves and now it seems weird when they don't. That's it.
-
I don't understand why this is looked on as something wrong. Long ago we evolved to to value females that adjusted their appearance. Pretty soon all females began adorning themselves and now it seems weird when they don't. That's it.
ahahahah evopsych. Back in my lab at Chicago we would tell stories about people saying this stuff and then laugh and laugh. It's like dilettante scientists talking about 'the center of the universe'; it shows that someone has no idea of the actual research done on the topic.
No, this isn't how it works. It's a fairy tale, unsubstantiated by science.
It's also a badly flawed argument from a logical standpoint because of appeal to nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature). It's wrong in the context of modern society because it forces women to constantly disclose information which is then used against them. If you'd read the article you would already have several examples of this; you don't need to agree with them but you wouldn't be facile enough to say 'that's it'.
Of course from what you said I suspect you haven't even read the article, you were just responding to iamzack; if so please take the time to read the article.
-
I don't get it. What's wrong with evopsych? Do you have a better explanation of psychology?
-
I don't get it. What's wrong with evopsych? Do you have a better explanation of psychology?
Anything is better than evopsych.
For example:
I don't understand why this is looked on as something wrong. Long ago we evolved to to value females that adjusted their appearance. Pretty soon all females began adorning themselves and now it seems weird when they don't. That's it.
Relative plainness of male dress compared to female dress is a somewhat recent development in Western societies. Men and women both used to wear makeup and men had plenty of fancy fashions going on, the same as women.
AFAIK the only conclusion evopsych ever reaches is the idea that 1950s gender roles are somehow ingrained in all of us as human beings.
-
Yeah, using actual science.
Evopsych is useful when it makes testable predictions. I've been involved in evopsych research that made testable predictions and we went on and tested them. But what you just did was invent a fairy tale, a just-so story, how the leopard got its spots for women. I went into college wanting to major in evopsych and I rapidly learned that it is a field infected with bull**** like that; a major Harvard evopsych professor was recently found guilty of simply fabricating his results. Evopsych could be good, but idiots give it a bad name.
To quote Noam Chomsky:
"You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."
All you did - and all that most rigorless, pop approaches to evopsych do - is take a modern phenomenon, invent a basis for it in the evolutionary past, and set it out as truth. When you actually buckle down and do the science, though, what you'll find is that common sense evopsych predictions rarely pan out. For instance, the notion that women look for a strong, powerful man to mate with because they need a partner to help protect and raise their children is often cited as a biological universal, and yet the data suggests it's not completely true.
Here, I'm going to demonstrate. Let's take your assertion
I don't understand why this is looked on as something wrong. Long ago we evolved to to value females that adjusted their appearance. Pretty soon all females began adorning themselves and now it seems weird when they don't. That's it.
Now I'm going to turn it around!
In most species the male displays and the female selects. Thus we see that evolution favors good-looking males because males always display for females rather than the other way around, so the appearance of the female is irrelevant. Thus men wear makeup and now it seems weird when they don't. That's it.
It's just as valid, just as wrong, and just as guilty of oversimplifying an enormously complex issue that combines biological, social and historical influences.
And yeah, what iamzack said is true, men used to dress like peacocks as recently as a couple hundred years ago. You went straight for the evopsych explanation instead of actually looking at history to see the ten billion counterexamples. That's why evopsych gets laughed out of the house.
-
I admit I just made that up, bad science or whatever. but what makes this wrong? I mean the women thing, not making stuff up.
-
From the perspective of the article, it's because it puts an unfair burden on women to 'look nice' and give away information on their availability etc.
My argument is that besides the names (a well documented misogynistic establishment) much is put on people's appearance in general. If we were talking body image, I'd argue differently; but I just don't see women actually having to put on certain clothes or being any more 'marked' in that way than men are.
