Discrimination Against Women (or: Why I am a Feminist)

Are YOU a feminist?

A what? :sweat:	2.1%	[ 54 ]
ABSOLUTELY.	39.3%	[ 1035 ]
Maybe?	14.0%	[ 370 ]
Nah.	20.4%	[ 537 ]
NO & U R A FEMINAZI LULZ	11.4%	[ 299 ]
Whatevs. Just gold pl0x.	12.9%	[ 339 ]
Total Votes:			[ 2634 ]

[Meroko_Love]

Yoshpet

Meroko_Love

To be fair, she makes some good points, mainly that abuse towards girls and women sometimes can be normalized in society or excused with just "boys being boys".

That definitely happens and is not alright in the least, but I would hate for every dumbass kid picking on the person they like to be compared to an abusive spouse.

Clearly, that's going too far, but Developmental Psych has certainly found that many instances when boys pick on girls (in ways more than just tugging pigtails), it is a way of setting up power structures that they are subconsciously aware of in our society.
Boys tend to exclude girls more than girls exclude boys, is another observed example.

So, from what I learned in my Developmental Psych classes, it seems young boys certainly do learn and act out gender hierarchies observable in our still-patriarchal culture. Which, is not surprising at all seeing as how impressionable young children are.

I think, that might have been that woman's point.

[Yoshpet]

Meroko_Love

When using it in a form of absurd comedy or satire, I have no problem with it, and I do that myself.
If you are using the term towards men in non-comedic ways, that would be reflective of the degrading of men who are deemed "effeminate" in our culture by calling them bitches. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "being a little b***h". It's common for very masculine men to use the term and thus reinforce gender roles.

I'm not sure if the gay community has tried to reclaim the terms f** or dyke, but it's the same as those words. Meant to demean, cause harm, keep a power structure of straight > gay or male > female.

Also, I hope I'm not coming off as attacking you in anyway; my intent is only to explain.

Attacking me? Perish the thought.

Prior to writing some of these posts I was googling a list of slurs restricted for use against men and almost all of them attack the masculinity of the man. (The only "pure" one I could find was "d**k" which I guess presumes that men are just awful.) It definitely stinks of a subliminal patriarchy. We don't even need an oppressive majority to keep us down, we've been conditioned to do it to each other. gonk

[Yoshpet]

Meroko_Love

Clearly, that's going too far, but Developmental Psych has certainly found that many instances when boys pick on girls (in ways more than just tugging pigtails), it is a way of setting up power structures that they are subconsciously aware of in our society.
Boys tend to exclude girls more than girls exclude boys, is another observed example.

So, from what I learned in my Developmental Psych classes, it seems young boys certainly do learn and act out gender hierarchies observable in our still-patriarchal culture. Which, is not surprising at all seeing as how impressionable young children are.

I think, that might have been that woman's point.

Yeah, that definitely happens too. I've always been attracted to female companionship and was frequently mocked for choosing to surround myself with female friends instead of exclusively males in elementary school. Boys in my class would say things like I'm one of the girls. I was always offended, but never because I was being called a girl. It's just that I am a boy and who are they to deny me that identity?

At one point my 2nd grade teacher even decided to step in and told me that I couldn't spend time with my two best friends (both female) during recess and instead needed to find some boys to play with. My parents were not pleased.

A huge part of this tragedy is how men are used as a vehicle for putting down women and any natural aversion to do so is treated with the utmost disdain. Somehow we both come out victims.

[Meroko_Love]

Yoshpet

Meroko_Love

When using it in a form of absurd comedy or satire, I have no problem with it, and I do that myself.
If you are using the term towards men in non-comedic ways, that would be reflective of the degrading of men who are deemed "effeminate" in our culture by calling them bitches. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "being a little b***h". It's common for very masculine men to use the term and thus reinforce gender roles.

I'm not sure if the gay community has tried to reclaim the terms f** or dyke, but it's the same as those words. Meant to demean, cause harm, keep a power structure of straight > gay or male > female.

Also, I hope I'm not coming off as attacking you in anyway; my intent is only to explain.

