Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 04:35PM

later12 wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

T
The impression I was left with was that these two women, who circumstances had decreed would be left without a husband, had proven themselves more then capable of not just surviving but creating a stable, financially secure, loving home yet they saw themselves, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, as still 'lesser' just because of their gender.
It looked to me like brainwashing...

I think that goes to the core of the problem, because the treatment of women within society is not just a product of male conditioning (although that is very relevant, since men are the majority in the legal, political and senior administrative roles), but through female conditioning as well.

We sometimes forget that a lot of women are conditioned to want to be the stay-at-home type, to want to have children and to want to enter the nursing, primary school teaching and caring professions.

This does not make the gender disparities that thereafter arise, acceptable.

To compare this to another modern phenomenon, in modern society, the poorest children are often socially conditioned by the influences in their home or community environment not to aspire to a university education, not to aspire to 'the suburban life' (though that may be a good thing) and are sometimes conditioned to want to engage in non-socially productive behaviour.

In that instance, we generally recognize that this social conditioning is unattractive and even dangerous. We generally try (often unsuccessfully) to prevent it or to impede it.

We still haven't got there on how we 'condition' the genders to behave in themselves and with respect to one another. We don't recognize the way we (that includes men AND women) are conditioning gender identities in the way that we recognize how we condition the poor and the socially marginalized.

That is a problem. That is why it is important (as per the other thread) not to see feminism as a line drawn on gender lines, but as a group of human beings who are particularly concerned with how gender identity affects or impedes women.

This is not a war on men - it is not a war on anything- just a struggle against a dominant paradigm.

This paradigm can affect men in ways separate to how it affects women, and that is worthy of its own discussion.

you talk a lot about conditioned ideas , you seem to want to enforce reconditioned ideas. , what makes you think this will be a smooth transition or that it will produce a positive outcome, I happen to think that many of society's norms evolved over a long time and without a nanny showing them the way , I don't accept that all the old ways are in need of change

Captain Darling · 16-02-2012 04:35PM

Whats wrong with being sexy?

Chuck Stone · 16-02-2012 04:37PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

This is a nonesense hpothethical situation

I know but you're missing the point.

The point being made was that gender roles are socially constructed.

later12 · 16-02-2012 04:42PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

you talk a lot about conditioned ideas , you seem to want to enforce reconditioned ideas

Absolutely!

There is nothing wrong or unusual about social conditioning. It is a fact of life like Mondays, the common cold, and Jedward.

What is wrong is conditioning human beings to behave in a way that impedes the progress of one category of human being relative to another category of human being within a society.

what makes you think this will be a smooth transition or that it will produce a positive outcome

The aim, in the context of feminism, is one for a better condition for women.

That is part of a wider egalitarian struggle being undertaken by specialists in lots of different areas, from gay rights, to mens' issues, to fathers' rights, to disability advocates, to homeless and social injustice groups and so on.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'smooth transition', are you saying that a shock to the social structure makes the relegation of certain categories of people acceptable?

--Kaiser-- · 16-02-2012 04:42PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I know but you're missing the point.

The point being made was that gender roles are socially constructed.

Wow. Well argued

Zulu · 16-02-2012 04:42PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I know but you're missing the point.

The point being made was that gender roles are socially constructed.

Unfortunatly it's a lot more complex than that as Bruce/Brenda/David Reimer sadly found out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/boyturnedgirl.shtml

drkpower · 16-02-2012 04:43PM

Millicent wrote: »

I chose to respond to Eric and actually requested to.

Sure, but his views were always likely to be something along the lines of 'feminists are all lesbians or abuse victims'.

If you want to engage with that, knock yourself out, but my point was that engaging with that level of intellect/reasoning is very unlikely to bring anything to the debate. And the plea in the OP was for a debate that might rise above the usual contributions.

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 04:44PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

This is a nonesense hpothethical situation

I know but you're missing the point.

