Feminists have been trying to get men on the gender equality train since at least 1792 when Mary Wollstonecraft urged men to let women have educations so they (women) could better educate their sons. Beyond the fact that trying to "sweeten the deal" for men's participation in the movement toward gender equality is repugnant to me on principle, I just don't that it's been very effective.
So what's the alternative?
Whether we like it or not, men are here to stay. I would rather engage men to bring them into the conversation than alienate them and shut down all conversation.
I guess the alternative is, instead of making the women's rights movement about how men suffer from gender inequality, to keep the focus on how girls/women are the ones who suffer the most. Like I just wrote upthread, you can pander in other ways, like "You wouldn't want your daughter/sister/wife to deal with x, so let's work for a world where that doesn't happen." It's still humiliating, because I don't think I should have to try to make people see the inherent humanity of females, but I guess if we're being pragmatic.
As for "men are here to stay," I don't see how that's relevant to how we frame the issue of women's rights. Nobody is arguing that the only two options for the women's movement are separatists communes vs. coaxing men to participate by assuming they're all narcissists.
I think in many cases, feminism starts at home. It takes raising children of a feminist mindset, teaching them to challenge cultural norms, to embrace gender equality in all spheres. And most of us cannot do that without bringing men into that conversation.
Can I add expecting and demonstrating equality in your partnership?
there is actually some feminist argument about Hermione and Amy Pollers character on Parks and Rec but i have seen or read them to understand the argument.
but it is bacially, if i get this correct, that both characters start out as annoying as shit, younger sister types that you only care about b/c you can join in with everyone else hating her. over time she evolves out of the sister role and into a smart, independent chick you can actually tolerate. but you have to hate her first. or something.
there's also the fact that she gets more physically attractive as she gets more likeable. Which...I've never really thought about but is kinda hmmm.
Actually in the books she doesn't, the movies just show that because Emma Watson grew up to be very pretty. In the books as I recall Hermione is never described as getting prettier (with the one exception of the triwizards ball where she uses a spell on her teeth for the special occassion)
If anything, I think the best form of pandering comes in the form of "Just think about your mothers, sisters, wives, daughters...", which is bothersome, but at least it maintains focus on women.
And I've seen THAT view raked over the coals because fuck you, you should care because I am worthy unto myself and not in relationship to you. Which I equally think is distracting from the point.
Part (NOT ALL, by any means) of the problem I see in women rejecting feminism, saying they don't need it, saying it's more strident/violent/angry/blah blah than it is (you know, since it's actually just "treat women like people"), is that the feminist police are gonna get you no matter what you say.
Not just feminists who like to tell other feminists that they're doing it wrong, but misogynists, non-feminists, the media as a whole, etc. who like to sow dissension and conflict where none should be, by trying to hold everyone up to a constantly moving standard of the "right" kind of feminism.
I think in many cases, feminism starts at home. It takes raising children of a feminist mindset, teaching them to challenge cultural norms, to embrace gender equality in all spheres. And most of us cannot do that without bringing men into that conversation.
Can I add expecting and demonstrating equality in your partnership?
Yes, exactly! Mostly because I don't believe heterosexual women can go out into the world and do the work of feminism as effectively if they then have to come home and do the majority of the housework and child rearing.
The fact that women are the ones who go to the majority of the PTA meetings, take the time off for doctor appointments, or are the first call when little Johnny gets hurt at school is problematic.
So we need to make strides in visible and not so invisible ways and those ways include men.
I do like that this piece is making me think about what I need to see when I want to call someone a feminist.
There has got to be some kind of middle ground between "all vaginas are feminists" and card carrying pro-choice ride or die only feminists.
Because I don't think of Bey is a feminist. Being an accomplished female does not make one a feminist. And yet, I can't put my finger on exactly why I don't consider her one. I'll think about it.
“I don’t think they really understood what feminism is. It’s a right. Feminism, to me, is standing up for everything that someone else has already done for you. My mom has overcome so much in her life. She makes me want to stand up for myself. Stand up to the studio heads who try to tell me that I can’t have blonde hair; they want brown hair. Or I need bigger boobs, or I need to work out. Or I’m too skinny, so, like, ‘Eat a cheeseburger.’ I stand up for myself every day of my life. I grew up in a family of four boys. I’m, like, a born feminist. I’ve been a feminist since I was four years old.”
