I'm feminist, but I consider myself "first wave:" Victorian suffragists and the like, not the psychos like my "World Masterpieces in Literature" prof who will only teach from literature that concerns women. Women are always the victims of male dominance, and GOD FORBID we read a story for the men in our class. I actually asked her about this, asking for a male point of view. She said that since nearly all of the authors were male that was a masculine enough point of view for her class. My male classmates and I (female, btw) are sick of tragic heroines and wise-ass women who make their men look stupid. We're supposed to be looking at Hamlet later, but who wants to bet that she focuses entirely on the horrible fates of Ophelia and the Queen? I prefer my Religion prof, the Ph. D. in Feminist Theology and the head of the Religious Studies department. She's teaching my Greek class, and it's more along the lines of "Oh, and the word Theos has a female ending as well: Thea. This one refers to goddesses. Greek wasn't invented for the Bible, students. They were polytheists long before Paul used the language. . . " Or maybe we could consider my Gender and Religions teacher, the Presbyterian minister. She got in trouble with the council or whatever because she referred to God as gender-neutral, then when the all-male council told her that god was male and all else was blasphemy she calmly asked "So you are absolutely certain that God has a penis?" and threw the council into hysterics. For polytheist faiths, she is comfortable with the interplay between gods and goddesses, but if there HAS to only be one she sees no reason why only one sex must be chosen for an all-powerful being. I officially thread-jack this moron, and suggest that we discuss what happens when feminim goes too far. Can it go too far? Should women rule the world for a few millenia to restore the balance, or will that just bring another form of sexual tyrrany into history? To the males who post here: have you ever felt victimized because of your maleness? How can we bring equality without subjugating men? Should we? For myself, I think that the two sexes can and should be equal. Neither should rule the other, but if someone is a good in a field then that someone should be allowed to excel regardless of gender. I'm good with languages, but languages is a traditionally female-dominated field. Occasionally, I recieve "suggestions" that I should have followed my other passion, science, because to do otherwise is bowing to my traditional gender-role in society. But I don't want to be a scientist. I love to study other peoples' experiments, not to do them myself. How is this any different from my mother telling me as she all-too-frequently does that I need to drop out of school and be a full-time housewife? My feminist friends tease me for taking my husband's advice too frequently. Well, he gives good advice. If it didn't make sense, I wouldn't follow it.
I really like what you said here. I have always been a feminist, and had a period where I was a man-hater, but now that I've maturted I'm finding a way to balance feminiism with who I am as a person. I'm in a "traditional" female-dominated field: teaching, particularly the teaching of English. I used to be a probation officer, and occasionally got the "Good-for-you-for-going-into-law-enforcement-because-it's-mostly-men" rah-rah speech. The thing was, I didn't become a probation officer to enter a man's field -- I became one because I wanted to, just like I'm now an English teacher at a college because I enjoy it. I never rejected a field because it was "too feminine", although I have always rejected the idea of staying home and being a housewife. Sometimes when I look back at how vehemently uber-feminist I used to be I can't believe I'm the same person. I would have been your literature teacher 20 years ago. Don't get me wrong: I'm still keenly aware of how sexist our society can be, and it bothers the hell out of me. But I can appreciate men now, and I have my husband to thank for that. He's really good about trusting me as a person and not pigeon-holing me into "traditional" roles. And he does give good advice. Granted, sometimes it irks me to get it unsolicited, but the man makes sense most of the time, and I trust his judgment. It's nice not to be in the "all men are pigs" camp anymore, although I certainly understand why some women are. Good post you made.:cheers2:
I would have to say that third wave feminism often lacks credibility, and that in todays society there has developed a sort of 'female cheauvinism'. For example, to quote the above poster, "It's nice not to be in the 'all men are pigs' camp anymore, although I certainly understand why some women are." It is quite acceptable to belittle men today, to call them pigs, or dogs, etc... and no one says boo. Television programmes are overburdened with anti male themes... the typical American sitcom revolves around the dopey husband and his smart competent, wise ass wife who is always right. Another common mentality is for contemporary feminists to consistenly spout things that they are 'better' at, such as parenting. "A child should never be without its mother" is a common opinion, however by many mother's choice, reinforced by a lopsided court system, consistently strips a child from its father's presence. Hillary Clinton stated in her book that "women are better suited for the world of tomorrow". One poster above asked, perhaps rhetorically, if maybe it would be a good idea to let women run the world to 'restore the balance'. This of course ignores that every example we have historically of women being in power reveals they act no less aggressivly or any better than the males, and in order to even effect such a scenario would be to deny men the ability to run for public office, which would simply be role reversal, turning all men into a subclass. The very idea is insulting, demeaning, and ultimately, unacademic. Why should I be denied the opportunity for public service based on the sins of our forefathers? Further, how does it make any sense to simply assume women would do any better of a job? I think the fact that many women hold this view and would love to see it become a reality is quite telling - "Don't oppress us, but yes... if given the opportunity we would oppress you." School systems, atleast in the United States, are notoriously biased in favor of females (despite a very unscientific 'study' done in the early 90s by one biased feminist, who claimed that girls were ignored in the classroom. Her 'evidence' was based on her sitting in on various classrooms and writing down her observations and interpretations. Ironically, even before and since that study, females grades have risen steadily while males have declined. This is touted as a victory for women, while their seems to be little concern for the welfare of the boys). The entire education system is based upon female psychology - elimination of competition and agression in favor of cooperation based learning. This works great for girls, but is not ideal for boys. Educators and feminist thinkers have consistently stated that boys should be taught to be more feminine, and to eliminate masculinity as much as possible. (If that isn't intolerant sexism I don't know what is.) Their are many airlines these days that will not allow a child to sit next to a male who is not 'with' the child (because all men are pedophiles apparently). If a similar rule was applied to any other group these airlines would be fined and punished for discrimination. I could go on a great deal longer, as well with more detail, but I just wanted to point out that sexism goes both ways. The whole of humanity has a lot to learn about tolerance and acceptence, not just men. We need to start viewing each other as people as opposed to making judgments based on sex.
I just noticed that the original poster is 18 years-old.To him a feminist is any girl who won't let him in her pants.:smilielol5:
Has it ever occurred to you that the people supporting those programs are mostly male? If you think women set the television agenda, look at any beer commercial. I guarantee you it will be full of scantily clad women whose asses are allowed to speak for them, while their words must remain silent, and the guys in the commercials are fully in charge (and fully dressed). Even a close shot on a beer bottle will inevitably have sexually suggestive women shaking their asses in the background. Advertising is notoriously mysoginistic, and it's a male-driven field. And since advertising rises and falls a great deal according to television sponsorship, I'm guessing that most men haven't noticed this anti-male bias as you apparently have. Let's face facts: If a woman has had very bad experiences with men, she's far more likely to think that all men are bad. Just as if a man posts about how abusive and sexist women are, it's a pretty good bet that his personal record with women isn't stellar. Until my husband showed me that not all men are rapists and child molestors I couldn't see them as anything else. That's why I wrote that I'm glad I'm not in the man-hating camp anymore, but I understand women who are. They haven't been lucky enough to find a man who's proved them wrong.
I would have to disagree that advertising is 'notoriously misogynistic', since most advertising is aimed at women (women do the vast majority of shopping, and also tend to watch a lot more television). Also, it is irrelevent who 'supports' the program. I'm not indicting women, I'm indicting anti-male bias, regardless of who is at fault. "...I'm guessing most men haven't noticed this anti-male bias as you apparently have" I can't speak for most men, and neither can you, although I could recommend a few books on the subject. I would have to agree that people who've had bad experiences with a certain group of people will be more likely to stereotype and have a negative opinion of that group - however that doesn't make it right. It makes it somewhat understandable yes, but that is not quite the same as justification. Anyway, my point was that it is far more acceptable for people to hurl generalized insults at men than it is for women... though obviously people from both genders do it far too much.