The point being made was that gender roles are socially constructed.

they don't seem to consider how dangerous shaking up traditional norms surrounding gender could be , the real radicals seem to want to turn the whole thing on it's head and raise boys as girls , if thier is one sure way to increase suicide rates among men , it's by systamatic emasculation

Dudess · 16-02-2012 04:45PM

Captain Darling wrote: »

Whats wrong with being sexy?

Nowt at all darl... <3

Zulu · 16-02-2012 04:47PM

drkpower wrote: »

If you want to engage with that, knock yourself out, but my point was that engaging with that level of intellect/reasoning is very unlikely to bring anything to the debate.

Ad-homenim attack aside, the same can be said of your post: it's "very unlikely to bring anything to the debate". Why are you dragging that back up? Eric Cartman & Millicent have dealt with it. It's done.

Leave it.

Dudess · 16-02-2012 04:48PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

Chuck Stone wrote: »

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

This is a nonesense hpothethical situation

I know but you're missing the point.

The point being made was that gender roles are socially constructed.

they don't seem to consider how dangerous shaking up traditional norms surrounding gender could be , the real radicals seem to want to turn the whole thing on it's head and raise boys as girls , if thier is one sure way to increase suicide rates among men , it's by systamatic emasculation

Hardly commonplace and much of a threat. Those two cases of the parents raising gender neutral children got the level of objection it deserved.
What are you basing your assertions on btw? In fairness, arguing that something is bad and dangerous because of "d liberalz" won't help you get taken seriously.
Looking at feminism or left-wing ideology in a reductionist, absolutist sense and making unsubstantiated claims doesn't generate great argument unfortunately.

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 04:49PM

later12 wrote: »

hardbackwriter wrote: »

you talk a lot about conditioned ideas , you seem to want to enforce reconditioned ideas

Absolutely!

There is nothing wrong or unusual about social conditioning. It is a fact of life like Mondays, the common cold, and Jedward.

What is wrong is conditioning human beings to behave in a way that impedes the progress of one category of human being relative to another category of human being within a society.

what makes you think this will be a smooth transition or that it will produce a positive outcome

The aim, in the context of feminism, is one for a better condition for women.

That is part of a wider egalitarian struggle being undertaken by specialists in lots of different areas, from gay rights, to mens' issues, to fathers' rights, to disability advocates, to homeless and social injustice groups and so on.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'smooth transition', are you saying that a shock to the social structure makes the relegation of certain categories of people acceptable?

Sounds like a nightmare , would require a nanny state of Orwellian proportions

Cedrus · 16-02-2012 04:50PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

This is a nonesense hpothethical situation

NOT Nonsense.
Politically Motivated
Medically? motivated

dark crystal · 16-02-2012 04:51PM

I don't see why any man would have a problem with feminism tbh.

As far as I can see, feminism is just about expanding the choices open to women that perhaps were denied them in the past and evening up the areas where equality between genders remains an issue. How could anyone have a problem with that?

I'd also add that this works both ways.... there are areas in which males are clearly discriminated against, i.e; family law, paternity entitlements, women only insurance etc.

I doubt many women, feminist or not, would argue against men seeking to do away with those injustices. In fact, as illustrated in my earlier post, women do indeed campaign to right those wrongs as well as men.

Campaigning for women's rights doesn't equal wanting to lessen the rights afforded to men at all.

later12 · 16-02-2012 04:55PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

Sounds like a nightmare , would require a nanny state of Orwellian proportions

Ridiculous.

We alter and correct and rebalance how we condition society all the time. That's a part of what we call paradigm shift.

In the same way that society learned that impeding the progress of black people relative to whites was unacceptable, in the same way that the womens' movement has made a great deal of ground, we have already rebalanced and reconditioned society quite extensively throughout the 21st century.

Society in 2112 is unlikely to resemble society in 2012. And that, as always, will largely be down to human beings agitating and campaigning for that wonderful thing, progress.

--Kaiser-- · 16-02-2012 04:55PM

Cedrus wrote: »

NOT Nonsense.
Politically Motivated
Medically? motivated

I meant for me it's a nonsense hpothetical situation. My parent's aren't psychos and how am I to know what would potentially have happened to me as a kid if they were?