-
The fact that 'male' is the default in our language causes subtle, pervasive biases - witness the famous doctor-car-crash riddle that I assume you've encountered by now:
A father and his son are out for a drive when they are struck by another car. The son is badly injured and rushed to the emergency room, where a doctor scrubs up to operate. The doctor enters the OR, takes one look at the son, and says "I can't operate. This is my son." How is that possible?
I've delivered this riddle to tables of college students and a fair fraction of them don't get it. That kind of cognitive bias pervades our society and actually impacts things like hiring decisions; we ran some experiments on this.
Or, another example from the article
If a woman's clothing is tight or revealing (in other words, sexy), it sends a message -- an intended one of wanting to be attractive, but also a possibly unintended one of availability. If her clothes are not sexy, that too sends a message, lent meaning by the knowledge that they could have been. There are thousands of cosmetic products from which women can choose and myriad ways of applying them. Yet no makeup at all is anything but unmarked. Some men see it as a hostile refusal to please them.
The woman is unable to dress neutrally. She cannot make a choice about her dress which will not in some way draw unwanted attention. Either she advertises perceived availability, or perceived hostility.
Or, furthermore
Women can't even fill out a form without telling stories about themselves. Most forms give four titles to choose from. "Mr." carries no meaning other than that the respondent is male. But a woman who checks "Mrs." or "Miss" communicates not only whether she has been married but also whether she has conservative tastes in forms of address -- and probably other conservative values as well. Checking "Ms." declines to let on about marriage (checking "Mr." declines nothing since nothing was asked), but it also marks her as either liberated or rebellious, depending on the observer's attitudes and assumptions.
I sometimes try to duck these variously marked choices by giving my title as "Dr." -- and in so doing risk marking myself as either uppity (hence sarcastic responses like "Excuse me!") or an overachiever (hence reactions of congratulatory surprise like "Good for you!").
All married women's surnames are marked. If a woman takes her husband's name, she announces to the world that she is married and has traditional values. To some it will indicate that she is less herself, more identified by her husband's identity. If she does not take her husband's name, this too is marked, seen as worthy of comment: she has done something; she has "kept her own name." A man is never said to have "kept his own name" because it never occurs to anyone that he might have given it up. For him using his own name is unmarked.
The author's contention here is that women are deprived of choices because they are unable to act without disclosing information which is then used against them. The neutral 'Mister' has no equivalent for women; any prefix they give conveys social information about their personalities and attitudes towards men.
-
It puts us at a disadvantage in a lot of ways. We spend more on making ourselves more attractive because if we don't we're likely to make much less money in the first place. We don't have a choice about whether we send out signals with our dress, so we have to always consider what message we want to send when we get dressed in the morning. There's also the health problems that result from more extreme measures of attaining attractiveness, from botched plastic surgery to eating disorders to sprained ankles from high heels.
I hear some guys complain about the portrayal of men on some sitcoms as bumbling fools, but, hey, at least fat, unattractive actors get work with relative ease. There are almost no women in the media who are just *moderately* attractive. They all have to be way above average.
There's the entitlement this whole business breeds in some men, too. They start believing that it is the job of a woman to look good for him. So then you get all the fun comments like "hey, you're too thin, men like a little meat on the bones" and "don't cut your hair short, guys will be put off if you look too masculine" and "don't dress too sexy or we'll be forced to harass you in public" and "don't dress too conservatively or you will look like a frigid prude."
Oh yeah, and we end up with millions of women and girls who genuinely believe that their looks are the most important part of them. That being pretty is much more important than health or education or, well, anything.
It's massively dysfunctional and an all-around pain in the ass.
-
Ok I get it.
-
I think it's sortof to do with the notion that men are supposed to do things (to be taken both as an innuendo and not as one) whereas women are meant to sit around with the young and look pretty. Men are defined as being to busy to worry about looks, whereas women are supposed to have nothing to do.
Not that I necessarily agree with that. :doubt:
-
whereas women are supposed to have nothing to do.
In the kitchen, making a sandwich.