I still believe you're wrong about advertising. If you really looked closely at it, without your bias, you would see that it's aimed primarily toward men, to the detriment of women. Beer commercials are just the worst offenders, but almost all products that aren't specifically directed at women do it. I remember some breakfast bar commerical that had a voiceover between a man and a woman going on for the first ten seconds; all the while the camera showed a woman's thighs in closeup. She was wearing a short sleepshirt. What did her thighs have to do with breakfast bars? Unless she intended to eat them with her genitals, I don't think her thighs were relevant to the product. Another commercial showed businesspeople surfing down a suburban street. The three men wore designer suits and were shot at chest level from a distance; the one woman wore a skirt that was far too short for any businesswoman to wear, and she was shot in close-up from her thighs up, with the camera at thigh-level. We practically got a guided tour of her crotch. This happens all the time, so I find it hard to believe that advertising isn't overall extremely misogynystic. I just don't see this. It's still far more acceptable for men to sit around bitching about how unfair women are, and when it comes to "hurling insults" men give much better than they ever get. Listen to any group of men trying to show off for each other. It won't take long for them to get around to talking about how women are complete bitches. They may not believe it, but they'll certainly say it to prove their manhood. I work at a college and spend a lot of time listening to student conversations at nearby tables. In any given week I'll hear 3 or 4 groups of young men talking this way, and I have yet to hear any females rag on men like that. At most they'll talk about a specific guy who has treated them badly, but they won't generalize about all guys the way men do about all females. This isn't conjecture; it's my experience. Then only thing we agree on is that both genders stereotype their opposite too much. That does cause conflict.
Yes, my comment was rhetorical. I was trying to spark conversation. I can't really complain about the commercials. Sex sells because most humans want sex. That's just biology. If the male form were the standard of beauty then there would be more males in advertisements (In ancient Greece, males were.). In our culture, femininity is more attractive. Also, no one is forcing the women to make these commercials. They are willingly acting in the scenes. As for jokes, I've told and heard many. My circle makes fun of stereotypes, which I still think is the best way to remove the power of stereotyping. Though I notice that the cracks made at women get more glares from bystanders than the jokes about men do. "Why are all blonde jokes one-liners?" If the answer were "so all women can understand them," and my husband told it at work, he would be fired quickly. As it is, I could tell it wherever I liked, and no one would think twice. And yes, many of the supporters of gender programs are male, but that doesn't mean they're not still inequal. If the males didn't support the programs, what would happen to them? What would happen if a university opened a "men's studies" department right next door to the "women's studies" offices? My school offers "Gender" studies, but I've been in those classes and they make men look terrible. Apparently, all of my male friends are only waiting for my guard to be down so they can rape me. I actually confronted my male friends with this while I was single, demanding to know why none of them had acted on that yet. Incidentally, the one I'm married to now was the one who guiltily apologized for not pouncing on me while the others were busy choking on their drinks. There is one tiny tiny little shelf in the library on the man's movement, right before the entire aisle on women's studies, and most of those books for men are "how to conquer your own testosterone poisoning." Oi.
Celtic: I don't think it is very productive if we start trading anecdotal evidence about how many commercials we've seen that show bias or how often we've heard one sex insult the other, this is counter productive and proves nothing. I could make rather legnthy lists about anti male bias in the media, but it would be a waste of time. We'll have to agree to disagree. You tell me if I can get past my bias I could see your point, but keep in mind that this also applies to you. Argiope: That's exactly my point. If a man makes a generalization about women, he is far more likely to hear about it and be called a sexist then if a woman says something about a man.
There's a book by Sam Keen called "Fire in the Belly" that's good. Also, if you're OK with Neopagan authors, look for Kerr Cuhulain.
