If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Magazine)   "The Age of Hipster Sexism" Yeah, well, Subbette was making sandwiches in the kitchen before it was cool   (nymag.com) divider line 301
    More: Amusing, Subbette, Hipster Sexism, Lena Dunham, workplace discrimination, sexisms, Archie Bunker, objectification, Dov Charney  
•       •       •

3751 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Oct 2012 at 2:19 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



301 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-31 09:38:19 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Millennium: The second wave hasn't been "modern" for some decades now. That doesn't mean it doesn't still have its adherents, but it's not the mainstream in feminism anymore.

Please compare and contrast the principles of first wave, second wave and modern feminism.


It's mostly a matter of emphasis, which makes the lines unclear. But if you want a gross oversimplification (which, let's face it, is all one can really do in a Fark thread) then in a nutshell, the first wave emphasized equality before the law, the second wave emphasized the deconstruction of gender roles in society, and modern feminism emphasizes the deconstruction of expectations and essentials.
 
2012-10-31 09:40:43 AM  

Theaetetus: Thetrickisnotminding: If the impact of traditional gender roles on society were no longer anything that should ever be talked about, why would male nurses and stay-at-home-dads get laughed at by the rude or simply noted as unusual by the polite simply for being male nurses or stay-at-home dads? And those things most certainly still happen. Why would so few straight men be comfortable wearing makeup, while so many straight women still do, if being equal before god and the law meant being equal every which way, and does the knowledge that women have the same inherent worth and dignity as men make someone feel less like shiat if their family or friends make them feel like garbage if they don't/ do wear it? (this applies to parents who get abusive when their son does/daughter doesn't, and supposedly 'feminist' classmates who threaten and demean if a girl does or a guy won't.)

I'm just saying, even when women are completely equal before the law (something that often needs a quick bit of looking after) there are still things to discuss about the impact of traditional gender issues on society.

Good point. You can also ask those anti-feminists who claim we've achieved equality and should therefore stop trying to ever accomplish anything more what they'd think about a guy who married and took his wife's last name.


I would never accept that but I don't really care what other people do.
 
2012-10-31 09:42:52 AM  

Fail in Human Form: I think men and women should be treated equally except where there's a true biological difference standing in the way of the issue.


Fail in Human Form: I would never accept [taking my wife's last name]


Thus, surnames = true biological differences.

/"Yes, men are Jónsson, while women are Jónsdóttir. Duh."
 
2012-10-31 09:44:54 AM  

s2s2s2: If you got all the women(and only women) in America to vote on "women's issues" you might find yourself surprised to find abortion illegal.


Women strongly (more than 3:1) favor having abortion legal for cases of rape, serious birth defect, or danger to the life of the mother, though slightly less so on each than men do. I don't have data on the incest question, but I'd expect it's comparable. The difference between the sexes is largely correlated to differences in degree of religiosity, but not completely; race also is a significant factor.

For the mother being unmarried, too poor to afford more kids, feeling she has enough kids, or just any old reason, women run about 3:2 against having it legal. Again, they tend a few percent more opposed to abortion than men overall, with the same trend on religiosity and race. The non-uniform geographic distribution of attitude would leave passage of a constitutional Amendment about as implausible as present, though.
 
2012-10-31 09:45:08 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Genevieve Marie: GAT_00: Genevieve Marie: GAT_00: Modern feminism has utterly gone off the rails. It makes no sense whatsoever. It barely even acknowledges that the sexes are equal.

Know how I know you don't spend a ton of time studying modern feminism?

That entire article blames men for making an ad that features a woman who undoubtedly approved what she said. Modern feminism is blaming men for holding the door open for them because they can hold it open themselves and then getting mad at the idea that women pay for a date. It's utterly nonsensical and inconsistent and comes down to basically men are bad and women are good.

Yea, like I said, you have an opinion of modern feminism that's based on passing impressions from here and there and no real study of the subject. It's ok. Lots of people do.

It's still a completely factually incorrect assessment, and also, a really narrow way of categorizing an incredibly complex area of thought.

This is my thing. This is what I spend the bulk of my time on. I will flat out tell you now that you would be hard pressed to find two feminists that can agree on an exact definition of what feminism is, and you'd also be hard pressed to find two feminists that take the exact same approach to feminist study.

So, feminism is kinda like "spirituality."


Basically. It's a meaningless term for an irrelevent movement and discipline.

They aren't scientists. They have zero interest in objectivity, instead substituting anecdotes and cherry-picked, out of context statistics to support whatever they've already decided. Finally, they have the audacity to label their mental abortion "theory", as though it were the product of actual science.

Women's Studies/Gender Studies/GWSS has got to be tbe only academic discipline that deserves no respect whatsoever. It serves no purpose other than to create an illusion of oppression so the feminist bureaucracy can pretend to be releveny.
 
2012-10-31 09:47:29 AM  

Tremolo: I'm really sick of the fact that any time someone uses the word "feminism" in a positive context there are 10 people bringing up the "man hater" meme. I went to a liberal arts college where the class makeup was about 60% female and mostly poetry, writing, or theatre majors, and I'm yet to meet one of these nightmare feminazi man-hating fascists I've heard so goddamn much about.


Well, I met at least one.
"Man-hater" she wasn't, she used to sleep aroud a lot, and with hip-hop musicians and kinda macho guys. But she was convinced that women where still totaly opressed (in Germany) and every time I pointed to something that didn't make sense in her argumentation, she said I didn't know anything about the subject. She knew better, as she studied "gender studies".
Fun fact: she voted for Merkel because she is a women, but had no clue about the record of the CDU on women rights, especialy abortion. I ignorant male had to tell her. And she had had an Abortion! (in the GDR)
 
2012-10-31 09:50:22 AM  
genderism's are silly.
 
2012-10-31 09:51:54 AM  

zedster: liam76: And you don't think those young people with "a more modern view on race" having more power will provide those corrections?

no, because even if they are cognizant of them it will not make the fact on average African Americans have less savings (a lot less) and less connections (good old boy network). I can state if I didn't have a trust fund (left by my late Grandfather and only to pay for our education) and didn't have the social network I have, I would be in debt and have a much lower paying job. Every job I've had I've gotten through friend or family, not nepotism just friend works there and finds out about a job and vouches for me. It's hard to adjust for these factors and yes affirmative actions may at times seems like a rusty blunt tool but until we find a better solution for righting systematic inequalities brought on by past de facto and de jure policies it should stay.


I have never gotten a job through friend or family.

I paid for my college myself.

Since you are white and got help with those things for your family why shoudl I be punished in searches for jobs because of that?

It goes a little beyond naive now to assume that people have that family help based on race now, and is in fact racist.

If you want to help people who don't have access to those things give AA type benefits to poor people.
 
2012-10-31 09:59:40 AM  

On-Off: Tremolo: I'm really sick of the fact that any time someone uses the word "feminism" in a positive context there are 10 people bringing up the "man hater" meme. I went to a liberal arts college where the class makeup was about 60% female and mostly poetry, writing, or theatre majors, and I'm yet to meet one of these nightmare feminazi man-hating fascists I've heard so goddamn much about.

Well, I met at least one.
"Man-hater" she wasn't, she used to sleep aroud a lot, and with hip-hop musicians and kinda macho guys. But she was convinced that women where still totaly opressed (in Germany) and every time I pointed to something that didn't make sense in her argumentation, she said I didn't know anything about the subject. She knew better, as she studied "gender studies".
Fun fact: she voted for Merkel because she is a women, but had no clue about the record of the CDU on women rights, especialy abortion. I ignorant male had to tell her. And she had had an Abortion! (in the GDR)


I'm not saying they don't exist, but it's like using Black Panthers to describe civil rights workers, jihadists to describe muslims, or Bruno to describe gays. I'm seeing a ton of otherwise intelligent posters jump to the generalization when I can think of hundreds of times they decried others for doing the same. I've also seen a lot of the mind bogglingly dumb statement that the genders have achieved equality. That's like saying the races have achieved equality, it's asinine.
 
2012-10-31 10:00:19 AM  

liam76: zedster: liam76: And you don't think those young people with "a more modern view on race" having more power will provide those corrections?

no, because even if they are cognizant of them it will not make the fact on average African Americans have less savings (a lot less) and less connections (good old boy network). I can state if I didn't have a trust fund (left by my late Grandfather and only to pay for our education) and didn't have the social network I have, I would be in debt and have a much lower paying job. Every job I've had I've gotten through friend or family, not nepotism just friend works there and finds out about a job and vouches for me. It's hard to adjust for these factors and yes affirmative actions may at times seems like a rusty blunt tool but until we find a better solution for righting systematic inequalities brought on by past de facto and de jure policies it should stay.

I have never gotten a job through friend or family.

I paid for my college myself.

Since you are white and got help with those things for your family why shoudl I be punished in searches for jobs because of that?

It goes a little beyond naive now to assume that people have that family help based on race now, and is in fact racist.

If you want to help people who don't have access to those things give AA type benefits to poor people.


Yes I understand there are people from other races/backgrounds with similar issues and I think we should be working on making higher education/post-secondary education available to all. However, in those cases it's hard to point out a large systematic government backed push that put them at a disadvantage.

If you said lets replace AA and push for better access to post-secondary education overall I would be in complete agreement with you. If your argument is get rid of AA entirely without putting in some sort of low-income/disadvantaged background support system I would question your motives.

And me being aware of what benefits I've received by nature of what family I was born into doesn't mean I think everyone has those based on social or racial background being similar. It just means I realize what role they have played in my life and don't fault those who have more or less. I do fault those that don't acknowledge what role this things play in their life, the whole boot strap culture.
 
2012-10-31 10:01:48 AM  

zedster: liam76:
For example on the savings more middle class African Americans have had to raid their 401K's than whites during the recession Link


For some reason Huff Po lodes like shiat on my computer.

Does that article mention how Asians were less likely than whites to raid their 401k's? Does that mean their is institutional racism against whites, or do you think culture plays a role in the difference?
 
2012-10-31 10:04:15 AM  
Everyone that ever has sex will have sex for the first time, and the metaphorical advice being given is not bad advice for either gender. It's not paternalistic to literally say "you want your first time having sex to be with someone who cares about you". That's just good, thoughtful advice.

And the fact that this advice is coming from a woman?

Yeah, the metaphorical advice isn't sexist at all, and the actual advice isn't sexist either.
 
2012-10-31 10:05:08 AM  

zedster: And me being aware of what benefits I've received by nature of what family I was born into doesn't mean I think everyone has those based on social or racial background being similar. It just means I realize what role they have played in my life and don't fault those who have more or less. I do fault those that don't acknowledge what role this things play in their life, the whole boot strap culture


No but when you push a policy that is only fair with that suumptions, I have to question your motives.

If you are pushing for AA, you are faulting white people who don't have those advantages.

I adressed the savings in my second post, sorry for the double reply I was waiting for HuffPo to load (never did) and hit post accidently.
 
2012-10-31 10:08:40 AM  

abb3w: s2s2s2: If you got all the women(and only women) in America to vote on "women's issues" you might find yourself surprised to find abortion illegal.

Women strongly (more than 3:1) favor having abortion legal for cases of rape, serious birth defect, or danger to the life of the mother, though slightly less so on each than men do. I don't have data on the incest question, but I'd expect it's comparable. The difference between the sexes is largely correlated to differences in degree of religiosity, but not completely; race also is a significant factor.

For the mother being unmarried, too poor to afford more kids, feeling she has enough kids, or just any old reason, women run about 3:2 against having it legal. Again, they tend a few percent more opposed to abortion than men overall, with the same trend on religiosity and race. The non-uniform geographic distribution of attitude would leave passage of a constitutional Amendment about as implausible as present, though.


Well, yeah, duh.
 
2012-10-31 10:21:22 AM  

Tremolo: On-Off: Tremolo: I'm really sick of the fact that any time someone uses the word "feminism" in a positive context there are 10 people bringing up the "man hater" meme. I went to a liberal arts college where the class makeup was about 60% female and mostly poetry, writing, or theatre majors, and I'm yet to meet one of these nightmare feminazi man-hating fascists I've heard so goddamn much about.

Well, I met at least one.
"Man-hater" she wasn't, she used to sleep aroud a lot, and with hip-hop musicians and kinda macho guys. But she was convinced that women where still totaly opressed (in Germany) and every time I pointed to something that didn't make sense in her argumentation, she said I didn't know anything about the subject. She knew better, as she studied "gender studies".
Fun fact: she voted for Merkel because she is a women, but had no clue about the record of the CDU on women rights, especialy abortion. I ignorant male had to tell her. And she had had an Abortion! (in the GDR)

I'm not saying they don't exist, but it's like using Black Panthers to describe civil rights workers, jihadists to describe muslims, or Bruno to describe gays. I'm seeing a ton of otherwise intelligent posters jump to the generalization when I can think of hundreds of times they decried others for doing the same. I've also seen a lot of the mind bogglingly dumb statement that the genders have achieved equality. That's like saying the races have achieved equality, it's asinine.


I also don't think his example of "a woman who has studied the topic in question and disagrees with a man about some of the issues" qualifies as a "man-hating feminazi fascist."
 
2012-10-31 10:22:01 AM  

Tremolo: I'm not saying they don't exist, but it's like using Black Panthers to describe civil rights workers, jihadists to describe muslims, or Bruno to describe gays.


...or feminist to describe emancipated women?
No, that was trolling, I know there are such and such.
Sadly, the extremist are shouting louder.
We have still have inequality, sure.
For the same job, one can earn 5 to 50% (depend on what study you believe) less due to genitals or skin color.
well, big deal, because depending on who your parents are, your earning vary about 10000%.
I have no interest in fighting for rich daughter to be richer
 
2012-10-31 10:24:09 AM  

Theaetetus: We haven't had a draft in 50 years. But nonetheless, who passed that law and what was the justification for it? Old white men, and because they didn't want women in the military. As noted above, if you were trying to show that we've achieved gender equality, your examples are undercutting your point.


I may seem that way but you fundamentally misunderstand my point.

Theaetetus: Monkeyhouse Zendo: - Women now represent the majority of university students.

And yet, still have earnings that aren't equal to their peers. All this points to is the fact that membership in the group "university students" may not be the single defining feature you pretend it is.


The statistics on male / female ratios in US universities says nothing regarding their earnings following graduation. You've assumed that although women now comprise the majority of university level students (by almost two to one at some schools) that their earnings will be lower. My comment that women now represent the majority of university students simply means that women have achieved equal outcomes with respect to access to higher education and then some.

- When the comparison is apples to apples, women receive equal or greater compensation in employment (the lower median income is not an apples to apples comparison and reflects women choosing different careers than men)

Entirely false. See the recent studies done of male and female surgeons, just starting their careers, with the exact same specialties, same hours, same backgrounds, and having taken no time off.


I didn't say it was uniform across all fields but when data is normalized for variables such as career choice and experience the wage gap largely vanishes, not entirely but largely. The comparison of median wages without normalizing for these variables gives a skewed perspective on the wage gap.

- Women receive, on average, 40% less jail time for criminal offenses than men
- In many states, divorce / alimony laws heavily favor women even though the majority of US divorces are now initiated by the wife

I thought you were trying to say that we've achieved equality. Shouldn't you come up with a consistent message before you make a list?


When you want to make the determination of whether women have achieved equality or not you need to look at the entire picture. In some cases it is demonstratively advantageous to be a woman. When you say you want equality, you should be decrying the gap in length of incarceration, not just that there is a gap in median wages.

- Women are not required to register for selective service i.e. the draft

We haven't had a draft in 50 years. But nonetheless, who passed that law and what was the justification for it? Old white men, and because they didn't want women in the military. As noted above, if you were trying to show that we've achieved gender equality, your examples are undercutting your point.


It is irrelevant who passed the law. What is relevant is that if a draft is again instituted the current state of the law places that burden entirely on one gender. I fully support women's right to serve in the armed forces just as I fully support their responsibility to serve their country through conscription if that is deemed necessary.

I was raised by a single mother who consistently reminded me that women were the equal of men. Please forgive me if I learned that lesson too well and have applied it more rigorously than she ever did.
 
2012-10-31 10:27:15 AM  

Theaetetus: I also don't think his example of "a woman who has studied the topic in question and disagrees with a man about some of the issues" qualifies as a "man-hating feminazi fascist."


well, she did think men are inferior and deserve to pay for past crimes.
Also, look up "Andrea Dworkin" ("all sex is rape") and proponents of matriarchy
 
2012-10-31 10:32:50 AM  

On-Off: Theaetetus: I also don't think his example of "a woman who has studied the topic in question and disagrees with a man about some of the issues" qualifies as a "man-hating feminazi fascist."

well, she did think men are inferior and deserve to pay for past crimes.
Also, look up "Andrea Dworkin" ("all sex is rape") and proponents of matriarchy


I can't begin to imagine why Andrea Dworkin had such backwards views on sex. I'm sure it had nothing to do with her own self image or past rejections.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-31 10:36:23 AM  
I'm voting for the Constitution Party ironically.
 
2012-10-31 10:39:28 AM  
Perhaps if we hadn't spent so much time trying to police what words people used, rather than trying to change the way people thought, then ironic sexism wouldn't have so much hipster appeal. This is a backlash against political correctness, not feminism.
 
2012-10-31 10:40:22 AM  

abb3w: Women strongly (more than 3:1) favor having abortion legal for cases of rape


"Have you noticed that all of the women who are against abortion are women you wouldn't want to fark in the first place?"

userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2012-10-31 10:47:21 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: You've assumed that although women now comprise the majority of university level students (by almost two to one at some schools) that their earnings will be lower.


Actually, I made no such assumption in my post.

My comment that women now represent the majority of university students simply means that women have achieved equal outcomes with respect to access to higher education and then some.

"Equal outcomes with respect to access"? Talk about an odd turn of phrase.
First, your statement would actually show inequality - more women than men are attending higher education, so that's not equality. Maybe we need affirmative action for men?
Second, you're taking a very vague figure and attempting to draw very fine conclusions out of it... Specifically, looking at the entire country, there are more women than men attending higher education... so therefore women have equal access? Is that really true? Are women attending the same schools as men? Is the ratio of male-female attendance across the country equal to the male-female attendance at, say, the Ivy League schools? What about the tech schools? What about community colleges? Frankly, attempting to draw conclusions with that vague figure of yours is at best naive, and at worst, misleading.
And finally, the "outcome" you're using is "attending school", which no one would ever consider to be an actual outcome. If, as we know, male graduate students earn higher incomes than female graduate students for the same exact job, with the same background, then the "outcome" you're framing misses the actual outcome of the educational process: the beginning of a career.

I didn't say it was uniform across all fields but when data is normalized for variables such as career choice and experience the wage gap largely vanishes, not entirely but largely.

Conversely: "In some fields, even when all variables are normalized out, the wage gap is still apparent and women are penalized."

The comparison of median wages without normalizing for these variables gives a skewed perspective on the wage gap.

Yeah, good thing that I didn't do that, eh? Saying, "gosh, this thing that you didn't do and explicitly avoided doing by using a study that normalized those variables could give a skewed perspective," is either the most roundabout compliment of my argument ever or an attempt to be disingenuous.

It is irrelevant who passed the law.

Not true. Actually, political power is one of the primary factors in identifying a suspect classification in equal protection analysis, which underlies the policy behind the Civil Rights Act, among others.

What is relevant is that if a draft is again instituted the current state of the law places that burden entirely on one gender.

"But, if there's a draft, women won't get called up!"
"... but there'll never be a draft."
"But if there were!"
"... there won't. But what's your point?"
"Therefore, reverse-sexism, so we can ignore the wage gap."

Honestly, do you really think that line of argument convinces anyone?

I was raised by a single mother who consistently reminded me that women were the equal of men. Please forgive me if I learned that lesson too well and have applied it more rigorously than she ever did.

www.technollama.co.uk
Yes, I'll "forgive you" for "applying that lesson too well" in your arguments that the normalized wage gap is irrelevant, the minority representation of women in the political process is irrelevant, the burdens placed on women's health care are irrelevant, because "zomg if there were a draft women wouldn't get called up, and that's unfaaaaaaaaaair!"
 
2012-10-31 10:49:34 AM  

On-Off:
Also, look up "Andrea Dworkin" ("all sex is rape") and proponents of matriarchy


... you know that she never said that, right? I mean, you wouldn't be trying to discredit someone by putting words in their mouth that they never said when you haven't even read their book, right? Because that would just end up discrediting you.
No, clearly that entire sentence was a typo.
 
2012-10-31 10:56:50 AM  

Bad_Seed: Perhaps if we hadn't spent so much time trying to police what words people used, rather than trying to change the way people thought, then ironic sexism wouldn't have so much hipster appeal. This is a backlash against political correctness, not feminism.


you are on something there. It is a lot about words.
Feminism was a good word when women had less rights.
Using the word today is not helping IMO, as the word is treatening to some, for good and for bad reasons.
We have injustice against males to, especialy when it come to fathers in Germany. Basicaly, you have to be a fool to father a child here. But I wouldn't be a member of any "masculist" or "men's right" thing, because it's not helping, it is treatening to women, it just pull people back in the trenches.
If you are defending the interest of one group against another, you are not for equality.
 
2012-10-31 10:56:50 AM  

Theaetetus: Monkeyhouse Zendo: You've assumed that although women now comprise the majority of university level students (by almost two to one at some schools) that their earnings will be lower.

Actually, I made no such assumption in my post.

My comment that women now represent the majority of university students simply means that women have achieved equal outcomes with respect to access to higher education and then some.

"Equal outcomes with respect to access"? Talk about an odd turn of phrase.
First, your statement would actually show inequality - more women than men are attending higher education, so that's not equality. Maybe we need affirmative action for men?
Second, you're taking a very vague figure and attempting to draw very fine conclusions out of it... Specifically, looking at the entire country, there are more women than men attending higher education... so therefore women have equal access? Is that really true? Are women attending the same schools as men? Is the ratio of male-female attendance across the country equal to the male-female attendance at, say, the Ivy League schools? What about the tech schools? What about community colleges? Frankly, attempting to draw conclusions with that vague figure of yours is at best naive, and at worst, misleading.
And finally, the "outcome" you're using is "attending school", which no one would ever consider to be an actual outcome. If, as we know, male graduate students earn higher incomes than female graduate students for the same exact job, with the same background, then the "outcome" you're framing misses the actual outcome of the educational process: the beginning of a career.

I didn't say it was uniform across all fields but when data is normalized for variables such as career choice and experience the wage gap largely vanishes, not entirely but largely.

Conversely: "In some fields, even when all variables are normalized out, the wage gap is still apparent and women are penalized."

The comparison of median wages without normalizing for these variables gives a skewed perspective on the wage gap.

Yeah, good thing that I didn't do that, eh? Saying, "gosh, this thing that you didn't do and explicitly avoided doing by using a study that normalized those variables could give a skewed perspective," is either the most roundabout compliment of my argument ever or an attempt to be disingenuous.

It is irrelevant who passed the law.

Not true. Actually, political power is one of the primary factors in identifying a suspect classification in equal protection analysis, which underlies the policy behind the Civil Rights Act, among others.

What is relevant is that if a draft is again instituted the current state of the law places that burden entirely on one gender.

"But, if there's a draft, women won't get called up!"
"... but there'll never be a draft."
"But if there were!"
"... there won't. But what's your point?"
"Therefore, reverse-sexism, so we can ignore the wage gap."

Honestly, do you really think that line of argument convinces anyone?

I was raised by a single mother who consistently reminded me that women were the equal of men. Please forgive me if I learned that lesson too well and have applied it more rigorously than she ever did.


Yes, I'll "forgive you" for "applying that lesson too well" in your arguments that the normalized wage gap is irrelevant, the minority representation of women in the political process is irrelevant, the burdens placed on women's health care are irrelevant, because "zomg if there were a draft women wouldn't get called up, and that's unfaaaaaaaaaair!"


This is how feminists argue. Skew, misconstrue, and patronize. If she had a logically coherent belief system, it wouldn't be necessary, but she wouldn't get to play the victim, either.
 
2012-10-31 10:57:10 AM  

Millennium: It's mostly a matter of emphasis, which makes the lines unclear. But if you want a gross oversimplification (which, let's face it, is all one can really do in a Fark thread) then in a nutshell, the first wave emphasized equality before the law, the second wave emphasized the deconstruction of gender roles in society, and modern feminism emphasizes the deconstruction of expectations and essentials.


The fundamental problem with second wave feminism is that they tend to ignore the part biology plays in gender roles and that many of what they consider to be cultural constructs have their foundation in evolutionarily advantageous strategies. I'm fully support with the deconstruction of expectations and outcomes provided that deconstruction isn't a one way street.
 
2012-10-31 11:01:25 AM  

WTF Indeed: So what she is saying is classic sexism is bad because it is, but so is hipster sexism because while it accepts the equal roles of men and women it still chooses to make light of female stereotypes. But those stereotypes are ok when they combat classic sexism, which is of course, bad.

Basically, the feminist movement has reached the point of equality and are now fighting to erase stereotypes through ironic t-shirts and shows about hipster women fighting hipster sexism, which is bad, but sometimes good.


No, what she's saying is that just because you dress gender stereotypes up as "irony" doesn't mean you aren't playing upon those stereotypes sincerely. Something has to actually be unexpected and contrary to be ironic; you can't just label it so(See also: Daniel Tosh's act and why it is horseshiat). What she's saying is that irony can be used as a cloak for honest sexism and as stick to beat down feminist criticism("I didn't mean it seriously..."), just as being "nice" can be used as a cloak for being a whiny, privileged little prick who thinks having a penis means he deserves female attention, and being "bros" with a "troubled guy" can be used as an excuse for overlooking the fact that your skeezy guy-friend is a roofie-slinging rapist(obviously, the inflammatory similes are my own).
 
2012-10-31 11:08:31 AM  

Theaetetus: On-Off:
Also, look up "Andrea Dworkin" ("all sex is rape") and proponents of matriarchy

... you know that she never said that, right? I mean, you wouldn't be trying to discredit someone by putting words in their mouth that they never said when you haven't even read their book, right? Because that would just end up discrediting you.
No, clearly that entire sentence was a typo.


I didn't read her book, no time for that. Here is a citation fom the Wiki:
" In the book, she argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women"
"coercive sex" is rape IMO
Are you trying to defend A. Dworkin or to attack me? and to what purpose?
She is an exemple of a bad apple in feminism that I provided in response to a request from another farker. I never sayed she was representative of the whole thing.
 
2012-10-31 11:13:40 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Millennium: It's mostly a matter of emphasis, which makes the lines unclear. But if you want a gross oversimplification (which, let's face it, is all one can really do in a Fark thread) then in a nutshell, the first wave emphasized equality before the law, the second wave emphasized the deconstruction of gender roles in society, and modern feminism emphasizes the deconstruction of expectations and essentials.

The fundamental problem with second wave feminism is that they tend to ignore the part biology plays in gender roles and that many of what they consider to be cultural constructs have their foundation in evolutionarily advantageous strategies. I'm fully support with the deconstruction of expectations and outcomes provided that deconstruction isn't a one way street.


There's a difference between saying "This gender role is harmful in our present society" and saying "gender has no anthropological foundation"; there are certainly plenty of second-wavers willing to ask "advantageous for whom?" but I've rarely met any willing to discount purpose-in-gender entirely.

As to your second point, "Second Wave" feminism -hell, feminism in general- has always been a two-way street; Freeing men from the expectation of being violent, confrontational, demanding, and heartless has always been just as much a part of the feminist philosophy as freeing women from the oppression those attitudes perpetuate, though obviously "feminism" is by no means monolithic and plenty of its branches focus on more limited and female-specific issues. I'd say the main problem with Second-wavers was blitheness regarding issues of race, class, and alternative gender identity; Steinem pretty much acted like the only women's issues out there were those concerning upper-middle class straight white women, though to be fair, she was more involved in the political side of things, and that necessarily requires making tradeoffs.
 
2012-10-31 11:16:01 AM  

On-Off: Theaetetus: On-Off:
Also, look up "Andrea Dworkin" ("all sex is rape") and proponents of matriarchy

... you know that she never said that, right? I mean, you wouldn't be trying to discredit someone by putting words in their mouth that they never said when you haven't even read their book, right? Because that would just end up discrediting you.
No, clearly that entire sentence was a typo.

I didn't read her book, no time for that.


... uh, huh. Good thing you're here to tell us all about what she said then, rather than listening to people who have read the book.

Here is a citation fom the Wiki:
" In the book, she argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women"


Here's another citation from the Wiki:
Such descriptions are often cited by Dworkin's critics, interpreting the book as claiming "all" heterosexual intercourse is rape, or more generally that the anatomical mechanics of sexual intercourse make it intrinsically harmful to women's equality. For instance, Cathy Young[58] says that statements such as, "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women,"[56] are reasonably summarized as "All sex is rape."

Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her argument,[59] stating in a later interview that "I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality"[60] and suggesting that the misunderstanding came about because of the very sexual ideology she was criticizing: "Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I do not think they need it."


If you're going to cite the wiki, it'd help if you read the subsequent paragraphs that include the author discrediting your interpretation.

Are you trying to defend A. Dworkin or to attack me? and to what purpose?

Both - specifically, I'm defending Dworkin against blatant misinformation that attempts to discredit her, and by extension, all feminists. And I'm attacking you for spreading that type of FUD about a book that - by your own admission - you've never read.
 
2012-10-31 11:21:24 AM  

Theaetetus: Yes, I'll "forgive you" for "applying that lesson too well" in your arguments that the normalized wage gap is irrelevant, the minority representation of women in the political process is irrelevant, the burdens placed on women's health care are irrelevant, because "zomg if there were a draft women wouldn't get called up, and that's unfaaaaaaaaaair!"


I'm not trolling although I do occasionally resort to sarcasm. I was raised to treat women as equals and place the same expectations on them that I would a man. I absolutely support the equality of women. What I don't support is "equality plus".

Theaetetus: "Equal outcomes with respect to access"? Talk about an odd turn of phrase.
First, your statement would actually show inequality - more women than men are attending higher education, so that's not equality. Maybe we need affirmative action for men?


The skewed numbers are specific to university enrollment. Community college level enrollments are largely even. The current numbers are skewed towards women but provided the playing field is leveled with respect to admissions policies and public scholarships I'm fine with whatever the final outcome is. There is no need to affirmative action for either gender at this point.

Theaetetus: "But, if there's a draft, women won't get called up!"
"... but there'll never be a draft."
"But if there were!"
"... there won't. But what's your point?"
"Therefore, reverse-sexism, so we can ignore the wage gap."


If there will never be a draft then we should be in agreement that this provision of the law may be removed as it is not only irrelevant but gender biased.

Theaetetus: Conversely: "In some fields, even when all variables are normalized out, the wage gap is still apparent and women are penalized."


Yes, and I think that's bullshiat and should be rectified. I simply have a problem with the comparison of median incomes since it is a deceptive metric.
 
2012-10-31 11:23:15 AM  

Theaetetus: Honestly, do you really think that line of argument convinces anyone?


Honestly, yeah...rights and liberties entail duties. If our country has deemed fit to retain the selective service as a civic duty, then absolutely women should be required to register with the selective service whether or not a draft is likely to happen in the near future or not.
 
2012-10-31 11:28:28 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: If there will never be a draft then we should be in agreement that this provision of the law may be removed as it is not only irrelevant but gender biased.


Absolutely. If it'll silence the anti-feminists who keep bringing it up as justification for not fixing other actual inequalities, I'm all for it.

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Yes, and I think that's bullshiat and should be rectified. I simply have a problem with the comparison of median incomes since it is a deceptive metric.


Agreed. There are far better metrics, which is why people actually trying to solve the problem use them, rather than bringing up the median income strawman just to argue against it...
 
2012-10-31 11:29:26 AM  
I don't see how anyone could say that we have reached gender equality in this country, with our pay disparity and our level of participation in the highest levels of government. That said, the crux of the ad was a woman using her own sexuality as she sees fit, and you're not helping to try and paint that as antithetical to the goals of feminism in any way.

Oh yeah, and use of the word "hipster"=automatic green.
 
2012-10-31 11:31:24 AM  

On-Off: you are on something there. It is a lot about words.
Feminism was a good word when women had less rights.
Using the word today is not helping IMO, as the word is treatening to some, for good and for bad reasons.
We have injustice against males to, especialy when it come to fathers in Germany. Basicaly, you have to be a fool to father a child here. But I wouldn't be a member of any "masculist" or "men's right" thing, because it's not helping, it is treatening to women, it just pull people back in the trenches.
If you are defending the interest of one group against another, you are not for equality.


No, feminism is still a good word, even if people can't exactly agree on what it means. "Some people" are always going to feel threatened by it because unless it is to be completely neutered, feminism is always going to involve shifting the balance of power in society from men to women. Not to long ago, it was called "Women's liberation", and "some people" felt even more threatened by it than they do today. It's not the word that frightens them, it's the concept.
 
2012-10-31 11:32:13 AM  

that bosnian sniper: Theaetetus: Honestly, do you really think that line of argument convinces anyone?

Honestly, yeah...rights and liberties entail duties. If our country has deemed fit to retain the selective service as a civic duty, then absolutely women should be required to register with the selective service whether or not a draft is likely to happen in the near future or not.


Yes, and its importance is right up there with repealing laws requiring men - but not women - to carry muskets and lanterns when crossing Boston Common at night.

Rather, the importance of amending the law is not due to the de jure inequality in the law, but because it'll remove a distracting red herring from arguments about amending other laws and policies that do create factual inequality.
 
2012-10-31 11:32:17 AM  

JesusJuice: This is how feminists argue. Skew, misconstrue, and patronize. If she had a logically coherent belief system, it wouldn't be necessary, but she wouldn't get to play the victim, either.


Watch out, pretty soon she'll be telling you how you must have a bad relationship with your mother and how sorry she feels for all the girls you've dated, except of course that you'll never get laid with attitudes like that.

I looked up this think about surgeons she's claiming. There was a study done recently that shows an inexplicable pay gap between male and female doctors. The article I read noted that there was no clear reason for this pay gap, but one of the authors of the study speculated that while it could be the result of gender bias, it was more likely the result of "female doctors ... taking less pay in exchange for regular schedules or other family-friendly benefits."

What I found most interesting though was the finding that there "has been a widening gender gap in starting salaries for female doctors, rising from a difference of $3,600 in 1999 to $16,819 in 2008."

Which is funny, because feminists have been working on the pay gap issue for a lot longer than that. It's weird that such things would trend up, rather than down. It's almost as if feminists are ridiculously incompetent at achieving their goals, and that all of the work they do in furtherance of equality is not only having no effect, it's actually making things worse.
 
2012-10-31 11:36:25 AM  

skepticultist: JesusJuice: This is how feminists argue. Skew, misconstrue, and patronize. If she had a logically coherent belief system, it wouldn't be necessary, but she wouldn't get to play the victim, either.

Watch out, pretty soon she'll be telling you how you must have a bad relationship with your mother and how sorry she feels for all the girls you've dated, except of course that you'll never get laid with attitudes like that.

I looked up this think about surgeons she's claiming.


I always think it's hilarious when people ascribe gender to an argument position. You're not violently opposed to feminism? You must be a chick!

Wait, not hilarious... Sad. It's because they are fundamentally selfish, and can't see taking a position on something that doesn't directly benefit them (even if it indirectly benefits them in myriad ways). They're the same people who will immediately jump to calling someone a white knight, since they can't imagine ever sticking up for another person without having an ulterior motive.
 
2012-10-31 11:36:31 AM  

Theaetetus: Agreed. There are far better metrics, which is why people actually trying to solve the problem use them, rather than bringing up the median income strawman just to argue against it...


How is this a straw man?

- When the comparison is apples to apples, women receive equal or greater compensation in employment (the lower median income is not an apples to apples comparison and reflects women choosing different careers than men)

Theaetetus: Absolutely. If it'll silence the anti-feminists who keep bringing it up as justification for not fixing other actual inequalities, I'm all for it.


I never said that the gender bias in selective service was a justification for not addressing areas where we have gender inequality. I simply pointed it out as an instance of gender inequality that is largely ignored by modern feminists.
 
2012-10-31 11:41:08 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Theaetetus: Agreed. There are far better metrics, which is why people actually trying to solve the problem use them, rather than bringing up the median income strawman just to argue against it...

How is this a straw man?


Because you were the first person to bring up the wage gap, and specifically raised the issue as "but the median wage gap is misleading!"
Well, yeah. That's why no one prior to you had brought it up. Good jorb tearing it down, though.

I never said that the gender bias in selective service was a justification for not addressing areas where we have gender inequality. I simply pointed it out as an instance of gender inequality that is largely ignored by modern feminists.

It's largely ignored for the same reason the Boston Common example above is largely ignored. It's defunct. The first day there's any serious talk about a draft, we'll hold a march to amend the law, okay? We're a bit busy with efforts to keep abortion legal against the "legitimate rape" politicians at the moment.
 
2012-10-31 11:45:03 AM  

Theaetetus: Both - specifically, I'm defending Dworkin against blatant misinformation that attempts to discredit her, and by extension, all feminists. And I'm attacking you for spreading that type of FUD about a book that - by your own admission - you've never read.


well, you know what?
I've never read "Mein Kampf" either. Only a few pages. It is just hate-fueled gibberish not worth my time.
I still think I'm entitled to have an opinion on it.

So OK, she think there is a posibility for non rape-sex. But still, men -and myself- are mostly rapist.
Is this misinformation? it is barely exageration.
I f you are sayin she is representative of feminism, a lot of feminist may disagree with you.
Not only because of her wiews, but because of her credibility to. I dont want to start with personal attacks, but...
 
2012-10-31 11:52:19 AM  

Theaetetus: Because you were the first person to bring up the wage gap, and specifically raised the issue as "but the median wage gap is misleading!"
Well, yeah. That's why no one prior to you had brought it up. Good jorb tearing it down, though.

It's largely ignored for the same reason the Boston Common example above is largely ignored. It's defunct. The first day there's any serious talk about a draft, we'll hold a march to amend the law, okay? We're a bit busy with efforts to keep abortion legal against the "legitimate rape" politicians at the moment.


Would love to continue this conversation but it's time for lunch with my wife. 12th wedding anniversary.
 
2012-10-31 11:53:11 AM  

On-Off: Theaetetus: Both - specifically, I'm defending Dworkin against blatant misinformation that attempts to discredit her, and by extension, all feminists. And I'm attacking you for spreading that type of FUD about a book that - by your own admission - you've never read.

well, you know what?
I've never read "Mein Kampf" either. Only a few pages. It is just hate-fueled gibberish not worth my time.
I still think I'm entitled to have an opinion on it.


You can have an opinion about anything you want. And I'm entitled to present quotes from your sources discrediting your opinion, as well as quotes by the author of the thing you have an opinion about. You don't get a "no rebuttal allowed" pass just because you're a special little snowflake.

So OK, she think there is a posibility for non rape-sex. But still, men -and myself- are mostly rapist.

Nope, nothing of the sort. In fact, the argument Dworkin was making was that the presentation of sex in mainstream art and culture doesn't represent the reality of male-female sexual relationships. Rather, it's both a symptom of and metaphor for societally-enforced patriarchy.
tl;dr - she's not calling you a rapist. You don't need to be so defensive.

Is this misinformation? it is barely exageration.
I f you are sayin she is representative of feminism, a lot of feminist may disagree with you.
Not only because of her wiews, but because of her credibility to. I dont want to start with personal attacks, but...


No, go right ahead. Attack my credibility based on something I've said, since that could expose hypocrisy or other legitimate issues. As with you, I'm not insulated from criticism.
Mind you, attacking it based on something irrelevant, like the fact that I'm an attorney, will only discredit you.
 
2012-10-31 11:53:48 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Theaetetus: Because you were the first person to bring up the wage gap, and specifically raised the issue as "but the median wage gap is misleading!"
Well, yeah. That's why no one prior to you had brought it up. Good jorb tearing it down, though.

It's largely ignored for the same reason the Boston Common example above is largely ignored. It's defunct. The first day there's any serious talk about a draft, we'll hold a march to amend the law, okay? We're a bit busy with efforts to keep abortion legal against the "legitimate rape" politicians at the moment.

Would love to continue this conversation but it's time for lunch with my wife. 12th wedding anniversary.


Mazel tov!
 
2012-10-31 11:59:43 AM  
Why would I read a link submitted by some broad? I would want to at least know that her husband or father checked to make sure it's worth submitting first.
 
2012-10-31 12:08:14 PM  
Would the world really be worse off if men made a few more sandwhichs and women fixed cars a little more often?
 
2012-10-31 12:11:51 PM  

error 303: Would the world really be worse off if men made a few more sandwhichs and women fixed cars a little more often?


I make better sandwiches than my fiancee, I can tell you that. On the other hand, she's not going to touch a damned thing on my truck, if I have a say.
 
2012-10-31 12:14:11 PM  

Theaetetus: No, go right ahead. Attack my credibility based on something I've said, since that could expose hypocrisy or other legitimate issues. As with you, I'm not insulated from criticism.
Mind you, attacking it based on something irrelevant, like the fact that I'm an attorney, will only discredit you.



That was just hillarious !
*Sorry*
I meant personal attack against A. Dworkin, not you.
Now, to make it very clear, I only brought A.Dworkin up as an exemple of someone who could fit the role of the "feminazi" some antifeminist are using as a bogeyman -sorry, it is bogeywomen in newspeech.
Maybe she don't deserve it. I don't realy know, and don't realy care because there are so much better books to read and life is so short. The fact is that if one is looking for hatespeech from self-promoted "feminist", they are going to find it.

What made me laugh is the fact that you think beein an attorney increase your credibility... No, I am a farking hippie and an engineer (and french, sorry for the spelling) and don't believe this.
What give you credit is using reason and not calling me names
 
2012-10-31 12:23:49 PM  

Heron: There's a difference between saying "This gender role is harmful in our present society" and saying "gender has no anthropological foundation"; there are certainly plenty of second-wavers willing to ask "advantageous for whom?" but I've rarely met any willing to discount purpose-in-gender entirely.

As to your second point, "Second Wave" feminism -hell, feminism in general- has always been a two-way street; Freeing men from the expectation of being violent, confrontational, demanding, and heartless has always been just as much a part of the feminist philosophy as freeing women from the oppression those attitudes perpetuate, though obviously "feminism" is by no means monolithic and plenty of its branches focus on more limited and female-specific issues. I'd say the main problem with Second-wavers was blitheness regarding issues of race, class, and alternative gender identity; Steinem pretty much acted like the only women's issues out there were those concerning upper-middle class straight white women, though to be fair, she was more involved in the political side of things, and that necessarily requires making tradeoffs.


HOLY FARKING HELL THANK YOU.

/Seriously, I was starting to think I was the only person here who'd even read a feminist book, which is kind of scary since I was practically raised by feminists at first.
//Seriously, I went into a thread once saying I was a feminist, and after explaining very patiently to someone what that meant, got told I had been brainwashed by misandrists. Jesus, people are stupid.
 
Displayed 50 of 301 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report