PrincessLola · 16-02-2012 04:57PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yes but If you pick gender equality to campaign for then actually campaign for gender equality and not just increasing female rights.

Action speak louder than words. What actions have feminists groups ever taken to increase male rights or to lessen female unfair advantage? If gender equality is really the goal then you would thInk they would campaign for men's rights at least occasionally.

The areas where men are unfairly disadvantaged I think is father's rights and domestic abuse which I agree are complete bullsh*t and need to be addressed.

But it isn't feminism that gave men these disadvantages, they had these disadvantatges long before the feminist movement.
The problem here is the fallacy in thinking women getting more rights = men getting less rights. Its about trying to level the playing field, not knock men down.
Most good feminists make an effort to understand how men feel and what they go through, but I don't feel like men do. If you think women 'have more rights' then men maybe you should try and imagine what being female means and their struggles, and not just dismiss it as "lol wimminz' and 'dumb b*tches'. Phrases like that are used to shut women down completely, without ever giving them a chance.

Also, equal rights does not mean men and women are the same, they're not. Men are generally stronger and better risk takers, women are generally better with young babies. (I feel like I'm going to be crucified for saying that, god help me:().

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 04:59PM

dark crystal wrote: »

I don't see why any man would have a problem with feminism tbh.

As far as I can see, feminism is just about expanding the choices open to women that perhaps were denied them in the past and evening up the areas where equality between genders remains an issue. How could anyone have a problem with that?

I'd also add that this works both ways.... there are areas in which males are clearly discriminated against, i.e; family law, paternity entitlements, women only insurance etc.

I doubt many women, feminist or not, would argue against men seeking to do away with those injustices. In fact, as illustrated in my earlier post, women do indeed campaign to right those wrongs as well as men.

Campaigning for women's rights doesn't equal wanting to lessen the rights afforded to men at all.

equal rights and the pursuit of is fine but this thread suggests feminism wants more than that , old fashioned mens men seem to be problematic and in need of a good psychological and idealogical makeover

The King of Moo · 16-02-2012 05:03PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

equal rights and the pursuit of is fine but this thread suggests feminism wants more than that , old fashioned mens men seem to be problematic and in need of a good psychological and idealogical makeover

Did anyone say that?

Old-fashioned men who believe and act upon sexist beliefs: sure, why not attempt to enlighten them? Not being sexist doesn't make one not manly.

Old-fashioned man's men who aren't sexist: hands up who has a problem with them?

I think you're imagining radical positions which simply aren't being promoted in this thread.

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 05:03PM

later12 wrote: »

hardbackwriter wrote: »

Sounds like a nightmare , would require a nanny state of Orwellian proportions

Ridiculous.

We alter and correct and rebalance how we condition society all the time. That's a part of what we call paradigm shift.

In the same way that society learned that impeding the progress of black people relative to whites was unacceptable, in the same way that the womens' movement has made a great deal of ground, we have already rebalanced and reconditioned society quite extensively throughout the 21st century.

Society in 2112 is unlikely to resemble society in 2012. And that, as always, will largely be down to human beings agitating and campaigning for that wonderful thing, progress.

I ask again , who appoints these wise enlightened flag bearers of change and what if the majority of people believe that individual freedoms including the right to oppose absolute equality ( whatever that means ) trumps every other consideration

Dudess · 16-02-2012 05:06PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

dark crystal wrote: »

I don't see why any man would have a problem with feminism tbh.

As far as I can see, feminism is just about expanding the choices open to women that perhaps were denied them in the past and evening up the areas where equality between genders remains an issue. How could anyone have a problem with that?

I'd also add that this works both ways.... there are areas in which males are clearly discriminated against, i.e; family law, paternity entitlements, women only insurance etc.

I doubt many women, feminist or not, would argue against men seeking to do away with those injustices. In fact, as illustrated in my earlier post, women do indeed campaign to right those wrongs as well as men.