Because I'm all about the feminism being standing up for everything someone else has already done for you. It's why tumblr anti-feminists hurt my soul. But some of this other stuff she blathers about . . . I mean I don't know.
This has come up a few times on my local board. And a lot women initially said they did not consider themselves feminists, because they perceived the term as exclusionary. But when other posters defined it as just being into equality, several said they were feminists in that sense of the word.
This has come up a few times on my local board. And a lot women initially said they did not consider themselves feminists, because they perceived the term as exclusionary. But when other posters defined it as just being into equality, several said they were feminists in that sense of the word.
I do think she's right about needing to value the work that has come before. So want to be a SAHM, fabulous. That doesn't mean you don't value the work that has been done, not just for women who want to work, but the measures that have been so hard fought to give even SAHMs protections in that choice. I'm thinking primarily of laws pertaining to communal property, divorce, and child support protections.
Whether we like it or not, men are here to stay. I would rather engage men to bring them into the conversation than alienate them and shut down all conversation.
I guess the alternative is, instead of making the women's rights movement about how men suffer from gender inequality, to keep the focus on how girls/women are the ones who suffer the most. Like I just wrote upthread, you can pander in other ways, like "You wouldn't want your daughter/sister/wife to deal with x, so let's work for a world where that doesn't happen." It's still humiliating, because I don't think I should have to try to make people see the inherent humanity of females, but I guess if we're being pragmatic.
As for "men are here to stay," I don't see how that's relevant to how we frame the issue of women's rights. Nobody is arguing that the only two options for the women's movement are separatists communes vs. coaxing men to participate by assuming they're all narcissists.
I don't disagree at all that in an ideal world full of rational, never-insecure people, we could have a brutally honest conversation about how men harm women in myriad ways every day and have done so for centuries.
The problem is that we are dealing with the reality we have, rather than the reality we want. In that reality we have, men still run (most of) the show, are half the planet's population, and are necessary for population propagation. Men also, as a whole and not unlike any other group of human beings, generally do not take kindly to being told they are bigots who need to give up their privilege.
Who are we having this conversation with? Men. That means we need men to listen. If making that conversation inclusive means we can draw them in to listen, rather than have them shut down, it's counterproductive to flail about, complaining that it just shouldn't be that way. We all might want to do it, and frankly I would love to do it, but it's counterproductive. We need to keep our eye on the ball here.
Actually in the books she doesn't, the movies just show that because Emma Watson grew up to be very pretty. In the books as I recall Hermione is never described as getting prettier (with the one exception of the triwizards ball where she uses a spell on her teeth for the special occassion)
her hair got better over time. they couldnt still have her have frizz in the last movie?
If I can figure out how to use a flat iron as I got older, I would expect Hermione to learn a few spells to give her pretty curls lol
Post by 2curlydogs on Sept 25, 2014 14:25:47 GMT -5
So, the thing that's pissing me off about the author is she is taking the quote about men out of context. here's the part directly preceding that.
"In 1997, Hillary Clinton made a famous speech in Beijing about women's rights. Sadly, many of the things that she wanted to change are still true today. But what stood out for me the most was that less than 30 percent of the audience were male. How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation?"
And then here's the paragraph directly AFTER that:
"We don't want to talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are. When they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don't have to be aggressive, women won't be compelled to be submissive. If men don't need to control, women won't have to be controlled."
And how about the part where she actually even goes so far as to say "It is time that we all see gender as a spectrum instead of two sets of opposing ideals." That seems almost, gosh, inclusive of transgendered, gay, lesbian, bi....
What the author seems to have missed is that she was framing woman's rights as human rights.
I think the thing to remember about men is that many of them are bred into this social construct. Men don't hop out of the uterus with an innate need to further a world of male dominated douchery. They are born into rape culture but not born of it.
So you can't just expect to raise boys in a world that tells them they are the better half, that caters to them in media, in culture, that gives them every advantage before they can think of asking for it and then think the scales will fall off their eyes like Saul on the Damascus road with no catalyst, challenge, or compelling reason.