Speaking of which:
http://www.mylifeisbro.com/
Today I took my girlfriends driver license, when she asked me why. I told her there is no road from the bedroom to the kitchen she realized this and left the bed to make me a sandwhich. MLIB.
-
Coming from a person whose language and culture do not separate women and men much, one can't help but wonder why most European languages and cultures do. Neither do we use titles (only on very official occasions), I actually find it amusing how important they are to Central Europeans, Chinese or North Americans. I do get pissed off if somebody tries to use a title when addressing me, though, as this would usually be considered insulting around here.
The other thing to mention here now that I started writing, is that does anyone has a map of gender density superimposed on a geographical map? I mean that here women are moving towards larger cities more often than men, at the moment our capital has about 20 % more women than men. First I would like to see if this happens elsewhere too, and the second thing is to think about why this happens. Is it because women have better chances to be employed in larger cities due to differing choices of trade, or is it some sort of image of better life they are after in this case? Men are much more reluctant to move to places with denser population, if they were born in regions that have sparse population density.
-
People seriously gotta realise it's not the words we use that matter for ****.
It's the meaning behind them.
While the case may be made in the style of the author of this piece, it should only really be made to grammarians championing this sort of practise.
To the typical person on the street, they are using words because those are the words to be used, the meaning is in the expression of those words and the thoughts behind it.
To think otherwise is retarded.
*That applies in both directions on the spectrum, P.C/Feministic/Shovanistic/Outright Sexism, any of it.
It's all petty, and it's all stupid. If people in the middle stood up for sanity a little more, both sides would have to shut up - at least on occasion, and just deal with the fact that they are small minded.
And yes, P.C nazis are small minded.
-
I'm not sure I understand your point, QD. A word is a symbolic designator for a whole complex of meaning.
-
In text, it can be reduced to that yes, but in speech it's so rarely the subject.
I in fact have trouble due to this all the time, it's not a story I want to really go into here, but words really don't have the power of the voice and feelings behind them, which matter so much more.
-
whereas women are supposed to have nothing to do.
In the kitchen, making a sandwich.
Speaking of which:
http://www.mylifeisbro.com/
Today I took my girlfriends driver license, when she asked me why. I told her there is no road from the bedroom to the kitchen she realized this and left the bed to make me a sandwhich. MLIB.
In all seriousness, when is this going to die? It's about as funny as blackface, and twice as tired.
-
People seriously gotta realise it's not the words we use that matter for ****.
It's the meaning behind them.
While the case may be made in the style of the author of this piece, it should only really be made to grammarians championing this sort of practise.
To the typical person on the street, they are using words because those are the words to be used, the meaning is in the expression of those words and the thoughts behind it.
To think otherwise is retarded.
*That applies in both directions on the spectrum, P.C/Feministic/Shovanistic/Outright Sexism, any of it.
It's all petty, and it's all stupid. If people in the middle stood up for sanity a little more, both sides would have to shut up - at least on occasion, and just deal with the fact that they are small minded.
And yes, P.C nazis are small minded.
If this was aimed at my general direction, the thing is that we really don't differentiate between men and women in speech, and the culture is rather advanced on gender equality. I'm well aware of the fact that words do not tell the whole story. But when you are faced with that in different languages and different cultures, the question naturally rises that why do they differentiate genders that way, since I already know it is unnecessary.
What it comes to the attitudes behind the words or appearances then, that's another story. I'm not yet sure of the tone of the original article, whether it was supposed to be just neutral observations, or something that could change attitudes in the end. What I see in Central Europe is that men do have clothing and equipment trends there that are similar to women trends - that doesn't mean that the clothes would be similar though. When I was a kid, we used to identify persons from a distance by the clothes they had, men or women. Whether that tells something about clothing selection, or differences in locations, I don't know.
The feeling I get from that article is that it suggests that women are coaxed to wear certain types of clothes, or that they should behave with certain limits. What I see is that the same applies to men too, but there's not so much discussion or research about that.
What foreign men say here is that Finnish women are wonderful because they are very independent, which tends to change when they start to date one.
-
The author's contention here is that women are deprived of choices because they are unable to act without disclosing information which is then used against them.
One could make this contention about nearly any form of interpersonal interaction, regardless of gender. I am unconvinced of the thesis that women are somehow more limited in this regard. Given that they actually have the option to introduce themselves in at least three separate ways as opposed to a man's two, and one of them can be specifically exploited to redirect unwanted attention, it actually seems a rather silly contention.
The paper seems to be making an assumption that women will play the truthful victim rather than, as zack is cheerfully alluding to throughout the thread, manipulate the audience with their array of options. That assumption speaks to a far greater danger than anything the paper has "uncovered".
-
The amount of information you're giving out as a woman when you choose an honorific prefix is higher than as a man because you're selecting between options - this introduces an element of intentionality. Men just have 'mister'.
I don't think it's a paper at all either, this looks like an opinion piece from a layperson.
-
I don't think it's a paper at all either, this looks like an opinion piece from a layperson.
It's pretty clearly neither. It's original publication at the top clearly places it as an opinion piece, rather than a serious research piece, but the context given in the closing anecdotes places the author as a professional academic researcher. This is a popularization of her previous academic works, no more, no less.
-
The amount of information you're giving out as a woman when you choose an honorific prefix is higher than as a man because you're selecting between options - this introduces an element of intentionality. Men just have 'mister'.
That's the same assumption of the truthful victim vs. the intelligent woman again. My point is all about intentionality; you can intentionally use the variety of options available to you to manipulate the audience. Zack is complaining about doing just that. In essence, you are saying that because women have more tools at their disposal to manipulate others' perceptions of them than men, they are victimized.
However there is another issue. Men don't just have mister; they can chose to use no prefix. So can women. So there are multiple options for males as well. There is always, for everyone, an element of intentionality, and it's usually quite revealing of personality as to whether someone does or does not adopt the prefix as a matter of habit. (For that matter you could also introduce yourself in all manner of other ways with a prefix that may or may not be true, and some people do.)
I don't think it's a paper at all either, this looks like an opinion piece from a layperson.
It's printed! But yeah, I was unsure how to refer to it.
-
I think the signals you're giving off by selecting (or refusing) a prefix as a woman are more powerful and informative than those for men. I'd even be interested in checking it out experimentally.
There's no question that social signaling can be used for manipulation, but introducing the notion of women as manipulative social climbers just seems to compound the issue. Nor would anyone here contend that anyone goes utterly unmarked, but again, the interesting thing here is the disparity.
-
The amount of information you're giving out as a woman when you choose an honorific prefix is higher than as a man because you're selecting between options - this introduces an element of intentionality. Men just have 'mister'.
That's the same assumption of the truthful victim vs. the intelligent woman again. My point is all about intentionality; you can intentionally use the variety of options available to you to manipulate the audience. Zack is complaining about doing just that. In essence, you are saying that because women have more tools at their disposal to manipulate others' perceptions of them than men, they are victimized.
The problem is where we don't get the option to just be. Miss, Ms, Mrs, all mean something. They have enough meaning that people can draw conclusions about you. Mr means nothing except that you are a man. I frequently leave the option blank if permitted to, but on occasion this results in being addressed as Mr.
Women are almost treated like a minority in this issue. Any woman frequently represents all women, whether doing a math problem in front of people or parallel parking. The way one woman dresses, speaks, acts, etc too often brings on comments about the way "women" are. We get token females across genres the same way we get token blacks or gays, but the difference is that *half* the population is female.
-
The problem is where we don't get the option to just be. Miss, Ms, Mrs, all mean something. They have enough meaning that people can draw conclusions about you. Mr means nothing except that you are a man. I frequently leave the option blank if permitted to, but on occasion this results in being addressed as Mr.
