by Cherry de Voured » Sat May 28, 2016 9:02 am
Si_Crewe wrote:Cherry de Voured wrote:It's like this absurd ridiculous vicious circle. The attitudes cease to be as prevalent, but the 'aftershocks' of such attitudes continue - even if it's all self-imposed pressure to be a certain way because of an "expectation" which has stopped being there - I suppose that's why being vocal about it is quite important. It's starting to unravel - I agree with you, Si, things are moving fast - but these attitudes do exist, and sometimes only become apparent in an unexpected moment. I remember a female friend telling me that she once took a guy home from a date, and he couldn't believe his luck - pulled a girl who goes 'all the way' on the first date. Marvellous. Anyway, they got down to it, had a great time, and it came to the inevitable post-sex talk, and the talk of previous partners. Now, in all honesty, this girl has had her fair share of men. Doesn't boast or brag, but if you ask her, she'll be honest and upfront about it. And so had he.
Now on the surface, he was a lovely, genuine, charismatic guy. But he couldn't handle the fact that she'd had so many partners - whilst being completely oblivious to the fact that anything he could accuse her of, or anything he felt, could be applied just as equally in reverse. Now, I'm not saying this was due to some huge, misogynistic urge from deep inside of his psyche, probably nothing more than him feeling a little insecure, what with all the potential 'rivals' for bedroom performance scores. But there's a double-standard there, and there's nothing wrong with highlighting that, because it's quite pertinent.
Another balanced and insightful post. I'm only chopping bits out for the sake of relevance to my reply. Hope you don't mind.
The difference in
attitude toward various things - men who masturbate are losers while women who do it are "empowered", men who want to stay at home and look after the kids are losers but it's commendable for a woman to do it, men who fuck anything with a pulse are studs while women who do the same are sluts - all probably have a basis in historic prejudices.
The thing is - and I freely admit that I tend to consider this stuff from the POV of being sceptical of 3rd-wave feminism - is that whenever these sorts of stereotypes crop up they're usually condemned (by feminists) as being a sign of "toxic masculinity" and the solution is (drum-roll).... Feminism.
Apparently, if all men gave up their awful masculine prejudices and adopted feminist attitudes then it'd fix everything.
If we take a look at some of these stereotypes, more often than not it seems like men are usually congratulated for their traditional characteristics.
Get heaps of sex? good on ya'.
Make loads of money? You're a star!
All your mates look up to you? What a hero!
Always get your own way? You're the man!
When I see 3rd-wave feminists whining about "toxic masculinity", they seem to be suggesting that we should abandon all these "male" characteristics and, instead, applaud things that they (the feminists) deem desirable characteristics.
Firstly, I doubt the sincerity of this idea. I suspect that, in reality, they're just trying to "move the goalposts" so that none of the stuff men are traditionally good at remains worthy of praise.
More importantly, though, I think they're rather missing the point.
It's not the characteristic, itself, that's necessarily a good thing but the positive reactions to those things IS a good thing.
Rather than trying to change what we consider impressive characteristics (something that I doubt is really possible) would it not be better to simply applaud the SAME characteristics in both men AND women?
Honestly, I tend o think that there's probably far less historical prejudice applied by gender than people think.
I'd be willing to bet that, for example, the stereotype that says promiscuous women are sluts is propagated as widely by women as men or the one that says it's commendable for women to stay at home and look after kids is propagated by women who're justifying a lifestyle they enjoy.
I keep saying the same thing but times are changing pretty quickly.
These days, for example, I'm over the fucking moon when a family still consists of 2 parents - one who goes out to work and one who brings up the kids - regardless of which is which.
Sorry for not replying sooner - had this bastard of a cold that I thought would fuck off after twenty-four hours. I get a little moody and irritable when I'm crook, so probably a little over-reactive. The only good thing about it is I've got a this croaky Bonnie Tyler voice. Unfortunately I'm still singing like a drowned cat in a room full of whinging hypochondriacs.
The trouble with 'feminism' is that it's a bit like 'Philosophy' (I think I may have said this before), or any other broad, ideological movement. It's so varied that pinning it down to one thing or the other makes it a little difficult. It's made even more difficult by the fact we've got things like Twitter and Tumblr that diminish important points into rage-filled 'sound bites' that provide little discussion, but plenty of outrage. I do consider myself a feminist, in the same way I'm a 'humanist' or 'Queerist' or whatever, I don't consider myself particularly radical, just a little impatience at times perhaps. But I can't say I can get particularly outraged when people are sceptical over feminism, because it doesn't handle PR particularly well (again, because it's so broad).
I imagine it's similar to how EU-sceptics feel, or conservatives. You know, they've got a perfectly reasonable ideological viewpoint - even if I don't agree with most of it (e.g. social conservatism), but then there's always one brass-necked cunt who opens their gob or does something ridiculously stupid and suddenly the baby's thrown away with the bathwater.