Actually in the books she doesn't, the movies just show that because Emma Watson grew up to be very pretty. In the books as I recall Hermione is never described as getting prettier (with the one exception of the triwizards ball where she uses a spell on her teeth for the special occassion)
her hair got better over time. they couldnt still have her have frizz in the last movie?
her hair improved but I always took that as a she learned how to manage it better as she grew up (I mean she was 11 at the start dealing with really challenging hair, I'd guess learning a spell or two helped as she got older) rather then any real improvement in how she looked, and JKR has straight out said that Hermione's looks did not improve, that Emma Watson just grew into a beautiful young lady but that is separate from how the character looks as described in the book.
I think the thing to remember about men is that many of them are bred into this social construct. Men don't hop out of the uterus with an innate need to further a world of male dominated douchery. They are born into rape culture but not born of it.
So you can't just expect to raise boys in a world that tells them they are the better half, that caters to them in media, in culture, that gives them every advantage before they can think of asking for it and then think the scales will fall off their eyes like Saul on the Damascus road with no catalyst, challenge, or compelling reason.
I completely agree with this. Which is precisely why I don't think we're going to get very far telling guys "Hey, you really are suffering from gender equality and I want you to feel welcome in this conversation about dismantling the power structure that you totally benefit from." I think the notion that feminism has so far to go because men don't feel welcome is overly...optimistic, for lack of a better word. When you have power across domains and in the subtlest of ways, it's more likely that you aren't eager to join the movement because you don't want to give up that power. Even if you're not conscious of that power. (eta: screw me and my typos)
One of the most effective tactics is facts and figures. Show men who don't get it the numbers (pay wage disparity, how many hours go into domestic management, etc.). When my H and I had a throw down years ago about housekeeping, I kept a log of all the crap I do, and it was impressive (even though I'm a terrible housekeeper). It's still a battle, but at least he knows what I actually do.
But seriously, how often do people on this board alone learn from discussions of privilege and having things pointed out to them by people from different backgrounds and different experiences.
I'm biased because I absolutely think men (and boys) need to be on board this fight. I've said before that raising my son to be a feminist is something that I feel can really make a difference.
Personally, I don't think less of my husband or dismiss his participation or feminist views because he's only recently realized some things since marrying me and listening to my rants and having a daughter of his own. We all grow and change through our experiences and excluding people because they only recently had their eyes opened for whatever reason is counterproductive.
The author's point isn't that men shouldn't be part of the movement toward gender equality. Rather, that men should be involved to help women. As she writes, "Telling men that they should care about gender inequality because of how much it hurts them, centralizes men and their well-being in a movement built by women for our survival in a world that degrades and dehumanizes us daily."
Yes. I can read. Thank you.
My point is that people sometimes need to see things in a different light, with the help of others. I think white privilege is an excellent example here, because men exist in a world of male privilege. It's often difficult to see outside of one's own experiences without exposure to other people, so yeah, sometimes it takes explaining it in a way that gets to them; that affects them. It doesn't make them bad, or worthless to the cause, or dehumanize women. It simply makes them human. We are selfish creatures. We don't always get things until someone shows it to us in a way we actually understand, and I'm pretty much okay with any way used to get people on board. It is difficult to look outside your own experiences and really see the world as it is.
Would it be nice if that was unnecessary? Sure. But it's not reality. It's quite similar to how I think explaining environmentally friendly choices are actually cost effective is more persuasive than telling people they are killing the earth. You can be right, or you can make a difference and a change. This whole article strikes me as about being right, and I'm not here for that.
Look, some people just don't do numbers. Statistics are a dicey game anyway because you can kind of make them say what you like. You can also say well that doesn't happen every where, the sample size sucks, it's not a good comparison across industries or whatever.
Also, you absolutely do have to show someone who has in many aspects benefited from privilege what they will gain or at minimum, not lose by giving it up.
Plus, I disagree vehemently with language that implies men would be losing all of their power. They would be sharing it. But really, they would be spreading it around so that we all have agency here.
I think the thing to remember about men is that many of them are bred into this social construct. Men don't hop out of the uterus with an innate need to further a world of male dominated douchery. They are born into rape culture but not born of it.
So you can't just expect to raise boys in a world that tells them they are the better half, that caters to them in media, in culture, that gives them every advantage before they can think of asking for it and then think the scales will fall off their eyes like Saul on the Damascus road with no catalyst, challenge, or compelling reason.