Campaigning for women's rights doesn't equal wanting to lessen the rights afforded to men at all.

equal rights and the pursuit of is fine but this thread suggests feminism wants more than that , old fashioned mens men seem to be problematic and in need of a good psychological and idealogical makeover

Where have people said that?

PrincessLola, only a stupid person would say women have it better than men in general here - no point addressing them. To be fair, I don't think most guys here would think that.

I do think gender quotas are a bad idea and one which only fuels the "feminists are crazy bitches" way of thinking. Encouraging women more to become interested in politics would be the way to address that one IMO.

dark crystal · 16-02-2012 05:07PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

equal rights and the pursuit of is fine but this thread suggests feminism wants more than that , old fashioned mens men seem to be problematic and in need of a good psychological and idealogical makeover

How would you define and old fashioned man's man though?

The King of Moo · 16-02-2012 05:07PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

I ask again , who appoints these wise enlightened flag bearers of change and what if the majority of people believe that individual freedoms including the right to oppose absolute equality ( whatever that means ) trumps every other consideration

Why would anyone want to oppose equality?

later12 · 16-02-2012 05:07PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

old fashioned mens men seem to be problematic and in need of a good psychological and idealogical makeover

There have been about 600 posts on this topic in the last 2 days, between the two threads, and I haven't seen that suggested once.

What on earth an 'old fashioned man's man' is, I have no idea. I suspect it's not something feminists are remotely interested in altering, unless it deprives women of their rights, or relegates their position in society.

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 05:08PM

The King of Moo wrote: »

hardbackwriter wrote: »

equal rights and the pursuit of is fine but this thread suggests feminism wants more than that , old fashioned mens men seem to be problematic and in need of a good psychological and idealogical makeover

Did anyone say that?

Old-fashioned men who believe and act upon sexist beliefs: sure, why not attempt to enlighten them? Not being sexist doesn't make one not manly.

Old-fashioned man's men who aren't sexist: hands up who has a problem with them?

I think you're imagining radical positions which simply aren't being promoted in this thread.

one persons definition of what constitutes unacceptable behaviour could be very different to another persons idea on the subject , who should be the authority on theese things , again , sounds very orwellian and totalitarian

later12 · 16-02-2012 05:09PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

I ask again , who appoints these wise enlightened flag bearers of change and what if the majority of people believe that individual freedoms including the right to oppose absolute equality ( whatever that means ) trumps every other consideration

Then feminists will stay campaigning until change happens or until the movement dies out... the same as every other movement for change that has ever existed in the history of the world.

Scanlas The 2nd · 16-02-2012 05:10PM

later12 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If I were to claim I believe in advancing the rights of all marsupials, but only ever did any campaigning for kangaroos I would be a hypocryt.

Would you? Really?

Do you think that people who work for Ada Cole's International League for the Protection of Horses are hypocrites if they look at a beaten circus tiger and say "isn't that terrible, what an outrage, I really oppose such acts of cruelty"

Of course not. They just devote their resources to a very specific group that they personally find appealing for whatever reason. The ILPH does not consume their lives. They are still free to protest for PAWS or against animal circuses in their own free time. You have been told this time and time again and you refuse to engage with it.

If someone claims to care deeply are the protection of horses but never actually does anything to protect horses then they are hypocryts. You dont seem to be understanding basic logic here.

What part of the following logic doesn't make sense to you?

The core principal of feminism is gender equality. If feminists only campaign for increases in female rights then what their real core principal is is increasing female rights. The claim that gender equality is the goal is in fact false.

If you can find flaws in my reasoning or assumptions I am more than happy to change my opinion.

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 05:14PM

The King of Moo wrote: »

hardbackwriter wrote: »

I ask again , who appoints these wise enlightened flag bearers of change and what if the majority of people believe that individual freedoms including the right to oppose absolute equality ( whatever that means ) trumps every other consideration

Why would anyone want to oppose equality?

the term equality means different things to different people and has become a loaded catch all term for all that is right and vitreous , the subject is very often riddled with pious pronouncements which don't amount to very much in reality , it's up there in Irish discourse with that other catch all , the most vulnerable

Bannasidhe · 16-02-2012 05:16PM

Zulu wrote: »

Wait, what? At that time you knew the killer was a man?

