|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Male feminism
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Isn't wearing a tie, in some circles, a way of signalling which tribe a man belongs to? School? Regiment? Club? Whatever. Thus enabling the discreet workings of the Old Boys Network.
Nobody has mentioned that. Only the fabric division.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I clearly don't come from the right circles to think of those things. Although I have, in one job particularly, caught a glimpse of that circle.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
If I never have to wear a tie again, I'll be glad. Sadly, however, I doubt I'll be so fortunate.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I don't move there, either. But I have just been reading the history of a golf club, which I picked up because it was a bit of ground a friend knows, and then read because the club started as a sort of guerrilla club on land they had no permission for, and it seemed funny.
Then it slid into excluding the "Ladies" and an issue with the President sponsoring someone from the race they didn't admit, and the obvious golf club things stuck in my mind. So when the subject of ties appeared...
[ 03. September 2013, 14:38: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Hello. My name is Cod and I like to wear a tie, mostly because menswear (apart from ties) is so fecking dowdy.
I resemble that remark.
Not that I actually wear a tie very much. Dress at my place of work is strictly informal - if a man wears a tie, it's because he's going to a funeral.
I probably wouldn't actually get fired for showing up to work in a suit and tie on a regular basis, but I wouldn't be taken seriously.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
... maybe it's time for men to have share in the action . Although I'm not sure if a male mega-pop star simulating an orgasm on stage would be allowed would it ?
I think you'll find that endless numbers of rock stars have done just that.
Allegedly Nijinsky while dancing the premiere of L'apre's-midi d'un faune didn't merely simulate. That's high culture that is.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Hello. My name is Cod and I like to wear a tie, mostly because menswear (apart from ties) is so fecking dowdy.
I resemble that remark.
Not that I actually wear a tie very much. Dress at my place of work is strictly informal - if a man wears a tie, it's because he's going to a funeral.
I probably wouldn't actually get fired for showing up to work in a suit and tie on a regular basis, but I wouldn't be taken seriously.
At my last full-time job, if someone showed up in a tie, everybody said, "Job interview?"
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Allegedly Nijinsky while dancing the premiere of L'apre's-midi d'un faune didn't merely simulate. That's high culture that is.
Indeed if this is so , and male pop-stars have done the same as madonna , then I was mistaken . Apologies.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Allegedly Nijinsky while dancing the premiere of L'apre's-midi d'un faune didn't merely simulate. That's high culture that is.
Stanislavsky would be proud.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
... maybe it's time for men to have share in the action . Although I'm not sure if a male mega-pop star simulating an orgasm on stage would be allowed would it ?
I think you'll find that endless numbers of rock stars have done just that.
Allegedly Nijinsky while dancing the premiere of L'apre's-midi d'un faune didn't merely simulate. That's high culture that is.
Citation please.
Or not. Maybe I don't want to know...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Relevant comment in The Guardian today. Just posting, not affirming.
quote:
This whole ridiculous tale is symptomatic of the huge muddle around men's relationship to feminism. Obviously men can be feminists, as I often say. They can walk alongside us, just not ahead and take charge of the whole shebang. Increasingly, though, to talk about gender-specific issues invokes cries of "misandry" from the What About The Men brigade. According to some, anyone who mentions breast cancer therefore doesn't care about prostate cancer, anyone who mentions "domestic violence" doesn't care that men are victims of violence too. Female genital mutilation? What about circumcision? And so it goes ludicrously on, as though any woman speaking about these issues does not have sons, fathers, lovers.
To be accused of misandry – hating all men – when sometimes one is merely trying to stick up for some women is really tedious. I don't hate all men. Give me time!
...
The battering ram of misandry is another attempt to silence debate. It is misguided. It operates from the assumption that we are all on a level playing field. I say tomato. You say to-mate-oh. I say misogyny. You say misandry. What is missing here is any analysis of patriarchy. Or, indeed, global reality.