Attacking me? Perish the thought.

Prior to writing some of these posts I was googling a list of slurs restricted for use against men and almost all of them attack the masculinity of the man. (The only "pure" one I could find was "d**k" which I guess presumes that men are just awful.) It definitely stinks of a subliminal patriarchy. We don't even need an oppressive majority to keep us down, we've been conditioned to do it to each other. gonk

xd

Yep. That's pretty much a pillar of patriarchal society: Men against men who do not meet the masculine patriarchal ideal. It explains a lot. Why gay men are generally hated more than gay women. Why many men are terrified to even own an ounce of pink. Why many men feel pressured to be in control and dominant. Why many men feel like their lives are over if they lose their job.
I'm sure I could list a ton more given the time.

Of course, it's acceptable for men to be brotherly with each other and supportive of each other when it is against women or feminine men. Otherwise, generally, men are seen to be "naturally" competitive with one another. Many anti-feminists will use the historical evidence of wars as proof of this "natural" competitiveness in men, but feminists reject this in favor of looking to patriarchy to explain this.

[Meroko_Love]

Yoshpet

Meroko_Love

Clearly, that's going too far, but Developmental Psych has certainly found that many instances when boys pick on girls (in ways more than just tugging pigtails), it is a way of setting up power structures that they are subconsciously aware of in our society.
Boys tend to exclude girls more than girls exclude boys, is another observed example.

So, from what I learned in my Developmental Psych classes, it seems young boys certainly do learn and act out gender hierarchies observable in our still-patriarchal culture. Which, is not surprising at all seeing as how impressionable young children are.

I think, that might have been that woman's point.

Yeah, that definitely happens too. I've always been attracted to female companionship and was frequently mocked for choosing to surround myself with female friends instead of exclusively males in elementary school. Boys in my class would say things like I'm one of the girls. I was always offended, but never because I was being called a girl. It's just that I am a boy and who are they to deny me that identity?

At one point my 2nd grade teacher even decided to step in and told me that I couldn't spend time with my two best friends (both female) during recess and instead needed to find some boys to play with. My parents were not pleased.

A huge part of this tragedy is how men are used as a vehicle for putting down women and any natural aversion to do so is treated with the utmost disdain. Somehow we both come out victims.

Yep, your story isn't at all the first I've heard of boys being outcast by other boys for not following the typical gender-segregation that happens in younger years.
It must have been very difficult for you.

Exactly. Therein justifies my strong belief that men and women should both equally want to eliminate patriarchy.

The revealing part is that boys who follow status quo behavior and speaking patterns usually do not face the discrimination you faced. You, though non-intentionally, were acting the part of the (socially defined) feminine/female as a boy, and even now, by rejecting the heteronormative masculine ideal. In some ways, you're in the same boat as females in society. xp (Just to be clear, I don't mean you are less of a man or anything, but according to mainstream society, I mean)

[Vixianna]

Yoshpet

littlewonder2

You Didn't Thank Me For Punching You In The Face.

Yeah, I think she's kind of missing the mark. Gradeschool children frequently pick on each other when they have a crush. That's what the parents are presuming. It may not be the case and instead be bullying or just a plain old fight, but it's certainly not society expecting men to abuse girls as part of a healthy relationship.
There's so much evil in this world, I often wonder why people grasp at straws and stretch scenarios to seem malicious when they most likely aren't. What a waste of time.
Edit: For reference - Helga G. Pataki

She wasn't saying it was setting up boys to abuse men later(though for some boys I'm sure it is) it saying it's setting up girls to think that rude, dismissive, inattentive, or otherwise negative behavior from a man is a sign of his affection. It's like the beginning of "He's Just Not That Into You." Where the narrator is talking about how her mother tells her that the boy in the school yard bite her and called her names because he had a crush. Her mother didn't then explain that it was an inappropriate way to express affection regardless(in fact people who use that phrase never DO in my experience.), which leaves the girl thinking that's how affection is expressed in some men and that his dismissiveness and disrespect is a normal behavior, at least when it comes to romantic things.