Attitudes NEED to be held by both 'men' and 'women', but I think there's also some issues that require a little gender-specific initiation with backing from all parties. I may have mentioned men's mental health in the DS post - this REALLY requires men to get involved and start paving the way in this to open discussion - but of course, it really requires women to be supportive of this. Another issue I think that's become 'hidden' or at least 'translucent' - male victims of violence, for example, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (and I feel this especially when it comes to domestic violence - far too many men remain silent about such things), and this isn't helped when an attitudes of 'boys will be boys', 'manning up', etc, are harboured by society as a whole - men, women and perhaps other.
You're absolutely right about men raising children. This whole idea of it having to be women who raise the children is so antiquated (in my view) that it's just absurd to think that anybody - male or female - who think that men have to be the one out working is ludicrous. Surely, it's whoever can provide the most benefit in whatever role they decide to take after a good discussion between the people involved. I know some wonderful stay-at-home Dads, and some fucking brilliant single-fathers. I think their role is far too overlooked - whereas, quite rightly, we place commendation on single, working and stay-at-home Mums.
But it all comes from the same place - what men (should) do, what women (should) do. Now we're in a stage of 'modern thinking influx', and some people are swept out into a sea of confusion - well, what does that mean for me as a man, woman, etc. What am I expected to do? And that's rather shameful, because the whole point is that the expectation is only that you try and be the most successful in whatever it is you do try and do. I've heard it from traditionalists from time-to-time - 'well, I'm a woman, why am I expected to work instead of raising kids?' - and this is a result of a miscommunication of kinds - no-one's expecting you to give up child-rearing for full time work, but rather, that if you wanted to, no one would expect you NOT to.
It's the same bullshit we got (and still get) in same-sex marriage legalisation - suddenly, everyone's going to be forced to marry a bloke/lass, and all kids will be gay. When the actual truth is, if you want to marry someone of the same sex, you can, and if you have a gay kid, they'll be able to marry. And that's basically it. Same with cannabis legalisation - doesn't mean we're going to be sticking scoobies into the mouth of every infant, or that dear Edna the War Widow two-doors down will be forced to chuff on a bit of Mary Jane.
With all these gender issues, I do think it's a case of 'what's good for the goose, is good for the gander'. If it means women can lead successful lives independently of whether or not there's a man in their life, and vice versa for males (because of course, there's still an expectation there), or that men and women can choose what role they play in the formative years of child rearing, that can only be a good thing. If we can all access a decent education, job opportunities, and opportunities in life as a whole - that can only be a good thing. And I do think that's the part that gets missed here - particularly when it comes to the modern 'instant information' age - is that the benefits to everyone are lost. It's all well and good preaching to the converted, but it's really nothing more than a pointless exercise in 'sounding off', or a 'dress rehearsal' for the main event that never happens.
Sorry for the latest essay in the topic!
[quote="Si_Crewe"][quote="Cherry de Voured"]It's like this absurd ridiculous vicious circle. The attitudes cease to be as prevalent, but the 'aftershocks' of such attitudes continue - even if it's all self-imposed pressure to be a certain way because of an "expectation" which has stopped being there - I suppose that's why being vocal about it is quite important. It's starting to unravel - I agree with you, Si, things are moving fast - but these attitudes do exist, and sometimes only become apparent in an unexpected moment. I remember a female friend telling me that she once took a guy home from a date, and he couldn't believe his luck - pulled a girl who goes 'all the way' on the first date. Marvellous. Anyway, they got down to it, had a great time, and it came to the inevitable post-sex talk, and the talk of previous partners. Now, in all honesty, this girl has had her fair share of men. Doesn't boast or brag, but if you ask her, she'll be honest and upfront about it. And so had he.
Now on the surface, he was a lovely, genuine, charismatic guy. But he couldn't handle the fact that she'd had so many partners - whilst being completely oblivious to the fact that anything he could accuse her of, or anything he felt, could be applied just as equally in reverse. Now, I'm not saying this was due to some huge, misogynistic urge from deep inside of his psyche, probably nothing more than him feeling a little insecure, what with all the potential 'rivals' for bedroom performance scores. But there's a double-standard there, and there's nothing wrong with highlighting that, because it's quite pertinent.[/quote]
Another balanced and insightful post. I'm only chopping bits out for the sake of relevance to my reply. Hope you don't mind.
The difference in [i]attitude[/i] toward various things - men who masturbate are losers while women who do it are "empowered", men who want to stay at home and look after the kids are losers but it's commendable for a woman to do it, men who fuck anything with a pulse are studs while women who do the same are sluts - all probably have a basis in historic prejudices.
The thing is - and I freely admit that I tend to consider this stuff from the POV of being sceptical of 3rd-wave feminism - is that whenever these sorts of stereotypes crop up they're usually condemned (by feminists) as being a sign of "toxic masculinity" and the solution is (drum-roll).... Feminism.
Apparently, if all men gave up their awful masculine prejudices and adopted feminist attitudes then it'd fix everything.
If we take a look at some of these stereotypes, more often than not it seems like men are usually congratulated for their traditional characteristics.
Get heaps of sex? good on ya'.
Make loads of money? You're a star!
All your mates look up to you? What a hero!
Always get your own way? You're the man!
When I see 3rd-wave feminists whining about "toxic masculinity", they seem to be suggesting that we should abandon all these "male" characteristics and, instead, applaud things that they (the feminists) deem desirable characteristics.