One may argue that the construction of patriarchy is just "natural" – women are weaker and have babies – or that it is cultural, and therefore changes as technology and contraception alters what is purely natural. Either way, it produces a multi-faceted system in which men at the top are the most advantaged. The spectrum of privilege is huge. There is a world of difference between not being able to get a buggy on to a bus and being raped and then stoned to death.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/04/femen-men-feminism-victor-svyatski
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
It is an analysis that cuts both ways. It is just as much a battering ram of an argument to dismiss a claim that men get a raw deal in some respect as whataboutery. It is, for example, quite appropriate to point out that men appear to be victims of domestic violence far more than is generally acknowledged, yet provision for them is just about nil. Often it seems that attempts to raise genuine problems are dismissed as non-problems on the basis that as they arise in a patriarchy, they aren't worth fixing.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It depends on the context. If an issue to do with women is being discussed, and then some men pipe up with 'we suffer too', I do think that's a deliberate kind of sabotage. And I can see why feminists get irritated by it.
On the other hand, I think it's OK for men to discuss ways in which they think patriarchy might damage them.
An example is men's health, which some campaigners argue, is treated less seriously. I don't actually know if that's true or not, but at any rate, it is a valid topic for discussion.
But if someone brings up prostate cancer in the middle of a discussion of breast or ovarian cancer, that seems pretty tacky and also destructive.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on the context. If an issue to do with women is being discussed, and then some men pipe up with 'we suffer too', I do think that's a deliberate kind of sabotage. And I can see why feminists get irritated by it.
It depends, I think. If it's "we've got problems too" then I agree with you. If it's "this specific problem is not restricted to women - men suffer from that specific problem as well, so treating it as a women's issue alone is incorrect" then I don't think it's sabotage.
Consider, for example, the "pay gap" between men and women. Part of that gap is attributable to poorer treatment for part-time workers. This shows up as a "women's issue" because there are more women with those kinds of jobs, and one shouldn't exclude the discussion of the female dimension of the issue (it is certainly relevant to ask whether jobs that are more often than not done by women are treated poorly because of sexism in society, and so men in those jobs are also victims of sexism and patriarchy) but if that's all you talk about, I think you miss a lot of the picture.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, that's an interesting example.
I remember furious discussions about sexualized images in the media, when some men would regularly get up and talk about the male body being objectified and sexualized and fetishized. Obligatory photo of van Damme coming up in 5 4 3 2 1 seconds.
http://tinyurl.com/mfh4bh2
Well, yes, it is, quite often. But there is also the issue of when and where you raise it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Learning Cnight, so is it never acceptable to discuss any problem except at its widest scope?
Yes, I think that is the point. If a bunch of women have a meeting to discuss low pay amongst women, it would seem crass in the extreme for a man to rise up and announce, 'I am low paid too'. Well, OK, maybe he is, but it is OK for women to discuss women.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I can't remember the last time I saw a discussion of FGM which wasn't almost immediately derailed into a discussion of circumcision and why that's really pretty much just as bad (no. No it isn't).
This kind of phenomenon puts me in mind of my dad and buses. I can't drive a car, so I spend quite a lot of time on buses, in all kinds of temperatures. I sit or stand beside smelly people and screaming kids and drunk people and people who feel the need to yell at the driver, and shifty looking teenagers with dogs which are trained to intimidate others. I've been on buses taking bizarre routes that take almost as long as it would to walk. I've waited at bus stops for hours for buses that just didn't come, and I've missed things as a result. And so on. It's not a massive hardship but it can be a PITA.
My dad drives. He gets the bus exactly once a year, when his car goes to the mechanic for its MOT and service, and he has to catch the bus home. And here's the thing: he never fails to complain about this journey to me. Something was wrong: the bus was crowded and hot and uncomfortable, or it took too long, or the driver drove recklessly. If I reply "Yes. I know. I catch buses all the time. I know what it's like" then his natural response is something like "Well, since you know what it's like I'd have thought you'd be more sympathetic."
Now of course sexism and racism are much bigger and more harmful issues than the inconveniences of catching the bus. But the basic mechanism of this applies to many issues. Men do this "yeah I know! Sexism, right?" to women all the time; white people do this to black people all the time. Fat people who are constantly hassled about their weight, jeered at, and unable to find clothes that fit get used to thin people saying "I know exactly how you feel! There was this time when someone told me to eat a sandwich! Thin-shaming is the worst!"