In this instance was the curfew legally imposed - were women actually arrested if they went out? Or, was it a case of "for your own safety" please don't go out? Because there is a MASSIVE difference.

Have you not heard of the Yorkshire Ripper? The crimes left no doubt that the killer was a man.

No it was not a legally binding curfew - but the statements issued by the Yorkshire Police were very much of the 'No respectable woman needs to go out after dark and we cannot be held responsible for what happens if a woman does go out at night. After all, there is a serial rapist and murderer on the loose so the best advice we can give women is stay indoors'. FFS, what kind of policing is that?

It provoked a huge backlash

women in Leeds formed a Reclaim The Night group to take collective action against rape and male sexual violence against women. This was particularly significant to women in the area because of the serial murders by Peter Sutcliffe, dubbed by the press as the ‘Yorkshire Ripper’, who sexually attacked and murdered thirteen women across Yorkshire between 1975 and 1980. Women in the area were angry that the police response to these murders seemed slow and that the press barely reported on them when it was mainly women involved in prostitution who were murdered. But when a young student woman was murdered, the press and the police seemed to take more notice. The police response was to tell women not to go out at night, effectively putting them under curfew. This was not a helpful suggestion for any women, those working late shifts or night shifts, or those involved in prostitution who often had no choice about whether they went out at night or not. Feminists and a variety of student and women’s groups were angered by this response and also by the sensationalising of the serial murders, which they felt hid the real fact that all too many women are affected by male violence and that this was in fact common. The Leeds Revolutionary Feminist group called for women to march in cities across the UK on the night of 12th November 1977 against rape and for a woman’s right to walk without fear at night, they advertised this in national newsletters and publicised it to women’s groups. Hundreds of women took back their cities on that night, marching with flaming torches through centres and back streets alike. They made the point that women should be able to walk anywhere and that they should not be blamed or restricted because of men’s violence.

http://www.reclaimthenight.org/why.html

And no - there is not a massive difference between being told 'we will arrest you if you go out' and 'if you go out and are brutally raped and murdered it's your own fault because we did warn you' which was the message the Yorkshire police were giving out.

The sheer fact that they felt it was acceptable to tell women to just stay at home as it was more important that men were still able to have freedom of movement beggers belief. Yet, the ides of telling men to stay home so that any man who was out and about could be questioned, recorded and checked if another crime occurred during the curfew never dawned on anyone. It was simply unthinkable. But apparently it was perfectly reasonable to expect women to become prisoners in their own homes.

Scanlas The 2nd · 16-02-2012 05:17PM

PrincessLola wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yes but If you pick gender equality to campaign for then actually campaign for gender equality and not just increasing female rights.

Action speak louder than words. What actions have feminists groups ever taken to increase male rights or to lessen female unfair advantage? If gender equality is really the goal then you would thInk they would campaign for men's rights at least occasionally.

The areas where men are unfairly disadvantaged I think is father's rights and domestic abuse which I agree are complete bullsh*t and need to be addressed.

But it isn't feminism that gave men these disadvantages, they had these disadvantatges long before the feminist movement.
The problem here is the fallacy in thinking women getting more rights = men getting less rights. Its about trying to level the playing field, not knock men down.
Most good feminists make an effort to understand how men feel and what they go through, but I don't feel like men do. If you think women 'have more rights' then men maybe you should try and imagine what being female means and their struggles, and not just dismiss it as "lol wimminz' and 'dumb b*tches'. Phrases like that are used to shut women down completely, without ever giving them a chance.

Also, equal rights does not mean men and women are the same, they're not. Men are generally stronger and better risk takers, women are generally better with young babies. (I feel like I'm going to be crucified for saying that, god help me:().

Once again my main point is being ignored.

What is the main goal of feminism, gender equality or to increase the rights of women?

Has anyone ever come across a feminist pissed off that women have better conditions than men?

Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Comments