Firstly, I doubt the sincerity of this idea. I suspect that, in reality, they're just trying to "move the goalposts" so that none of the stuff men are traditionally good at remains worthy of praise.
More importantly, though, I think they're rather missing the point.
It's not the characteristic, itself, that's necessarily a good thing but the positive reactions to those things IS a good thing.
Rather than trying to change what we consider impressive characteristics (something that I doubt is really possible) would it not be better to simply applaud the SAME characteristics in both men AND women?
Honestly, I tend o think that there's probably far less historical prejudice applied by gender than people think.
I'd be willing to bet that, for example, the stereotype that says promiscuous women are sluts is propagated as widely by women as men or the one that says it's commendable for women to stay at home and look after kids is propagated by women who're justifying a lifestyle they enjoy.
I keep saying the same thing but times are changing pretty quickly.
These days, for example, I'm over the fucking moon when a family still consists of 2 parents - one who goes out to work and one who brings up the kids - regardless of which is which.[/quote]
Sorry for not replying sooner - had this bastard of a cold that I thought would fuck off after twenty-four hours. I get a little moody and irritable when I'm crook, so probably a little over-reactive. The only good thing about it is I've got a this croaky Bonnie Tyler voice. Unfortunately I'm still singing like a drowned cat in a room full of whinging hypochondriacs.
The trouble with 'feminism' is that it's a bit like 'Philosophy' (I think I may have said this before), or any other broad, ideological movement. It's so varied that pinning it down to one thing or the other makes it a little difficult. It's made even more difficult by the fact we've got things like Twitter and Tumblr that diminish important points into rage-filled 'sound bites' that provide little discussion, but plenty of outrage. I do consider myself a feminist, in the same way I'm a 'humanist' or 'Queerist' or whatever, I don't consider myself particularly radical, just a little impatience at times perhaps. But I can't say I can get particularly outraged when people are sceptical over feminism, because it doesn't handle PR particularly well (again, because it's so broad).
I imagine it's similar to how EU-sceptics feel, or conservatives. You know, they've got a perfectly reasonable ideological viewpoint - even if I don't agree with most of it (e.g. social conservatism), but then there's always one brass-necked cunt who opens their gob or does something ridiculously stupid and suddenly the baby's thrown away with the bathwater.
Attitudes NEED to be held by both 'men' and 'women', but I think there's also some issues that require a little gender-specific initiation with backing from all parties. I may have mentioned men's mental health in the DS post - this REALLY requires men to get involved and start paving the way in this to open discussion - but of course, it really requires women to be supportive of this. Another issue I think that's become 'hidden' or at least 'translucent' - male victims of violence, for example, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (and I feel this especially when it comes to domestic violence - far too many men remain silent about such things), and this isn't helped when an attitudes of 'boys will be boys', 'manning up', etc, are harboured by society as a whole - men, women and perhaps other.
You're absolutely right about men raising children. This whole idea of it having to be women who raise the children is so antiquated (in my view) that it's just absurd to think that anybody - male or female - who think that men have to be the one out working is ludicrous. Surely, it's whoever can provide the most benefit in whatever role they decide to take after a good discussion between the people involved. I know some wonderful stay-at-home Dads, and some fucking brilliant single-fathers. I think their role is far too overlooked - whereas, quite rightly, we place commendation on single, working and stay-at-home Mums.
But it all comes from the same place - what men (should) do, what women (should) do. Now we're in a stage of 'modern thinking influx', and some people are swept out into a sea of confusion - well, what does that mean for me as a man, woman, etc. What am I expected to do? And that's rather shameful, because the whole point is that the expectation is only that you try and be the most successful in whatever it is you do try and do. I've heard it from traditionalists from time-to-time - 'well, I'm a woman, why am I expected to work instead of raising kids?' - and this is a result of a miscommunication of kinds - no-one's expecting you to give up child-rearing for full time work, but rather, that if you wanted to, no one would expect you NOT to.
It's the same bullshit we got (and still get) in same-sex marriage legalisation - suddenly, everyone's going to be forced to marry a bloke/lass, and all kids will be gay. When the actual truth is, if you want to marry someone of the same sex, you can, and if you have a gay kid, they'll be able to marry. And that's basically it. Same with cannabis legalisation - doesn't mean we're going to be sticking scoobies into the mouth of every infant, or that dear Edna the War Widow two-doors down will be forced to chuff on a bit of Mary Jane.
With all these gender issues, I do think it's a case of 'what's good for the goose, is good for the gander'. If it means women can lead successful lives independently of whether or not there's a man in their life, and vice versa for males (because of course, there's still an expectation there), or that men and women can choose what role they play in the formative years of child rearing, that can only be a good thing. If we can all access a decent education, job opportunities, and opportunities in life as a whole - that can only be a good thing. And I do think that's the part that gets missed here - particularly when it comes to the modern 'instant information' age - is that the benefits to everyone are lost. It's all well and good preaching to the converted, but it's really nothing more than a pointless exercise in 'sounding off', or a 'dress rehearsal' for the main event that never happens.
Sorry for the latest essay in the topic!