It gets exhausting because no, that person doesn't know what it's like. They have a brief insight into something that someone else experiences day in day out and they want to make that brief experience the main centre of attention. It comes up every time. And in fact what they're really conveying when they do this is, "yeah, yeah, I know it sucks that you constantly have to deal with this horrible situation. But whatever. There was this time when something similar happened to someone more like ME! INORITE! Can you believe it? Well I must say I'd expect you to be more sympathetic. You know what? You're just as bad as the people doing those horrible things to you. Nope. It's exactly the same."
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Learning Cnight, so is it never acceptable to discuss any problem except at its widest scope?
Well, it depends. What are you trying to do with the discussion? Are you talking about the problem, or about women? If you just want to catalogue a list of issues that predominantly affect women, then there's no need to spend much time on the fact that this is actually a [some third thing] problem that just has a correlation with being a woman.
If you're trying to find appropriate solutions, then I think it is right to discuss the full scope. On the other hand, is someone is offloading about their problems (see Liopleurodon's post) it is basically never appropriate to jump over them with "I have problems too".
So if you're having a discussion about low pay in women with the aim of finding solutions, the appropriate way to have the discussion is to identify which women are low-paid, and then to identify why. And some of those reasons will turn out to be to do with third factors which are just statistically correlated with womanhood, in which case you do need to consider the third factor.
On the other hand, interrupting a discussion about low pay in women with "soldiers are low paid" would be an irrelevant derailment, even though a minority of soldiers are women, and so technically "low-paid women".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Can we erect a statue for Liopleurodon?
There is something sad about the fact that on a place like the Ship, every time a thread starts about sexism after a few posts it becomes exclusively about sexism against men. And threads about racism become exclusively about racism against whites. I've seen it over and over again on the Ship.
Surely, there is something sexist/racist about that. Why is it that sexism against women cannot be discussed, but has to be immediately stuffed away under layers and layers of talk about the opposite sexism?
It isn't that sexism against men is completely unimportant, but shouldn't sexism against women at least have equal (and in my opinion more, if only based on the number of victims) chances to be discussed?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
How can any outside observer hear all of the subtexts of a problem so as to know the problem entirely? For instance, if two women discuss the problem of low pay in a way that affects men too, a man might reasonably say he was affected and yet had the right to join the discussion. on the other hand, if part of the subtext is how it feels to be women having to fight low pay, they can reasonably think he won't know about that. I was going to give another example, and I won't, but I think that often there are many unsaid things or assumptions that those outside of a group will not hear or will not know about. That is not their fault, but it does mean that if they jump into the discussion they will make the discussers re-explain a lot of ground and will perhaps not be able to discuss with certain mutually assumed parameters that the newcomers did not assume. The originally discussers may be reasonably impatient if a bunch of newcomers enter a discussion and demand that the parameters are expanded. Every time this discussion happens in my hearing, men ask why women are discussing female concerns not male ones. Because the male concerns are similar but not identical. They may look identical to a man, I do not know, not being one. That doesn't mean they are the same though.
[ 05. September 2013, 14:27: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QB]So if you're having a discussion about low pay in women with the aim of finding solutions, the appropriate way to have the discussion is to identify which women are low-paid, and then to identify why. And some of those reasons will turn out to be to do with third factors which are just statistically correlated with womanhood, in which case you do need to consider the third factor.
[QB]
![[Confused]](confused.gif) When discussing low pay in women, it is completely uneccesary to examine factors which are unrelated to women. This is a different discussion.
In part because the women who are not payed lower are a massive exception.
Liopleurodon has it right.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
There is something sad about the fact that on a place like the Ship, every time a thread starts about sexism after a few posts it becomes exclusively about sexism against men. And threads about racism become exclusively about racism against whites. I've seen it over and over again on the Ship.
I wonder if the same sort of thing would be seen were we to have a thread that started with sexism against men or racism against whites. How long do you suppose any such thread would last without sexism against women/racism against non-whites being raised?