I completely agree with this. Which is precisely why I don't think we're going to get very far telling guys "Hey, you really are suffering from gender equality and I want you to feel welcome in this conversation about dismantling the power structure that you totally benefit from." I think the notion that feminism has so far to go because men don't feel welcome is overly...optimistic, for lack of a better word. When you have power across domains and in the subtlest of ways, it's more likely that you aren't eager to join the movement because you don't want to give up that power. Even if you're not conscious of that power. (eta: screw me and my typos)
One of the most effective tactics is facts and figures. Show men who don't get it the numbers (pay wage disparity, how many hours go into domestic management, etc.). When my H and I had a throw down years ago about housekeeping, I kept a log of all the crap I do, and it was impressive (even though I'm a terrible housekeeper). It's still a battle, but at least he knows what I actually do.
That's because that's not the conversation.
The conversation is "Hey, you really are suffering from gender equality. and I want you to feel welcome in this conversation. Because you THINK you totally benefit from this power structure that you've built over centuries. But here are the REASONS you're actually not, complete with facts and figures."
For example:
Women being paid 1/3 less than men. Economically traps women, yes.
It also economically traps men. Either into jobs they don't like, jobs that pay less than they could otherwise make were they able to take risks because their wife/partner could support them, jobs that require 80 hours a week to break even but they need the health care coverage. It reduces their time at home, which puts the onus of childrearing on women, who have to take time off or take part time employment to cover. Which traps men further in their crap, dead-end job. It forces the man who would love to stay home with his kids into working out of the home.
And here are the studies on what how men's earning power is reduced as a result of the pay gap. And here's a study on how it would increase if men and women were paid equally. And here's a study on rate of divorce - another potentially economically crippling blow for both men and women - probably declining because of equal pay.
And so on.
Because THAT conversation? Actually works. ETA: At least in my experience.
Look, some people just don't do numbers. Statistics are a dicey game anyway because you can kind of make them say what you like. You can also say well that doesn't happen every where, the sample size sucks, it's not a good comparison across industries or whatever.
Also, you absolutely do have to show someone who has in many aspects benefited from privilege what they will gain or at minimum, not lose by giving it up.
Plus, I disagree vehemently with language that implies men would be losing all of their power. They would be sharing it. But really, they would be spreading it around so that we all have agency here.
Well spoken like a true equality-wanting feminist.
I think it's really easy to say that women should be the primary fighters and men can join in IF the come to the table in the way we dictate as we sit here in our relatively privileged societies.
But I think it's a bit narrowly tailored to expect a UN speech not to address men. In effect, you're putting the onus on women to stand up and effect change in regions of the world where turning down a marriage proposal can get acid thrown in your face. In those regions, I absolutely do need you to look down at your wife, at your daughter, at your sisters and see the world the way they do. I need you to realize that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by working for equality between the genders.
Now granted, those men probably aren't listening to Emma Watson but there are a variety of well educated men around the world who could be arbiters of change in their hometowns and such. If even a handful of them listens to that Harry Potter girl for a second, I'm all for it. Attributes that become staples of privilege like educating daughters does often work it's way down to the middle classes.
Mary Wollenstone's efforts did help get girls educated.
Look, some people just don't do numbers. Statistics are a dicey game anyway because you can kind of make them say what you like. You can also say well that doesn't happen every where, the sample size sucks, it's not a good comparison across industries or whatever.
Also, you absolutely do have to show someone who has in many aspects benefited from privilege what they will gain or at minimum, not lose by giving it up.
Plus, I disagree vehemently with language that implies men would be losing all of their power. They would be sharing it. But really, they would be spreading it around so that we all have agency here.
Well spoken like a true equality-wanting feminist.
I think it's really easy to say that women should be the primary fighters and men can join in IF the come to the table in the way we dictate as we sit here in our relatively privileged societies.
But I think it's a bit narrowly tailored to expect a UN speech not to address men. In effect, you're putting the onus on women to stand up and effect change in regions of the world where turning down a marriage proposal can get acid thrown in your face. In those regions, I absolutely do need you to look down at your wife, at your daughter, at your sisters and see the world the way they do. I need you to realize that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by working for equality between the genders.