And they can be manipulated to make people draw the conclusions you want. Everyone should try doing the whole turn-the-tools-of-social-repression-on-their-makers thing wherever possible. It discourages their use.
Mister can also be taken to mean you are a pompous asshole as well as male, particularly when it's clearly not necessary to distinguish your name as masculine. (Of course, this is true of prefixes for females as well.) If I were to be putting it on my business cards I don't think that conclusion would be unjustified considering who I work with.
Women are almost treated like a minority in this issue. Any woman frequently represents all women, whether doing a math problem in front of people or parallel parking. The way one woman dresses, speaks, acts, etc too often brings on comments about the way "women" are. We get token females across genres the same way we get token blacks or gays, but the difference is that *half* the population is female.
I could make the same commentary on men and getting proper directions, or matters of fashion, social interaction, and good taste. (Would you enjoy being assumed an uncultured brute because of your gender?) No one has an exclusive on bad generalizations. I still get shocked commentary on the fact that I get directions and/or RTFM from people.
-
You're arguing for conceptual symmetry here, which is fine and good, but the data from the lab paints a very broad picture of differential, asymmetrical social treatment towards men and women in domains including the linguistic. You're painting a fine theory but it's not grounded in the empirical.
It's a common argument to say 'oh men can do/are treated in this way too', and it's not incorrect, but it assumes that categorical symmetry implies quantitative symmetry in outcomes, which is so far apparently false.
-
It's a common argument to say 'oh men can do/are treated in this way too', and it's not incorrect, but it assumes that categorical symmetry implies quantitative symmetry in outcomes, which is so far apparently false.
I don't believe in conceptual symmetry either, but I do believe that zack needs to apply a more rigorous standard than anecdotal one in action, which is why I countered it.
As I said, my main point here is that you have been given the means to subvert the existing social setup, and you supposedly don't appreciate it, you should be subverting at every opportunity rather than merely condemn.
-
The fact that subversion is necessary at all points to the existence of a problem, which is the central argument of this article.
-
The fact that subversion is necessary at all points to the existence of a problem, which is the central argument of this article.
I never argued there wasn't. I argued that the article is not offering any useful information to solve the problem, and in fact makes certain assumptions which would seem to indicate a bigger one.
-
Nondescript coveralls and high n' tights for everyone!
-
The fact that subversion is necessary at all points to the existence of a problem, which is the central argument of this article.
I never argued there wasn't. I argued that the article is not offering any useful information to solve the problem, and in fact makes certain assumptions which would seem to indicate a bigger one.
Just offering the information required to identify the problem is probably a service to most readers.
-
Women are almost treated like a minority in this issue. Any woman frequently represents all women, whether doing a math problem in front of people or parallel parking. The way one woman dresses, speaks, acts, etc too often brings on comments about the way "women" are. We get token females across genres the same way we get token blacks or gays, but the difference is that *half* the population is female.
That's pretty applicable to men though. Maybe not as much but still to a very large degree.
A guy cheats, "All men are bastards!', etc. If you've never tried dating as a guy you've got no idea how hard it is to get past deeply held perceptions of what "men" are like. I've tended to find that girls try to pigeonhole guys just as much as they complain about it being done to them.
-
Ehh... iunno. I've been exposed to a lot of well developed male characters in the media of varying races, orientations, religions, intelligence levels, levels of attractiveness, age, etc. It's as hard for me to conjure a stereotypical "guy"in my head as a stereotypical image of a white person.
-
Mika, it wasn't at you, I read no posts in the thread, merely the article, feminism and similar **** drives me round the bend, no matter how veiled.
It's just as bad as any guy being sexist, but because the women doing it often feel threatened or less-than they feel justified that they can be sexist and point out the 'injustices' they percieve without fear of reprise.