I had a brief search for old threads specifically designed to talk about men's concerns, and found this one about male spirituality. The very first reply is saying "that stuff applies to women as well".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think it is tempting to say, 'what about me?', when people are not talking about you. However, a certain amount of separate discussion seems quite healthy, I mean women with women, and men with men. I suppose many feminists would argue, probably correctly, that discussion in the public square has traditionally been monopolized by men.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
And didn't comments like that make you a little impatient that no one would make space for men to talk about something relevant to their lives?
And on an anonymised internet, how do you work out the gender of the commenters? Even those who self-identify might be lying.
And I'm reasonably certain "this thread is for men only/women only" would be honoured for about a nanosecond, rightly or wrongly.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Does anyone ever read any of the atheist feminist web-sites? Wow, some of them are like Maoist re-education camps. If you say something not quite up to scratch, you aren't disagreed with, you are suspended, and told to read stuff, and come back re-educated.
Check out atheismplus for example.
Check your privilege, now, you guys.
http://atheismplus.com/forums/index.php
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't think anyone wants to forbid people of the wrong gender from reading or speaking on a thread. At least I certainly don't. Rather it seems a bit outrageous that every thread on feminism--and perhaps on men's issues too, you'll be unshocked to know I pay less mind to those considering what I've said above and that I am female--always involves men saying what about me. As quetzalcoatl says above this is tempting for anyone, but it seems decisively unhelpful to me.
If - and I may have completely the wrong end of the stick here - feminism is about equality, and that men need feminism too, any discussion about feminism or the application of feminist theory to society will inevitably impact (and ultimately aid) almost as many men as it will women, because the patriarchal system concentrates power and wealth in the hands of relatively few (men).
If that's the case, why wouldn't men want to comment, and why do you think it unhelpful that they do?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[I wonder if the same sort of thing would be seen were we to have a thread that started with sexism against men or racism against whites. How long do you suppose any such thread would last without sexism against women/racism against non-whites being raised?
The "misandry" thread doesn't appear to have that happening.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't think anyone wants to forbid people of the wrong gender from reading or speaking on a thread. At least I certainly don't. Rather it seems a bit outrageous that every thread on feminism--and perhaps on men's issues too, you'll be unshocked to know I pay less mind to those considering what I've said above and that I am female--always involves men saying what about me. As quetzalcoatl says above this is tempting for anyone, but it seems decisively unhelpful to me.
If - and I may have completely the wrong end of the stick here - feminism is about equality, and that men need feminism too, any discussion about feminism or the application of feminist theory to society will inevitably impact (and ultimately aid) almost as many men as it will women, because the patriarchal system concentrates power and wealth in the hands of relatively few (men).
If that's the case, why wouldn't men want to comment, and why do you think it unhelpful that they do?
I'm not saying I think it unhelpful for men to discuss feminism. I saying it unhelpful if men make such discussions all about them. If the way our society treats women changes that will certainly affect men. However, surely that will affect women more, so if we can only discuss such effects for women while also discussing the effects for men, that seems a bit unfairly limiting, doesn't it?
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[I wonder if the same sort of thing would be seen were we to have a thread that started with sexism against men or racism against whites. How long do you suppose any such thread would last without sexism against women/racism against non-whites being raised?
The "misandry" thread doesn't appear to have that happening.
First post under the OP does exactly that?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'm not saying I think it unhelpful for men to discuss feminism. I saying it unhelpful if men make such discussions all about them. If the way our society treats women changes that will certainly affect men. However, surely that will affect women more, so if we can only discuss such effects for women while also discussing the effects for men, that seems a bit unfairly limiting, doesn't it?
Yes, it's unhelpful if a discussion about feminism is only from a male viewpoint and only about the effects on men.
Why would also discussing the effects of feminism on men be unfairly limiting?
[ 05. September 2013, 17:07: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[I wonder if the same sort of thing would be seen were we to have a thread that started with sexism against men or racism against whites. How long do you suppose any such thread would last without sexism against women/racism against non-whites being raised?
The "misandry" thread doesn't appear to have that happening.
First post under the OP does exactly that?
