Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bobby Isosceles]

What's occurring is a change from distinct sex roles to no sex roles. A new stable source of identity has not yet been found.

This change is occurring because of economics and technology. Feminism as an ideology is a product of industrialization.

Who needs to find identity in sex roles? Why not in one's unique personality?

[jay-ell]

Feminism as an ideology is a product of industrialization.

Oh yeah?  Then explain the 1950s, homeslice. 

[Cioran]

Who needs to find identity in sex roles? Why not in one's unique personality?

What is the personality? What does it consist of?

Oh yeah?  Then explain the 1950s, homeslice.

I am going to go with the Gregorian calendar.

[Bobby Isosceles]

What is the personality? What does it consist of?

I sincerely hope I don't come across like a condescending ass* here, but are you serious? All one's individual quirks, one's interests, one's propensities, one's hobbies, one's obsessions, one's talents, one's dislikes, one's fears, one's prejudices. Some of these come from society, sure, but many of them are inborn, and you're not going to succeed if you counter by claiming that there is no innate individual personality. I've seen it. Babies -- babies who are unaware of their sexuality or gender role -- display personalities, unique and differentiable. So do pets which are spayed and neutered before their sexual maturity and thus devoid of any hormonal conditioning-to-destiny here.

If you're identifying the individual with, or primarily shaped by, or somehow intrinsically linked to, the sexual roles one would historically have played, then you're living in the wrong chakhra, I fear. You completely gloss over artistic talent, or scientific/intellectual propensities, or sense of humor.



* more so than usual

[Cioran]

I'll see your condescension and raise you one by pointing out that what you have just written is a reaction not to my question but to assumptions in your mind.

[Bobby Isosceles]

I'll see your condescension and raise you one by pointing out that what you have just written is a reaction not to my question but to assumptions in your mind.

No, I answered the question on what I believe the personality is. Second sentence.

But, since we're on the whole assumptions kick, let me make a few and be done with this point, as it bores me:

Let's assume that this cultural phenomenon of the man being "the stupid one" is true. Lord knows, I don't see it, but then again I watch Battlestar Galactica, where the men and the woman are equally fallible (and, I might add, I don't walk away eyeing my Roomba suspiciously).

So, the world is permeated with this mass media image that men are somehow inferior or stupid. So what? IGNORE IT. Aren't patience and forebearance ostensibly "manly" virtues?

But what if it can't be ignored? Well, then why not try to convince people that they're wrong? Or discredit them somehow and render their arguments null? Or intimidate them into dropping the point? Or bargain with them to at least shut up? Or, failing that, punch them in the face?

Aren't the powers of reason, shrewd arguments, intimidating presence, business acumen, and brute force all ALSO ostensibly "manly" virtues?

What is considered a stereotypically "womanly" trait? Complaining and nagging.

So, do I see you ignoring people with flawed male stereotypes, or convincing them otherwise, or discrediting them, or intimidating them, or bargaining with them, or punching them?

No.

I see you COMPLAINING about it.

And you wonder why this stereotype persists.


Now THAT's some condescension, Sparky.

[littlefallsmets]

I dunno.

I always figured that the way I had to be handled with kid-gloves at times had nothing to do with my gender and everything to do with my Issues.

I get a new excuse? Hooray for Zoidberg!

[Cioran]

assumptions assumptions assumptions blah blah blah

[Choop]

yeah just cut it with the fonts thing i'm too old to argue on the internet much less strain my eyes while doing so

[littlefallsmets]

Also:

Have you considered that maybe white male authority figures are made to be the idiots because they're the one group that sort of can't complain about being oppressed in any way? I mean, foolish characters are a major part of didactic storyteller and without at least one or two fools, comedy rarely works at all. But if you make that character black, you're being racist, if you make that character Jewish, you're antisemetic, you make that character a lady, you're being a sexist.

Maybe it's just the last demographic refuge of foolish behaviour without getting boycotted by some schmuck who wants to be on the cable news?

[Cioran]

Sort of like the way that a lot of movie villains are British.

[miles]

Yeah. My racist, homophobic, xenophobic coworker bitches about the plight of the white straight male all fuck*ng day.

[Cioran]

cf. also Fight Club. There is anger among a lot of American white men, it helped fuel the rise of the right during the late nineties and at the core of Bush's political base. They feel attacked somehow. But what is the real cause of the anger? The racism et cetera is epiphenomenal. What is at the root? Onstad is dealing with the issue without falling into cardboard answers, like Fight Club's 'fascism lite', or leaving out elements he doesn't like. This is part of the great achievement of Achewood.

[Doc]

We have an entire generation of man-children who always have been (and possibly always will be) taken care of by women (mothers, girlfriends, and wives) because women have convinced ourselves that men, being men, are inherently irresponsible and incapable of taking care of themselves.  The expectation fulfills itself, and men become more and more dependent on the women in their lives to care for them as we devolve into a downward spiral of female-superior inequity inside the home while economic male-superior inequity continues to dominate outside of it. 

So now instead of being pressed into thankless servitude you're doing stuff for us because we're inferior and need looking after. Also it was your idea. I love it when a plan comes together.


I don't buy much into the idea the feminism has emasculated males, not really. There are always some reactionary assholes but in real life I don't think I've ever met someone who treated me like I might not be able to do something because I'm male (not anything I actually can do anyway).
One thing that I might agree with is that it's fairly set into our society on some level now that women are somehow 'special', possessed of an ephemeral quality that makes them 'strong' and empathic and so on.
Just in case Bobby asks for an example, have you ever heard the claim that a woman's ability to give birth makes her inherently more creative and constructive than us destructive men? Admittedly an opinion I've only encountered in blogs and similar places and therefore ignored, but some people believe it. This veneration of women could lead to males feeling less validated but I don't  think it actually has. You could also make the argument that it could damage women by putting too much of a burden on them. In fact I think  it might be part of the same cultural thingy that caused us to label women as 'delicate' in previous decades, it's just more (apparently) empowering now but no less silly.

I do agree that what a man expects out of his life and what is considered correct behaviour has changed quite a bit in the last few decades but I wouldn't put that at the feet of 'feminism'. I think it's got more to do with  guys growing up and saying 'man those old dudes are racist, misogynist, homophobic douchebags, let's not be like them. Also I want to know how to knit'. It's more of an internally propelled change that might be informed by feminism (and the civil rights and gay rights movement and the improvement of education in general) but not caused by it.

One thing I Have had to deal with in day to day life is being told that I hold certain opinions because I have been influenced by the 'liberal media' or feminists or political correctness or whatever. Even by some people who are my friends but hold very different views to me on some issues. I struggled with this for a while but I don't think I hold any opinions that I can't justify based on my own internal morality. So my behaviour and attitudes may be more pleasing to feminists and the politically correct (isn't that term just bile on the tongue these days?) than those of men 30 or 40 years ago but I'm not acting this way to please them, I'm doing it because it's how I want to live my life.

[Choop]

anybody else get the feeling cioran is just going *tick* *tick* *tick* down the page with the [taketh away]s