Similarly, the "Politically correct" crap, which, in it's original form, was LOVELY, but has basically turned into a petty rable over who can nitpick and ban the most words or phrases in the pursuit of one goal or another that they will never reach so long as they address the symptom, and not the problem.
Edit;
And Karajorma is mentioning a similar form to what I'm talking about.
-
Mika, it wasn't at you, I read no posts in the thread, merely the article, feminism and similar **** drives me round the bend, no matter how veiled.
It's just as bad as any guy being sexist, but because the women doing it often feel threatened or less-than they feel justified that they can be sexist and point out the 'injustices' they percieve without fear of reprise.
Feminism is about gender equality. The fact that women are in most domains lagging means they get the lion's share of the attention, yeah, but that's allocation by need. I don't see how that's in any way equivalent to being sexist.
-
...it's sexist to point out fairly obvious societal inequalities between men and women?
-
Women both benefit and suffer from what's called dual-attitude-complex sexism. On the one hand, women are viewed as morally superior, and both men and women report more satisfying friendships with women. On the other hand, women are seen as emotional, unstable, weak, less intelligent, less competent, and so forth. In general this seems to work against women in most stereotypically male domains.
Men aren't free, by any means, and a lot of fairly prominent feminist thought spends time on how men are hurt by the patriarchal gender system just as women are.
-
I did point out the positive side of the expectations of attractiveness that women have, that we have many more options when it comes to increasing our attractiveness compared to men. Men basically have it or don't.
On the other hand, you don't really have to be too attractive to be successful as a guy. *shrug*
The really sad thing is when anti-feminists start *****ing about male emasculation by feminists. Like it's feminists' fault not automatically being better than half the population (apparently) damages the male ego. Pfft.
-
We have different definitions of feminism.
By your definition I'm a feminist.
However, I am clearly _neutral_.
A feminist(for example) is like a certain prominent member of the labour party, who declared she should be made priminister, or chancellor of the exchequer, simply because there was no women in the top three positions of power in the country. Not because she was actually BETTER than any of the guys who were doing the job, nor was she championing anyone who was, she just believed a women should have one of the seats, and not the best person for the job.
Which, is retarded.
-
Oh, okay, we're making up definitions to suit our tastes. Well, a QuantumDelta (for example) is a moron who misrepresents groups he doesn't like.
-
Yeah, that's not what a feminist is, QD.
-
Variants;
Amazon · Anarchist · Atheist · Black · Chicana · Christian · Conservative · Cultural · Cyber · Difference · Eco · Equity · Equality · Fat · French structuralist · Gender · Global · Individualist · Islamic · Jewish · Lesbian · Liberal · Lipstick · Marxist · Material · New · Postcolonial · Postmodern · Pro-life · Proto · Radical · Separatist · Sex-positive · Socialist · Standpoint · Theology · Third world · Trans · Womanism
Yea, it's a really one-word umbrella subject.
-
You just declared that a feminist was someone who advocated for the advancement of women solely for the sake of the advancement of women. I'd suggest this later post is a laudable step up.
-
Hardly.
But typically, people professing themselves to be feminist, in my culture, at least, have displayed similar if not identical characteristics.
Nevermind the different 'waves' of feminism that also distinctly differentiates their goals and ambitions, most people I've met who espouse feminism, either in real life, online or in the media, _are_ basically sexist women.
About the only noteable exceptions to this have been a few people in TED talks.
Resentment and hatred is so stepped into some peoples minds that they have trouble finding a balance of "Who really gives a **** (what sex they are, what colour they are, etc)?", which is what most of my friends use as a default position.
-
The issue is that when you say 'who really gives a ****', you may even wholeheartedly consciously believe you don't give a ****, but your implicit attitudes will still be rife with whatever's been programmed into them. Nobody controls their own behavior or beliefs.
-
QD, I agree with Karajorma, but I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Feminism, in it's truest sense is about the equality of women. I am a feminist; I believe that women should have every opportunity as men. I think that all too often men do not carry their weight in things like raising children, becoming educated, and numerous other aspects of society.
On the other aspect of the conversation I don't have any studies on this but on a personal note:
I personally came from a family where in my mother and two half-sisters came from a family wherein they were physically and mentally abused.
As a result of that, I grew up being told how evil 'men' were; one of my first memories was of getting chased by my sister with a broom while she screamed "You get what you deserve!" and "Men!"
Discrimination against men is real, and it is a problem; how commonplace it is, however, I have no idea.
-
Even if it were comparatively rare it'd be a problem.
-
I think discrimination against both sexes is pretty common. Its just that discrimination against women is more prevalent where it matters the most, in the professional environment.
I see where QD is coming from, since the "bad" feminists get the most attention, but you needs to realize that not all feminists are like that.
-
I see where QD is coming from, since the "bad" feminists get the most attention...
all seven of them
but you needs to realize that not all feminists are like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaczoJMRhs
this feminist for example...
-
The only thing more irritating than the feminists that make us look bad is "I'm not a feminist, but..."
-
Feminism good. Sexism bad. The line blurs when idiots use the term to further their own ends.
-
Sarah Palin is a feminist, doncha know :wtf:
-
The really sad thing is when anti-feminists start *****ing about male emasculation by feminists. Like it's feminists' fault not automatically being better than half the population (apparently) damages the male ego. Pfft.
If feminists want equality I have no problem with it. What I have a problem with with is the feminists who seem to think they are better than men.
It has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with them being the same useless wastes of skin that the male chauvinists they argue against are.
-
The really sad thing is when anti-feminists start *****ing about male emasculation by feminists. Like it's feminists' fault not automatically being better than half the population (apparently) damages the male ego. Pfft.
If feminists want equality I have no problem with it. What I have a problem with with is the feminists who seem to think they are better than men.
It has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with them being the same useless wastes of skin that the male chauvinists they argue against are.
/agree
-
The really sad thing is when anti-feminists start *****ing about male emasculation by feminists. Like it's feminists' fault not automatically being better than half the population (apparently) damages the male ego. Pfft.
If feminists want equality I have no problem with it. What I have a problem with with is the feminists who seem to think they are better than men.
It has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with them being the same useless wastes of skin that the male chauvinists they argue against are.
Oh, trust me, I don't like them any more than you do. I'm sick to death of being accused of being one of them.
-
Yeah. I can imagine being accused of being a feminazi would sting somewhat. They're all such horrible people. :D
But there is some legitimacy to certain arguments against even the more mainstream feminists. Divorce for instance is hugely unfair to the male half of the partnership for reasons that are horrifically sexist but it's quite rare to hear a feminist complaining about that kind of sexism.
But if you really want to get rid of sexism then you have to address that sort of thing. The fact that women almost always gain custody (either joint or full) reinforces the stereotype that women are the sex that has to take care of children. Alimony laws reinforce stereotypes about women as golddiggers unable to take care of themselves without a man. Lack of validity to pre-nuptial agreements suggests that women are too dumb to understand the ramifications of a contract. It's all a big sexist mess but I rarely hear anyone having a go at it with quite the same force they go after the relatively smaller issues.
And divorce is just a good example, there are plenty of others.
-
Marriage in general seems to be a bastion of sexism.
-
Divorce favors women in certain cases. Marriage favors men. Problems with custody issues in divorce are being addressed, mainly by the feminist line against automatically assuming women are meant to be mothers. Being a father is good for a male economically, even if he is a single parent. Being a mother harms a women economically, even if she has a stay-at-home husband and isn't the primary caregiver. The stereotypes that all women have a need to be mothers, that women are more nurturing than men, that men are incapable of proper parenthood are harmful to both sexes. Just because the primary goal of most feminists isn't to fix the few disadvantages men have in a patriarchal society doesn't mean they aren't addressed at all. After all, almost all of those disadvantages pretty much disappear once the disadvantages affecting women are gone.