And while society doesn't accept hitting in adults, it just translates into emotionally or verbally abusive standards instead.(that is the underlying disrespect stays and changes forms into something more "adult" acceptable, especially in a society that doesn't take verbal abuse seriously.) So when a guy doesn't call you back, or seems aloof, a lot teens and young 20 somethings still mistake that as "interest" instead of the dismissal it is, and the people who are predators take advantage of that.

(will give analysis of how this affects boys in a second.)

As for Helga...you do realize that girl went to a therapy inside the show? It was an episode and everything. Her aggressiveness was based on her inability to accept the appropriateness of her affection towards Arnold. That is was an ok thing to feel, and that she didn't need to repress those feelings. In any case, she has lots of issues, and is NOT an example to be used for a well adjusted child's behavior or something that's even acceptable if at all a normal childhood problem.

[The Sky Does Not Bow]

Yoshpet

The Sky Does Not Bow

Yoshpet

Honestly, swearing is probably the last frontier for morality and etiquette so it seems a strange place to start when combating an idea like privilege.

It's not JUST swearing. Use of language in general needs to change. Language is a powerful tool and words are powerful, all on their own. It can reinforce privilege or help to deconstruct it and render it open to public analysis and judgment. It seems such a small thing, but actually has incredible impact on our lives.

I can dig that. 3nodding

Huh. Just so you know, your reasonable approach surprised me. I guess I'm used to belligerent hammerheads and my argumentative side was drifting into just bald contempt. Thanks for not being one of them.

Meroko_Love

The Sky Does Not Bow

Yoshpet

Honestly, swearing is probably the last frontier for morality and etiquette so it seems a strange place to start when combating an idea like privilege.

It's not JUST swearing. Use of language in general needs to change. Language is a powerful tool and words are powerful, all on their own. It can reinforce privilege or help to deconstruct it and render it open to public analysis and judgment. It seems such a small thing, but actually has incredible impact on our lives.

Someone's been reading Judith Butler! biggrin

Not really. It just seems obvious, the power language has.

[Yoshpet]

Vixianna

She wasn't saying it was setting up boys to abuse men later(though for some boys I'm sure it is) it saying it's setting up girls to think that rude, dismissive, inattentive, or otherwise negative behavior from a man is a sign of his affection. It's like the beginning of "He's Just Not That Into You." Where the narrator is talking about how her mother tells her that the boy in the school yard bite her and called her names because he had a crush. Her mother didn't then explain that it was an inappropriate way to express affection regardless(in fact people who use that phrase never DO in my experience.), which leaves the girl thinking that's how affection is expressed in some men and that his dismissiveness and disrespect is a normal behavior, at least when it comes to romantic things.

And while society doesn't accept hitting in adults, it just translates into emotionally or verbally abusive standards instead.(that is the underlying disrespect stays and changes forms into something more "adult" acceptable, especially in a society that doesn't take verbal abuse seriously.) So when a guy doesn't call you back, or seems aloof, a lot teens and young 20 somethings still mistake that as "interest" instead of the dismissal it is, and the people who are predators take advantage of that.

(will give analysis of how this affects boys in a second.)

As for Helga...you do realize that girl went to a therapy inside the show? It was an episode and everything. Her aggressiveness was based on her inability to accept the appropriateness of her affection towards Arnold. That is was an ok thing to feel, and that she didn't need to repress those feelings. In any case, she has lots of issues, and is NOT an example to be used for a well adjusted child's behavior or something that's even acceptable if at all a normal childhood problem.

Sorry, I don't mean to imply it's excusable behavior. You're right, anyone who waves it away as someone expressing their attraction should also show concern for the twisted means of expression.

What I mean to say is that this is a naturally occurring, though inexcusable, phenomena as opposed to the idea that these children are all imitating the spousal abuse they see at home and on TV. Once again, I don't mean to imply that couldn't be the case, but it surely is not the rule.

[The Sky Does Not Bow]

Meroko_Love

Why many men are terrified to even own an ounce of pink.

I don't think that's really a thing anymore. Sooo many hyper-masculine dudes wearing pink. And being gay is beginning to not be a bad thing anymore.

