On masculinity
Something that severely causes me to rage is when guys complain that there's a crisis of masculinity, that everything is becoming too feminized and dominated by women and this will cause future generations of men to grow up sissies. When they blame their personal problems on feminists.
First off, haha, things are not too dominated by women. Please look at governing bodies. Please look at the CEOs of top companies. Please look at the lead actors in successful movies. Wikipedia lists the producers of Best Picture nominated movies. There are usually 2-3 producers per movie. And about 2-3 female producers out of all the nominees per year. So, no. We don't have political power, we don't have media power, we don't have economic power. I mean, not that we're powerless, but men are definitely still holding the reins.
The main place where there are more women is as schoolteachers. There are a lot of reasons for this - presumably the lack of role models means men are less likely to pursue the career. Plus, it's become a female-dominated profession (not always the case) because it's not particularly well-paid. There's also, sadly, still a fair amount of stigma about men pursuing traditionally female jobs. Now, I don't think having only female teachers is a good thing, and I think boys are likely to be hurt the most by the imbalance. But I don't think the problem is that the boys are being feminized. Lacking positive role models, yes. Feminized, no. Of course, whenever I've seen men argue about this point it devolves into misogyny.
Also, they like to say that the curriculum is feminized and that's bullshit, because almost all the literature we read was by men, about men.
Second off, as a feminist I don't want to poop on your masculinity. But I think your masculinity should be strong enough to handle a woman being good at the same things as you. I think your masculinity should not depend on violence against women, on putting women down and treating women badly. I think your masculinity should also not depend on putting men down. I am not saying that you shouldn't. . . go chop down trees, or like sports, or drink beer, or do boxing, or want to watch explosions, or have a doberman. I'm not saying you shouldn't want to have lots of sex with women (although I do think that we're all giving ourselves weird ideas about sex and sexuality which can cause them to be expressed in harmful ways). I'm not saying you shouldn't have guys nights or poker nights or whatever. I'm not saying you shoudn't become a fully realized adult in charge of your own destiny! (Judd Apatow, you are hurting EVERYONE!)
Masculinity is great. A lot of women really enjoy it. Many of us, however, are less crazy about misogyny.
Also, I'm not crazy about enforced masculinity, or enforced femininity. If giving people a choice of how to behave and not forcing them to be a certain way threatens masculinity, then maybe there's a problem with masculinity.
This might be a big sticking point? Because I am happy to let boys play with Barbie dolls and men wear pink and want to sit around drinking wine and watching Desperate Housewives or whatever it is that often gets these types so riled up. And there are some men out there (and probably some women) who seem to think that this will cause our society to end. The implication seems to be that we're constantly on the brink of social collapse and if my husband isn't buff and brawny and manly enough, we will be raided by looters and I will be carried away and raped. My plan was to count on the army (who have guns) to maintain some sort of martial law in that situation.
I don't need the men in my life to be able to fight a bear, to kill and bring home the meat that we will imbibe. If he can, that's great! I don't like looking at carcasses but I like to eat meat. But if he can't, we can just buy it at the grocery store and won't need to fill part of our lawn with a smokehouse. But I have honestly seen, and seen quite a bit, men (and women) lamenting that we are no longer a hunter-gatherer society because it has harmed masculinity.
Third off, inequality means that when equality is achieved, the previously superior group is now no longer superior. This does not mean that they have an inferior status! White men of an anti-feminist/libertarian bent often seem to have a really hard time with this. A job where there previously were 95 men and 5 women now has 70 men and 30 women. I have seen reactions to this where what they see is that 25 men have lost their job, and the conclusion they take away is that men are disadvantaged and inferior in our society, on the lower rungs of the ladder. (This one plays out in discussions of race, too.)
Fourth off, just because you don't like an idea DOES NOT mean it is an idea held by feminists!! This feminist would like greater flexibility of gender roles, so that people can make the lifestyle choices that make them the happiest - so that fathers can be involved in raising their kids and even stay at home rather than working, so that women can be stoic and aggressive without negative social backlash, and so on.
This feminist would also like for there to be more positive, interesting, developed portrayals of women in the media, and for women to not be judged by their appearance to such a great extent.