I didn't watch the video so can't speak to whether that comment is relevant in the video's context or not. You may be right.
But the bulk of that thread is pretty much a discussion of men's roles in society and whether hardships they face are being ignored or not. I think it's quite on track with the topic actually.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'm not saying I think it unhelpful for men to discuss feminism. I saying it unhelpful if men make such discussions all about them. If the way our society treats women changes that will certainly affect men. However, surely that will affect women more, so if we can only discuss such effects for women while also discussing the effects for men, that seems a bit unfairly limiting, doesn't it?
Yes, it's unhelpful if a discussion about feminism is only from a male viewpoint and only about the effects on men.
Why would also discussing the effects of feminism on men be unfairly limiting?
Surely that would be a different thread? A thread like this one perhaps that is about males and feminism.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I wonder if the same sort of thing would be seen were we to have a thread that started with sexism against men or racism against whites. How long do you suppose any such thread would last without sexism against women/racism against non-whites being raised?
I think it would depend upon the tone. If it is an exploration those topics, I think the conversation can go well. If it is a stop complaining or everybody is racist/sexist, not so much. I tried to be very careful in my racism OP to include everyone. An OP on sexism towards males and racism towards whites would need to be phrased carefully as well. Both of those happen and they are wrong. It is when they are used to negate or minimise that a problem occurs.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Why would also discussing the effects of feminism on men be unfairly limiting?
Surely that would be a different thread? A thread like this one perhaps that is about males and feminism.
I don't understand why there should be two sorts of threads. Even if the OP was "The effects of feminism on women", because there's all kinds of logical fallacies caused by lumping together the experiences of all women and excluding the experiences of all men. I'm absolutely certain I've more in common with a stay-at-home mum (because I am one) than a male office worker.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
My husband is a stay-at-home Dad too, but he's still male, still has male privilege in many ways. THere's more to gender than role in society, and I think few women doubt that.
There are an awful lot of people out there who have written an awful lot about gender being a social construct. I tend to agree with them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I wonder if the same sort of thing would be seen were we to have a thread that started with sexism against men or racism against whites. How long do you suppose any such thread would last without sexism against women/racism against non-whites being raised?
I think it would depend upon the tone. If it is an exploration those topics, I think the conversation can go well. If it is a stop complaining or everybody is racist/sexist, not so much. I tried to be very careful in my racism OP to include everyone. An OP on sexism towards males and racism towards whites would need to be phrased carefully as well. Both of those happen and they are wrong. It is when they are used to negate or minimise that a problem occurs.
I remember a thread in Hell (of all places) about male victims of domestic violence which actually proceeded surprisingly smoothly and respectfully. That seems to bear out lilBuddha's point. These things can be done.
But I think there is a point missing from this discussion. The comments on men piling in with "what about..." comments in such numbers or force that they inhibit the main discussion - it certainly happens. And then there are the attempts to close down discussions by disallowing discussions on some basis or another. People do all these things. I can't offer any great advice.
But if this little cluster of threads has reinforced one point for me, it is to ram home the importance of not generalizing wildly. Once you do that, you broaden the remit of the discussion to those who had hitherto not been covered. If you change the remit, then live with the consequences!
A variant of this is the hybrid version, where someone makes a perfectly valid, on-topic point, but then draws unsupportable conclusions from it that draw in wider considerations. Same problem.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
My husband is a stay-at-home Dad too, but he's still male, still has male privilege in many ways. THere's more to gender than role in society, and I think few women doubt that.
There are an awful lot of people out there who have written an awful lot about gender being a social construct. I tend to agree with them.
Well, yes - but there's a hell of a lot more to gender being a social construct than the roles that adults take in society. A stay-at-home Dad has some things in common with a stay-at-home Mum, but there are also quite a lot of differences.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: I wonder if the same sort of thing would be seen were we to have a thread that started with sexism against men or racism against whites. How long do you suppose any such thread would last without sexism against women/racism against non-whites being raised?