At least, from my perspective.

[Jerkovic]

I'm a feminist. I live in a country where it's arguably the most oppressive towards women.

[Vixianna]

Yoshpet

Vixianna

She wasn't saying it was setting up boys to abuse men later(though for some boys I'm sure it is) it saying it's setting up girls to think that rude, dismissive, inattentive, or otherwise negative behavior from a man is a sign of his affection. It's like the beginning of "He's Just Not That Into You." Where the narrator is talking about how her mother tells her that the boy in the school yard bite her and called her names because he had a crush. Her mother didn't then explain that it was an inappropriate way to express affection regardless(in fact people who use that phrase never DO in my experience.), which leaves the girl thinking that's how affection is expressed in some men and that his dismissiveness and disrespect is a normal behavior, at least when it comes to romantic things.
And while society doesn't accept hitting in adults, it just translates into emotionally or verbally abusive standards instead.(that is the underlying disrespect stays and changes forms into something more "adult" acceptable, especially in a society that doesn't take verbal abuse seriously.) So when a guy doesn't call you back, or seems aloof, a lot teens and young 20 somethings still mistake that as "interest" instead of the dismissal it is, and the people who are predators take advantage of that.
(will give analysis of how this affects boys in a second.)
As for Helga...you do realize that girl went to a therapy inside the show? It was an episode and everything. Her aggressiveness was based on her inability to accept the appropriateness of her affection towards Arnold. That is was an ok thing to feel, and that she didn't need to repress those feelings. In any case, she has lots of issues, and is NOT an example to be used for a well adjusted child's behavior or something that's even acceptable if at all a normal childhood problem.

Sorry, I don't mean to imply it's excusable behavior. You're right, anyone who waves it away as someone expressing their attraction should also show concern for the twisted means of expression.
What I mean to say is that this is a naturally occurring, though inexcusable, phenomena as opposed to the idea that these children are all imitating the spousal abuse they see at home and on TV. Once again, I don't mean to imply that couldn't be the case, but it surely is not the rule.

Ah, well thank you for clarifying. The woman in the articles vitriol was for the people who *do* use it as an excuse, full stop. And trust me, plenty of kids hear it as an excuse without saying that this is still a bad way to express ones self. Just straight up, "awwww he/she likes you." As if it makes the teasing and/or otherwise inappropriate behavior OK now.

[Olya]

Meroko_Love

Olya

Meroko_Love

Yes, but of course, I have seen plenty of statistics that suggest otherwise; far more that suggest women do NOT initiate violent fights as much, so I cannot really be sure. From my personal experiences, I've seen the female-as-victim types of domestic violence. And from all the psych and soc classes I've had, it seems that tends to be the majority of DV cases. Don't forget, some of the females who are initiating this violence could well be lesbians.

LGBTQ domestic violence is very under-researched.

(This is just for US culture, of course.)

This, in gist is my problem. WHY are studies from REPUTABLE sources so conflicting in what they tell us? I may be inclined to believe one more than the other, but in the end, there is no probable cause to believe either.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright

Well, I think we can safely conclude that everyone and anyone can be victim to domestic violence, however, we also should not minimize the gendered aspects of it. If we look at women's history of oppression in the US, we see that domestic violence was considered a man's right to discipline his wife until rather recently, to be honest.
So, I think we need to also take this history into consideration as well, since, as you can see from every culture, it is very important to present reality.

Well, our notion of abuse is very limited. Yes, we UNDERSTAND that there's such thing as emotional abuse, financial, religious, sexual, ritualistic, etc. However, we are not conditioned to see it. To many people, in spite of knowing all this, abuse=black eye.

Abuse=black eye is easy to see. It's in your face. It's not the same as a father slapping a child for a mild misbehavior. It's not the same as a mother pouring hot sauce down her child's mouth as a form of discipline (hell, legally we don't even consider it to be abusive!). It's not the same as a wife telling her husband that he is worthless. It's not the same as a husband telling his wife that she's not going to be able to pay a month's worth of bills without him.