Now granted, those men probably aren't listening to Emma Watson but there are a variety of well educated men around the world who could be arbiters of change in their hometowns and such. If even a handful of them listens to that Harry Potter girl for a second, I'm all for it. Attributes that become staples of privilege like educating daughters does often work it's way down to the middle classes.
Mary Wollenstone's efforts did help get girls educated.
Fair points, all. Of course you're right about Wollstonecraft, but it's disheartening to listen to a speech in 2014 that kept reminding me of something I'd read that was written in 1792. And while I appreciate that we shouldn't be raking a feminist over the coals for every little thing she says in a way that doesn't meet our (perhaps privileged) standards, I have high expectations for the UN Women Goodwill Ambassador.
Anyway, I get that others aren't loving the article in the OP, and I see points made in this thread. Toward the greater good, pragmatic means to meeting goals, inclusivity of men, etc. But the OP article is how I'm feeling, which is probably why it's best that I'm not a high-profile politician who needs to get shit done.
Fair points, all. Of course you're right about Wollstonecraft, but it's disheartening to listen to a speech in 2014 that kept reminding me of something I'd read that was written in 1792.
The world is a different place than it was in 1792, this is mostly a good thing in many parts. It's disheartening on its face maybe but in 1792, Emma Watson wouldn't have a career or a degree from Brown. If she were lucky, she'd be overseeing her own household having provided the requisite heir and a spare for a man who was somewhat decent to her.
I'm feeling all kinds of defensive about Harry Potter. Hermione is brave, brilliant, never the "hot one" but still gets to have a love life (what a concept!) stands up for injustice when no one else will, and makes it possible for Harry to save the world (which he frequently acknowledges) but because she isn't the main character who saves the entire wizarding race, it's anti-feminist? No, not going along with that.
She's also far from the only strong female character in the series. Professor McGonagall is pretty badass, and so is Mrs. Weasley. Ginny starts out as kind of a wet blanket, but grows into a strong character (she and Luna are among the leaders of Dumbledore's Army, IIRC). On the other side, Bellatrix wields a lot of power among Voldemort's ranks.
Of the four Hogwarts Houses, two were founded by women, no?
Post by msmerymac on Sept 25, 2014 20:12:23 GMT -5
Re: sexism in Harry Potter. There are certainly traditional gender roles in the series. And perhaps some argue that more attention should have been paid to Hermione's badassery, but it's a limited third person perspective told through the eyes of Harry for the most part, and he has, well, mother issues to say the least.
Post by irishbride2 on Sept 26, 2014 4:47:10 GMT -5
This cracks me up (the subsequent posts). I've read so much about how Hermoine is one of the first really feminist characters in a mainstream book and such. And now the books are sexist.
I do like that this piece is making me think about what I need to see when I want to call someone a feminist.
There has got to be some kind of middle ground between "all vaginas are feminists" and card carrying pro-choice ride or die only feminists.
Because I don't think of Bey is a feminist. Being an accomplished female does not make one a feminist. And yet, I can't put my finger on exactly why I don't consider her one. I'll think about it.
.
Here is why I don't think Bey is a feminist, she is using her influence and her power to employ less powerful women to shake their asses on stripper poles and uphold the status quo defined by men. I don't dislike Bey but I don't think she's a feminist just because she is rich and declares herself one.
I think she does this to herself, too. Read her lyrics and watch her videos. She is conforming to typical male expectations of a video vixen. She may be claiming she is in charge, but she's doing it while writhing half-naked on whatever object is in the room. I was listening to Partition the other day and caught the lyric "I just wanna be the kind of girl you like." IOW, the man is defining her. That pretty much sums up her general approach.
This cracks me up (the subsequent posts). I've read so much about how Hermoine is one of the first really feminist characters in a mainstream book and such. And now the books are sexist.
I just came across some Mayim Bialik Frozen criticism (I only just watched Frozen, so I'm behind), and this seems to be a thing - criticizing the feminism of a piece on its own without the context of previous precedent. Apparently there are people holding their breath for the Disney/children's lit version of the Vagina Monologues.
This article pisses me off. So Ms. Watson isn't a good feminist because she didn't phrase her speech in a way that this person approves of? FUCK YOU.
That is exactly what I felt. Between this thead and the other about when feminism became a dirty word, I think we have just demonstrated why some people might want to distance themselves from the label.
This article pisses me off. So Ms. Watson isn't a good feminist because she didn't phrase her speech in a way that this person approves of? FUCK YOU.
That is exactly what I felt. Between this thead and the other about when feminism became a dirty word, I think we have just demonstrated why some people might want to distance themselves from the label.
Yep. No matter what I say or do, I will never be a good enough feminist. That is what I've taken from the movement, and from past debates on here.
I think a lot of people just throw their hands up and say forget it! I'm not a feminist. You lose people when you start telling them they aren't a feminist because they plan to guide their children away from becoming a sex worker, for example.
ETA: and I realize that those saying such thing are the extreme. I do. Like ANY movement, you get a vocal minority that doesn't always reflect the movement as a whole. But when you are working hard to convince people of your ideas, its very easy to push them away with comments from the vocal minority.
TBF, she was run off the board after that and no one has taken that position since.
i am trying to figure out why, you irishbride2, have felt you will never be good enough for the label from debates on here. if you are talking about beliefs others than sex work. if the sex work stuff is the only thing you think holding you back from wearing the label, i think you are ok.
Oh like I said, I know that it was an extreme view. I was just using it as an example
My view of not being a good enough feminist is more in the eyes of the vocal minority. I'm comfortable with my feminist label But the same people attacking EW would probably think I'm not a true feminist.
Look, let's not "No True Scotsman" feminism. I 100% disagree with the premise of this piece. I don't think Emma Watson was saying that men have NEVER been invited to the conversation. To me that was kind of a, "Do you need a fucking engraved invitation, assholes? HERE IT IS!"
And she's ABSOLUTELY right. Men are hurt by gender roles and pigeonholing. In many ways, men who try to get into the traditional "female" realm have a worse time. Children's issues make this very clear. A girl who wants to be a tomboy is cute and plucky! Oh, how fun! She likes boy things! She aspires higher! The feminine is not as good as the masculine, so even though it's not REALLY her place, it's normal that she'd want to leave behind the world of girls. A boy who wants to take ballet and wear pink? Nope. He's gay. He's a fairy. He has no place in society. And of course, this isn't to ignore the millenia of male privilege, but it shows that societal expectations here are problematic for men and women. Think about the SAHD who isn't welcomed into "mom's group," or is looked at like a pedo on the playground. Because he's doing the most basic and normal thing; taking care of his children.
It all stems from anti-feminine, but the point is we are all harmed by it. We are all bound by ridiculous rules of what gender is because women are still kept down. It's not great for men, either. Sure, it keeps them in power, but they don't all want power. They don't all want to be giant tools.
I think this is a really good point, and for myself, something that really pushed me to identify as a feminist was having a son. I'm sure that sounds weird to some people, and especially in the context of how women are marginalized, but raising a son really opened my eyes to the ways we build up little girls and the way we treat little boys. I think the two are really related in how we're failing to see some progress. I'm rabid about both of my kids having the space to be who they are, but to be perfectly honest, I have encountered situations where I need to be rabid for Jackson much more frequently than I have for Scarlett. And it's not because he's been around for 4 years longer than she is. Maybe it's a product of where I live (the south) or my family, but I think society is still very unfriendly to boys who aren't into the typical boy things. I don't even think Jackson is that atypical, really, but he's not a boy stereotype. He's emotional, and he's sensitive. He's cautious and not overly physical, and there's nothing wrong with any of those things! In fact, I find them to be positives, but I can't count the number of times people have made comments about his "weaknesses." I really had to perfect my death stare response for my brothers, but now they know better. A couple of years ago, my kids were playing and my brother said, "wait which one's the girl and which one is the boy?" because Scarlett was doing something (can't remember what) and Jackson was reacting to it. I lost my shit on him. It hasn't happened since.
And to be clear, I hate overly emotional bullshit that kids pull, so it's not like I let my kids flail out all the time, either. I like to think I strike a balance between letting them be who they are, embrace their emotions, but not coddle them. I just find that it is more acceptable (from what I've seen and experienced) to speak to boys in a way that invalidates their emotions and reactions. Telling them not to cry, blah blah blah, and I hate that attitude.