This feminist would also like for gender, race, or other demographic factors to be neither a hindrance or a help in obtaining a job or other position. However, I would also like people to realize that there are currently many subtle institutionalized social factors that disadvantage people based on these demographic factors and that encouraging greater equality and opportunity now can help minimize those disadvantages and will hopefully eventually eradicate them on an institutional scale.
This feminist would like for there to be a more sophisticated understanding of consent, for having sex with someone without their consent be viewed as harshly as, say, mutilating them without their consent. It's not a perfect analogy because sex is good when it's consensual and multilation is still mutilation, but if I get drunk and go in a room with someone and he rapes me, it should be viewed as if I got drunk and went in a room with someone and he or she cut my hand off. No matter what state I'm in, no matter what I'm wearing or where I am, what he did was unacceptable. So yeah, I'd like for people to stop excusing rape.
There are other things I want but they're obvious stuff like "not hating people simply based on their gender and then enacting that hatred into laws that oppress women."
So, if you want people to be forced to behave a certain way because of their gender, then as a feminist I am against you. If you only want to see women running around in bikinis and not talking on TV, then as a feminist I am against you. If you don't recognize the long-term effects of historical discrimination, and if you think men should be free to take sex from women whenever they please, if you believe that women should not be educated and that female genital mutilation should be enforced, then I am against you. I don't think that makes me shrill or crazy or full of hate.
If you think that men and women are equals, with equal potential and equal right to be happy, then we are on the same page. If you think sexuality should be viewed as something healthy and normal, then we are on the same page. If you think that women should not control men with iron fists, that men should not be the only ones drafted, that men should not bear all the economic responsibility in a relationship, we are on the same page!
I have no problem with men getting together to discuss problems that face them. However, if you consider these problems to be "women are taking all our jobs," or "no one will let me rape my wife anymore," then we've got an issue again. (Or, as I saw today, "Women are getting too fat after marriage.")
I think these are two of the basic ideas behind feminism, at least as I see it:
1) Behavior should not be enforced based on gender.
2) Historical events have lead to institutional inequalities, which affect the way we think and act and need to be changed on an institutional and personal level.
(I think Part 2 applies to anti-racism as well, but Part 1 is probably more about cultures and colonialism? I'm still learning.)
Both of these ideas are often big problems for people. And it doesn't necessarily make you an evil person. Often someone I find unpleasant, but not evil. Not necessarily misogynist, either. (Usually sexist, but not misogynist. Note the difference!) Some people do believe in inherent gender differences that beget inherent gender roles, and feel that the fabric of our culture and society are woven around those roles. I personally think that gender differences that affect our behavior and desires are minimal, and should not be enforced by society because people are complex and unlikley to fit comfortably in a specific gendered box.
Some people don't like to think about things in terms of society or social effects. These people seem to often be called libertarians. I don't have many nice things to say about them. Um, but no, I mean, I can see a lot of innocent and not at all malicious and easy to understand reasons that someone might hold this position. First off, from inside our heads, it is the most obvious position - inside, we are all individuals making individual decisions. To recognize that the way we make those decisions can be affected by subtle and large-scale social imput which can lead to inherent biases and inequalities is harder. Plus, it is hard to prove one way or another, I admit. There aren't as many women as men in the sciences. Is this because women have been discouraged from going into the sciences? Or is it because women don't like sciency things? This is where I start to not have nice things to say because it seems to me like there must be some misogyny lurking if the second option seems like the more obvious. But there are other more innocuous examples.
(edit - also related to the historical inequalities part: in my experience, a lot of anti-feminists/MRA types simply do not feel that men are in a privileged position over women. This goes back to my third point overall, the 70% theory. Here's a quote: "In a stark contrast to the often brutal shaming that men in public office undergo as a result of infidelity, Peter Robinson, First Minister of Northern Ireland, did all he could to protect his wife despite her infidelity." Feminists would say that it is women who are, and have been, more brutally "shamed" for infidelity and face higher social consequences. There are a lot of things like that. It is pretty much a terrible starting ground for any discussion.)
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about what it is that people are actually objecting to or disagreeing about, on both sides. There are also some very large-scale differences in starting assumptions.
If you're wondering what brought on this rant, it's the article linked to and discussed here - craziness about how sci fi is being feminized and it's ruining it. I could basically write a whole separate rant on the annoying and horrible things I'm seeing in the comments. XD
First off, haha, things are not too dominated by women. Please look at governing bodies. Please look at the CEOs of top companies. Please look at the lead actors in successful movies. Wikipedia lists the producers of Best Picture nominated movies. There are usually 2-3 producers per movie. And about 2-3 female producers out of all the nominees per year. So, no. We don't have political power, we don't have media power, we don't have economic power. I mean, not that we're powerless, but men are definitely still holding the reins.
The main place where there are more women is as schoolteachers. There are a lot of reasons for this - presumably the lack of role models means men are less likely to pursue the career. Plus, it's become a female-dominated profession (not always the case) because it's not particularly well-paid. There's also, sadly, still a fair amount of stigma about men pursuing traditionally female jobs. Now, I don't think having only female teachers is a good thing, and I think boys are likely to be hurt the most by the imbalance. But I don't think the problem is that the boys are being feminized. Lacking positive role models, yes. Feminized, no. Of course, whenever I've seen men argue about this point it devolves into misogyny.
Also, they like to say that the curriculum is feminized and that's bullshit, because almost all the literature we read was by men, about men.
Second off, as a feminist I don't want to poop on your masculinity. But I think your masculinity should be strong enough to handle a woman being good at the same things as you. I think your masculinity should not depend on violence against women, on putting women down and treating women badly. I think your masculinity should also not depend on putting men down. I am not saying that you shouldn't. . . go chop down trees, or like sports, or drink beer, or do boxing, or want to watch explosions, or have a doberman. I'm not saying you shouldn't want to have lots of sex with women (although I do think that we're all giving ourselves weird ideas about sex and sexuality which can cause them to be expressed in harmful ways). I'm not saying you shouldn't have guys nights or poker nights or whatever. I'm not saying you shoudn't become a fully realized adult in charge of your own destiny! (Judd Apatow, you are hurting EVERYONE!)
Masculinity is great. A lot of women really enjoy it. Many of us, however, are less crazy about misogyny.
Also, I'm not crazy about enforced masculinity, or enforced femininity. If giving people a choice of how to behave and not forcing them to be a certain way threatens masculinity, then maybe there's a problem with masculinity.
This might be a big sticking point? Because I am happy to let boys play with Barbie dolls and men wear pink and want to sit around drinking wine and watching Desperate Housewives or whatever it is that often gets these types so riled up. And there are some men out there (and probably some women) who seem to think that this will cause our society to end. The implication seems to be that we're constantly on the brink of social collapse and if my husband isn't buff and brawny and manly enough, we will be raided by looters and I will be carried away and raped. My plan was to count on the army (who have guns) to maintain some sort of martial law in that situation.
I don't need the men in my life to be able to fight a bear, to kill and bring home the meat that we will imbibe. If he can, that's great! I don't like looking at carcasses but I like to eat meat. But if he can't, we can just buy it at the grocery store and won't need to fill part of our lawn with a smokehouse. But I have honestly seen, and seen quite a bit, men (and women) lamenting that we are no longer a hunter-gatherer society because it has harmed masculinity.
Third off, inequality means that when equality is achieved, the previously superior group is now no longer superior. This does not mean that they have an inferior status! White men of an anti-feminist/libertarian bent often seem to have a really hard time with this. A job where there previously were 95 men and 5 women now has 70 men and 30 women. I have seen reactions to this where what they see is that 25 men have lost their job, and the conclusion they take away is that men are disadvantaged and inferior in our society, on the lower rungs of the ladder. (This one plays out in discussions of race, too.)
Fourth off, just because you don't like an idea DOES NOT mean it is an idea held by feminists!! This feminist would like greater flexibility of gender roles, so that people can make the lifestyle choices that make them the happiest - so that fathers can be involved in raising their kids and even stay at home rather than working, so that women can be stoic and aggressive without negative social backlash, and so on.
This feminist would also like for there to be more positive, interesting, developed portrayals of women in the media, and for women to not be judged by their appearance to such a great extent.
This feminist would also like for gender, race, or other demographic factors to be neither a hindrance or a help in obtaining a job or other position. However, I would also like people to realize that there are currently many subtle institutionalized social factors that disadvantage people based on these demographic factors and that encouraging greater equality and opportunity now can help minimize those disadvantages and will hopefully eventually eradicate them on an institutional scale.
This feminist would like for there to be a more sophisticated understanding of consent, for having sex with someone without their consent be viewed as harshly as, say, mutilating them without their consent. It's not a perfect analogy because sex is good when it's consensual and multilation is still mutilation, but if I get drunk and go in a room with someone and he rapes me, it should be viewed as if I got drunk and went in a room with someone and he or she cut my hand off. No matter what state I'm in, no matter what I'm wearing or where I am, what he did was unacceptable. So yeah, I'd like for people to stop excusing rape.
There are other things I want but they're obvious stuff like "not hating people simply based on their gender and then enacting that hatred into laws that oppress women."
So, if you want people to be forced to behave a certain way because of their gender, then as a feminist I am against you. If you only want to see women running around in bikinis and not talking on TV, then as a feminist I am against you. If you don't recognize the long-term effects of historical discrimination, and if you think men should be free to take sex from women whenever they please, if you believe that women should not be educated and that female genital mutilation should be enforced, then I am against you. I don't think that makes me shrill or crazy or full of hate.
If you think that men and women are equals, with equal potential and equal right to be happy, then we are on the same page. If you think sexuality should be viewed as something healthy and normal, then we are on the same page. If you think that women should not control men with iron fists, that men should not be the only ones drafted, that men should not bear all the economic responsibility in a relationship, we are on the same page!
I have no problem with men getting together to discuss problems that face them. However, if you consider these problems to be "women are taking all our jobs," or "no one will let me rape my wife anymore," then we've got an issue again. (Or, as I saw today, "Women are getting too fat after marriage.")
I think these are two of the basic ideas behind feminism, at least as I see it:
1) Behavior should not be enforced based on gender.
2) Historical events have lead to institutional inequalities, which affect the way we think and act and need to be changed on an institutional and personal level.
(I think Part 2 applies to anti-racism as well, but Part 1 is probably more about cultures and colonialism? I'm still learning.)
Both of these ideas are often big problems for people. And it doesn't necessarily make you an evil person. Often someone I find unpleasant, but not evil. Not necessarily misogynist, either. (Usually sexist, but not misogynist. Note the difference!) Some people do believe in inherent gender differences that beget inherent gender roles, and feel that the fabric of our culture and society are woven around those roles. I personally think that gender differences that affect our behavior and desires are minimal, and should not be enforced by society because people are complex and unlikley to fit comfortably in a specific gendered box.
Some people don't like to think about things in terms of society or social effects. These people seem to often be called libertarians. I don't have many nice things to say about them. Um, but no, I mean, I can see a lot of innocent and not at all malicious and easy to understand reasons that someone might hold this position. First off, from inside our heads, it is the most obvious position - inside, we are all individuals making individual decisions. To recognize that the way we make those decisions can be affected by subtle and large-scale social imput which can lead to inherent biases and inequalities is harder. Plus, it is hard to prove one way or another, I admit. There aren't as many women as men in the sciences. Is this because women have been discouraged from going into the sciences? Or is it because women don't like sciency things? This is where I start to not have nice things to say because it seems to me like there must be some misogyny lurking if the second option seems like the more obvious. But there are other more innocuous examples.
(edit - also related to the historical inequalities part: in my experience, a lot of anti-feminists/MRA types simply do not feel that men are in a privileged position over women. This goes back to my third point overall, the 70% theory. Here's a quote: "In a stark contrast to the often brutal shaming that men in public office undergo as a result of infidelity, Peter Robinson, First Minister of Northern Ireland, did all he could to protect his wife despite her infidelity." Feminists would say that it is women who are, and have been, more brutally "shamed" for infidelity and face higher social consequences. There are a lot of things like that. It is pretty much a terrible starting ground for any discussion.)
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about what it is that people are actually objecting to or disagreeing about, on both sides. There are also some very large-scale differences in starting assumptions.
If you're wondering what brought on this rant, it's the article linked to and discussed here - craziness about how sci fi is being feminized and it's ruining it. I could basically write a whole separate rant on the annoying and horrible things I'm seeing in the comments. XD