My issue with the image of abuse being the wife with a black eye is that this image ignores and marginalizes the spectrum of abuse and its many victims.

For a moment, let's assume that women are the most frequent victims of abuse. Is there any meaning to it? Should it make a child or a male abuse victim feel better that they're a minority in their demographic? Would it make their emotional or physical pain better? Different?

You speak of the sentiments at the turn of the 20th century. However we also believed in abusing our children, abusing our military recruits, and emotionally isolating males. People who believed that and lived that are either dead or dying. And I'd like to think that we are vastly different in terms of what we believe. Does this mean that abuse is going to stop? No. But it does mean that we're no longer okay with it as a society.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright

[Olya]

Meroko_Love

Olya

The Willow Of Darkness

Olya

Blind Guardian the 2nd

So your solution to conflicting data is to believe that neither are correct? neutral

Yes. Otherwise you bring your own bias into the issue.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright

Reality is biased. Truth is biased. If X is, then not-X cannot be in the given situation.

What you are doing amounts to throwing your hand in the air and ignoring that which is(conflicting data, for example, might be showing both issues exist indifferent circumstances).

"Might" is not a good enough answer, now is it? "Might" doesn't tell you jack s**t.

I am not capable of sitting down and analyzing why so many studies conflict. I have no resources to conduct an independent study to verify the data. Until someone with education and resources does this and his/her results are further verified by subsequent studies, I have no cause to believe one study over another. And I have no basis to form an opinion. Informed one, that is. There's always an option in believing what one wants to believe.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright

Kay, I'll let you know when I become a psych researcher, and I'll carry out a study on DV. biggrin

I'll be waiting.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Olya

Meroko_Love

Olya

Meroko_Love

Yes, but of course, I have seen plenty of statistics that suggest otherwise; far more that suggest women do NOT initiate violent fights as much, so I cannot really be sure. From my personal experiences, I've seen the female-as-victim types of domestic violence. And from all the psych and soc classes I've had, it seems that tends to be the majority of DV cases. Don't forget, some of the females who are initiating this violence could well be lesbians.

LGBTQ domestic violence is very under-researched.

(This is just for US culture, of course.)

This, in gist is my problem. WHY are studies from REPUTABLE sources so conflicting in what they tell us? I may be inclined to believe one more than the other, but in the end, there is no probable cause to believe either.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright

Well, I think we can safely conclude that everyone and anyone can be victim to domestic violence, however, we also should not minimize the gendered aspects of it. If we look at women's history of oppression in the US, we see that domestic violence was considered a man's right to discipline his wife until rather recently, to be honest.
So, I think we need to also take this history into consideration as well, since, as you can see from every culture, it is very important to present reality.

Well, our notion of abuse is very limited. Yes, we UNDERSTAND that there's such thing as emotional abuse, financial, religious, sexual, ritualistic, etc. However, we are not conditioned to see it. To many people, in spite of knowing all this, abuse=black eye.

Abuse=black eye is easy to see. It's in your face. It's not the same as a father slapping a child for a mild misbehavior. It's not the same as a mother pouring hot sauce down her child's mouth as a form of discipline (hell, legally we don't even consider it to be abusive!). It's not the same as a wife telling her husband that he is worthless. It's not the same as a husband telling his wife that she's not going to be able to pay a month's worth of bills without him.

My issue with the image of abuse being the wife with a black eye is that this image ignores and marginalizes the spectrum of abuse and its many victims.

For a moment, let's assume that women are the most frequent victims of abuse. Is there any meaning to it? Should it make a child or a male abuse victim feel better that they're a minority in their demographic? Would it make their emotional or physical pain better? Different?

You speak of the sentiments at the turn of the 20th century. However we also believed in abusing our children, abusing our military recruits, and emotionally isolating males. People who believed that and lived that are either dead or dying. And I'd like to think that we are vastly different in terms of what we believe. Does this mean that abuse is going to stop? No. But it does mean that we're no longer okay with it as a society.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright

Completely untrue. Ian Hacking in his book "The Social Construction of What?" (1999) has detailed, quite clearly, that abuse is NOT conceived of merely in terms of physical violence, especially by institutions that manage the public.