I would have no problem at all if such a thread were started, and if necessary I would be with you to defend that it wouldn't stray too much into the opposite topic.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Well, yes - but there's a hell of a lot more to gender being a social construct than the roles that adults take in society. A stay-at-home Dad has some things in common with a stay-at-home Mum, but there are also quite a lot of differences.
If you're talking about being treated with suspicion by the other mums and disdain by the working dads, then yes. Or the lack of baby changing facilities in the men's toilets. Or being the only man at 'Mother and Baby' groups.
Otherwise, the numbing tedium and lack of sleep is pretty much the same.
And since I went through all that, society has thankfully moved (thanks, in no small part, to feminism) so that it's significantly easier for men to take the traditional Mother role.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Well, yes - but there's a hell of a lot more to gender being a social construct than the roles that adults take in society. A stay-at-home Dad has some things in common with a stay-at-home Mum, but there are also quite a lot of differences.
If you're talking about being treated with suspicion by the other mums and disdain by the working dads, then yes. Or the lack of baby changing facilities in the men's toilets. Or being the only man at 'Mother and Baby' groups.
Otherwise, the numbing tedium and lack of sleep is pretty much the same.
And since I went through all that, society has thankfully moved (thanks, in no small part, to feminism) so that it's significantly easier for men to take the traditional Mother role.
I didn't say it was easier for the stay-at-home Dad, I said it was different. Of course it's harder to do things you are not 'supposed' to do. If it's easier for stay-at-home dads now, that's great - but I think we've barely scratched the surface of the social construction of gender.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
When discussing low pay in women, it is completely uneccesary to examine factors which are unrelated to women. This is a different discussion.
Garbage. Read my earlier post. Part (but not all) of the reason women are paid less is that more women hold part-time jobs. That part of the problem is only related to women statistically - the real issue for that part is the treatment of part-time workers (cf. in the US, employers carefully ensuring that employees don't work too much so as to avoid having to provide benefits).
Poor treatment of part-time workers is indeed part of the reason for the low pay of women, yet it is, in essence, unrelated to women. (Actually, there's a case that that isn't true, and that there is a sexist pin-money type explanation for part-timers getting a raw deal.)
I agree with you, of course, that pointing out individual examples of well-paid women isn't relevant, and also, as I said before, pointing out the fact that soldiers are low-paid isn't relevant to the discussion of low pay in women.
But this certainly doesn't mean that every reason for low pay in women has to have more than a statistical correlation with womanhood.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
IIRC, wages are lower across the board for women, full or part-time. If this is indeed accurate, the treatment of part-time workers v. full-time workers is irrelevant to the discussion.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IIRC, wages are lower across the board for women, full or part-time. If this is indeed accurate, the treatment of part-time workers v. full-time workers is irrelevant to the discussion.
So your case is that if the wages of part-time women were equal to the wages of part-time men, and the wages of full-time women were equal to those of full-time men, there would be no issue about fair pay for women, even if part-timers were paid very badly, and part-timers were predominantly women?
Because I don't agree.
(Sidenote: The last figures I saw from the UK had part-time women earning more than part-time men. I suspect that these figures are rather skewed by professional women who work part-time after having had a child. Men with similar careers rarely switch to part time.)
[ 06. September 2013, 05:18: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Forgive me, but I grow weary of this dance.
The issue of part-time pay is only related to the sexism discussion if sexism is tied to the disparity in pay. Otherwise, while indeed a good subject for discussion, it is a separate discussion.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Forgive me, but I grow weary of this dance.
The issue of part-time pay is only related to the sexism discussion if sexism is tied to the disparity in pay. Otherwise, while indeed a good subject for discussion, it is a separate discussion.
But the tie doesn't have to be causal, which is my point (and sorry for being unclear).
If part-timers are treated poorly, and part-timers are overweight in women, then the fact that part-timers aren't paid much will generate a difference between men's and women's pay.
But part-timers don't have to be poorly paid for a sexist reason in order to generate this disparity - any reason will do. And if you're only considering explicit sexism against women - if you disallow discussion of the fact that the cause of part of the discrepancy in pay is part-time status rather than womanhood - then you'll generate the wrong fix for that portion of the discrepancy.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Remember everyone, ice cream causes murders.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