"Abuse" as a term was derived from physical abuse (specifically, "battered baby syndrome" becoming replaced with "child abuse" wink which has now come to be supplanted by ANY action which harms an individual's mental, emotional or physical well-being.

Legally, many societies consider the use of physical torture like what you described as abuse. But you're in America with all of your federal crap where states decide what's what.

[Olya]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Olya

Meroko_Love

Olya

Meroko_Love

Yes, but of course, I have seen plenty of statistics that suggest otherwise; far more that suggest women do NOT initiate violent fights as much, so I cannot really be sure. From my personal experiences, I've seen the female-as-victim types of domestic violence. And from all the psych and soc classes I've had, it seems that tends to be the majority of DV cases. Don't forget, some of the females who are initiating this violence could well be lesbians.

LGBTQ domestic violence is very under-researched.

(This is just for US culture, of course.)

This, in gist is my problem. WHY are studies from REPUTABLE sources so conflicting in what they tell us? I may be inclined to believe one more than the other, but in the end, there is no probable cause to believe either.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright

Well, I think we can safely conclude that everyone and anyone can be victim to domestic violence, however, we also should not minimize the gendered aspects of it. If we look at women's history of oppression in the US, we see that domestic violence was considered a man's right to discipline his wife until rather recently, to be honest.
So, I think we need to also take this history into consideration as well, since, as you can see from every culture, it is very important to present reality.

Well, our notion of abuse is very limited. Yes, we UNDERSTAND that there's such thing as emotional abuse, financial, religious, sexual, ritualistic, etc. However, we are not conditioned to see it. To many people, in spite of knowing all this, abuse=black eye.

Abuse=black eye is easy to see. It's in your face. It's not the same as a father slapping a child for a mild misbehavior. It's not the same as a mother pouring hot sauce down her child's mouth as a form of discipline (hell, legally we don't even consider it to be abusive!). It's not the same as a wife telling her husband that he is worthless. It's not the same as a husband telling his wife that she's not going to be able to pay a month's worth of bills without him.

My issue with the image of abuse being the wife with a black eye is that this image ignores and marginalizes the spectrum of abuse and its many victims.

For a moment, let's assume that women are the most frequent victims of abuse. Is there any meaning to it? Should it make a child or a male abuse victim feel better that they're a minority in their demographic? Would it make their emotional or physical pain better? Different?

You speak of the sentiments at the turn of the 20th century. However we also believed in abusing our children, abusing our military recruits, and emotionally isolating males. People who believed that and lived that are either dead or dying. And I'd like to think that we are vastly different in terms of what we believe. Does this mean that abuse is going to stop? No. But it does mean that we're no longer okay with it as a society.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright

Completely untrue. Ian Hacking in his book "The Social Construction of What?" (1999) has detailed, quite clearly, that abuse is NOT conceived of merely in terms of physical violence, especially by institutions that manage the public.

"Abuse" as a term was derived from physical abuse (specifically, "battered baby syndrome" becoming replaced with "child abuse" wink which has now come to be supplanted by ANY action which harms an individual's mental, emotional or physical well-being.

Legally, many societies consider the use of physical torture like what you described as abuse. But you're in America with all of your federal crap where states decide what's what.

Just because something is recognized by social scientists and legislators, doesn't mean it is recognized by the general population. It is the general population that is responsible for recognizing, reporting abuse and supporting the abuse victims.

Oftentimes, however, you hear "well, it's not like he/she is beating you" or "you act like I'm beating you," as if physical harm is the only way to entrap and inflict pain. And is there any wonder that this happens? The only time the notion of abuse was brought up in school was during "health" part of grade 9 gym class. The lesson could be summarized like this:

1. Men beat women and rape women
2. That is abuse
3. Women should seek help

What a comprehensive notion of abuse! In fact, unless an individual chooses to study community health or social sciences post high-school, this is the only notion of abuse he or she is likely to know.

And you in U.K. allow the use of religious law to settle disputes! I wouldn't talk!

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright