Feminism

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

You see this new generation of feminists, on Youtube and so forth, and they love to talk about objectification. Truly it is amazing how many of them are wearing makeup, have prettied their hair and quite a few times wear bust-revealing attire to attract the male audience. Then they claim its patriarchy and companies and societal expectations forcing them to glam up. Do they not understand how disempowering and degrading of an excuse that is? Do they not recognize that they have free will and can choose NOT to glam up? Again yet more playing the role of the victim, and yet more of playing the role of helpless-women-clearly-too-oppressed-to-make-a-choice. It is pathetic and something which men cannot get away with; people scorn men who play the role of the victim to seek some kind of undeserved advantage.

 

Do you not understand how little of a choice that is? Its like putting a gun to someones head and tell them that if they choose 'A' they are going to live but if they choose 'B' they are getting their brains blown out. Sure, technically you have a choice, but the consequences of such a choice are just unacceptable. And imagine for a moment the reaction of the internet once they see someone that doesn't conform to their beauty standard and talks about feminism. How quickly do you think the comment box would fill with insults? Besides, if the video quality is any good, you need a big layer of make up, just to look like a normal person. 

 

Even so, this is irrelevant. They could just wear those clothes or that make up because they like it. Its you who instantly starts yelling once they dress a little to sexy for your taste that they purposely do it so they can attract male audiences and objectify themselves. 

 

 

 

I would not say yelling but I do find it quite humourous, for me hypocrisy is just another part of black humour.

 

But do we seem to be finding a little more common ground in some points, just not in a lot of others.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Oh so you've gone from not knowing who she is to knowing exactly who she is. Did a Google search did we? You've read that she is an Anti-Feminist Feminist so now you know exactly who she is?

 

An agent of the Patriarchy? Come on man! You're just regurgitating slogans at me now.

 

I know of her viewpoints yes. And those view points seem suspiciously familiar to some of the more general anti-feminist arguments that float around the internet, in particular from MRA's. Feminists are to blame for everything, not being raped is a womens responsibility, guys can't help it because they are biologically wired to want to have sex and their sex drive overrides reason. And in the academic debate, she just ignores or pretends that Social Constructivism is not really a thing or has the influence of gender. Sure, she dresses those arguments up to look more intelligent, but if you look at what it boils down too, she could just as well been another MRA's arguing that Feminism is just misandry and that its the root of all kinds of social evils. Just because she claims to be a feminist doesn't make her so, her arguments speak for themselves. 

 

You so desperately want to find flaws in what she is saying you're just taking things out of context and nitpicking minutia. Your statement isn't even relevant to her point.

 

Again, I don't think you've fully understood what Paglia is saying. You're letting your bias color your perception of what she is trying to explain.

My statements are relevant to her points. She is making up history and then presents it as facts, from which she starts reasoning. So essentially, the basis of her reasoning is flawed, resulting in flawed reasoning in general. 

 

Secondly, she IS blaming feminism for not preparing women, for supposedly luring them in a false sense of security, for telling them they are human beings and deserve equal treatment. She criticizes feminism for this, for telling women that they are human beings and deserve equal treatment, because according to her, women apparantly aren't equal, they will get attacked and raped, that its the natural order of things and that because feminist challenge that idea, they are indirectly responsible for women getting raped. And if you look a little further into it, you can see what she implies with it. Namely that feminists should shut up, should stop telling women that they own their own bodies, that they are human beings and deserve equal treatment, that they should stop challenging the status quo and accept that they will always be second rate and that if you think you are not, that you think you can wear whatever you like, you get raped and its your own fault. 

 

 

She isn't not saying there is no such thing as social constructivism. Whether or not Rousseau is right or wrong is mainly a matter of opinion. You can read more of her work to find out why she thinks Rousseau is wrong.

 

Part of gender and sexuality is biological and not socially constructed - that is all she is saying.

 

Well what part. Think about it, what makes a guy a guy? His penis? But then what about everyone who has a penis but definitely does not identify with being a guy? Trans people or gender neutral people? And what about women? Their vagina? Again, what about people with vagina's who do not identify as women? Breasts then? Just the result of certain hormones, guys can grow them too if they take those hormones. The ability to carry a baby and give birth. Is that what defines each gender? Again, what about the people that can or can't and still identify with that gender, or the people who for example are sterile or otherwise unable to get pregnant? There is no biological definition for gender that works well enough to include everyone. For each biologically based definition, there are way to many exceptions that do not fit the definition or which would result in silly (not to mention offensive) statements that exclude people from the gender they identify most with. 

 

And think about how different for example sexual practices are across the world. How for a lot of tribes for example in the rain forests around the world the female breast is not a sexual thing at all. That has nothing to do with biology, that is socially constructed. 

 

 

I'm sure you can find feminists that claim rape devastates you for life. In fact in a part of the interview I posted Paglia gives an example of that.

 

I agree that Paglia's statement about social and sexual expectation was harsh, but you have to look at it from an existentialist point of view. She is just suggesting that a person is ultimately responsible for their own state of mind. Sure, there are always external factors, but if you keep blaming the outside world and others you will always be a victim in your own mind.

 

Her existentialist point of view is grossly offensive and comes down to telling a depressed person to 'cheer up' or someone with a broken leg to 'walk it off'. The way each person handles a traumatic event is different, some people get over it easier than others. But to say that if a traumatic event is so bad you have trouble getting over it is somehow your own fault like its something you choose to do is just ridiculous. What does she know about it? Its so easy to judge others if you haven't gone through it yourself. 

 

 

Also this idea of "patriarchy" - like there is some male conspiracy where we all get together in a smokey room and talk about ways to oppress women is ridiculous. 'Patriarchy' is another straw man.

 

Of course that is ridiculous. Which is exactly why patriarchy means something completely different. And no, you can't declare something a straw man argument on the basis of a ridiculous made up definition you attached to it yourself. 

 

 

 

I would not say yelling but I do find it quite humourous, for me hypocrisy is just another part of black humour.

 

But do we seem to be finding a little more common ground in some points, just not in a lot of others.

 

Why is not wanting to be objectified but wanting to look what according to yourself is pretty 'hypocritical'? 

 

Feminist rightly argue that its your responsibility to not objectify women, not theirs. 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

An very good interview relevant to everything being discussed in this thread. It's Camille Paglia again, sorry for hitting you over the head with her, but I think she offers a very interesting perspective. You don't have to agree with it. Ln X, from some of the things you've written I think you'll like this.

 

I liked her ideas about how feminism should be, and I think she is makes correct assertions that with rights come responsibility and accountability. I do love her no-nonsense attitude and she has a rather good understanding of how guys think. She was spot upon about that obsessive tendency and thinking in the abstract. That's me through and through: obsessing over Simcity 4, mathematics and other stuff, and I'm certain it applies to all men who obsess about things. Though I am certain there are a minority of women who have that mindset to; Camille Paglia would definitely be one of them.

 

I disagreed with her points about music, except for the composition point. There have been a great number of famous women in the modern music: Aretha Franklin, Annie Lennox, Stevie Nicks and many others. Today I think there are far more very famous female popstars then male popstars.

 

 

 

I would not say yelling but I do find it quite humourous, for me hypocrisy is just another part of black humour.

 

But do we seem to be finding a little more common ground in some points, just not in a lot of others.

 

Why is not wanting to be objectified but wanting to look what according to yourself is pretty 'hypocritical'? 

 

Feminist rightly argue that its your responsibility to not objectify women, not theirs. 

 

 

The way I see it putting on make-up is a conscious choice to enhance ones beauty. I don't really care if a woman puts on makeup or not, I don't really care if she dresses provocatively or not. But I will laugh at any woman who says society or patriarchy subtly forced her to dress like that; hey lady ever heard of freedom of expression or choice?

 

But I am going to inwardly objectify because that is how human beings function. We see people and notice -- consciously and unconsciously -- their behaviours and we are going to make assumptions, generalizations and thus objectify. If I see a beautiful woman walk down the street I'm going to take a glance, and pass on by. I would hate to see the day where you couldn't so much as look at certain people, or the opposite sex, because that is objectification. To me at least, I see feminism pushing for that. Stuff that, that to me is totally oppressive.

 

Everyone does that look; that stare which takes in everything about the other person and it happens practically everyday out in public. We all objectify each other. It's a fact of life. It's human nature.

 

Lastly in the statement I have highlighted in italics, I would ask of you the following: have you objectified women? Have you taken that quick covert stare to admire a woman's body? Have you felt guilty because of it?

[Fatherted 129]

These posts are very long and way out of my league, however I will contribute a couple of points:

The choice to wear makeup IS a choice. I know a girl (not in any way what I would call a feminist but all for equality), and she never wears makeup (says it is uncomfortable and pointless). My point? She is comfortable how she is and is all the prettier and more attractive of a person for it. Of course, it helps that she's literally the nicest person on earth

Feminists that wear makeup cannot preach that women should be allowed to be comfortable with their bodies. My opinion? A woman who wears no makeup and is comfortable how she is is more attractive than a woman who can't feel comfortable without makeup, in my opinion. Of course I agree, you can wear what you want. You can't skip being judged for your dressup though.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I know of her viewpoints yes. And those view points seem suspiciously familiar to some of the more general anti-feminist arguments that float around the internet, in particular from MRA's. Feminists are to blame for everything, not being raped is a womens responsibility, guys can't help it because they are biologically wired to want to have sex and their sex drive overrides reason. And in the academic debate, she just ignores or pretends that Social Constructivism is not really a thing or has the influence of gender. Sure, she dresses those arguments up to look more intelligent, but if you look at what it boils down too, she could just as well been another MRA's arguing that Feminism is just misandry and that its the root of all kinds of social evils. Just because she claims to be a feminist doesn't make her so, her arguments speak for themselves. 

 

 

- She isn't saying feminists are to blame for everything and neither am I.

 

- She isn't saying being raped is solely a woman's responsibility and neither am I.

 

- She isn't saying guys can't help it because they are biologically wired to want to have sex and their sex drive overrides reason and neither am I.

 

- She never pretends Social Constructivism isn't a thing.

 

This is why the rape discussion is going nowhere - because mainstream feminism has no room for nuance or complexity. Mainstream feminism is anti-intellectual. It is about phony moral superiority. If you dare suggest something different well then you must be part of an MRA. There is only room for one view; one doctrine. It is like a religion.

 

My statements are relevant to her points. She is making up history and then presents it as facts, from which she starts reasoning. So essentially, the basis of her reasoning is flawed, resulting in flawed reasoning in general.

 

Your statement: "Here she claims that fathers and brothers protected their women from rapists. Yeah, except that in the majority of cases the rapists is the father or brother or someone else close to the victim. So, one claim that is fit for the garbage can."

 

Your argument is not at all relevant to what she was saying. You've gone way off.

 

You say: "in the majority of cases the rapists is the father or brother or someone else close to the victim" - but does that mean the majority of fathers and brothers are rapists? No.

 

So tell me - how is she making up history by saying "once fathers and brothers protected women from rape"?

 

 

 

Secondly, she IS blaming feminism for not preparing women, for supposedly luring them in a false sense of security, for telling them they are human beings and deserve equal treatment. She criticizes feminism for this, for telling women that they are human beings and deserve equal treatment, because according to her, women apparantly aren't equal, they will get attacked and raped, that its the natural order of things and that because feminist challenge that idea, they are indirectly responsible for women getting raped. And if you look a little further into it, you can see what she implies with it. Namely that feminists should shut up, should stop telling women that they own their own bodies, that they are human beings and deserve equal treatment, that they should stop challenging the status quo and accept that they will always be second rate and that if you think you are not, that you think you can wear whatever you like, you get raped and its your own fault.

 

On a biological level men and women aren't equals - get over it. Women are naturally better at certain things than men and vice versa. There are such things as biological functions that make male and female bodies and minds work differently. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for social equality or that social equality is impossible.

 

 

Well what part. Think about it, what makes a guy a guy? His penis? But then what about everyone who has a penis but definitely does not identify with being a guy? Trans people or gender neutral people? And what about women? Their vagina? Again, what about people with vagina's who do not identify as women? Breasts then? Just the result of certain hormones, guys can grow them too if they take those hormones. The ability to carry a baby and give birth. Is that what defines each gender? Again, what about the people that can or can't and still identify with that gender, or the people who for example are sterile or otherwise unable to get pregnant? There is no biological definition for gender that works well enough to include everyone. For each biologically based definition, there are way to many exceptions that do not fit the definition or which would result in silly (not to mention offensive) statements that exclude people from the gender they identify most with. 

 

And think about how different for example sexual practices are across the world. How for a lot of tribes for example in the rain forests around the world the female breast is not a sexual thing at all. That has nothing to do with biology, that is socially constructed. 

 

Your genetics/chromosomes make you a man or a woman. Just because a man identifies as a woman or cuts off his penis doesn't mean he is one. Mutilating your body with drugs or surgery and putting on disguises doesn't change what you actually are. However I do believe there are rational cases for gender reassignment and I have nothing against transsexuals because I believe in freedom of choice.

 

I would argue that attraction to breasts is not entirely socially constructed; there is a biological rationale. Breasts are indicators of a woman's ability to reproduce and raise her children. They indicate sexual vitality. This all happens on an unconscious level. But I agree, there is a certain value western culture puts on breasts that is socially constructed.

 

 

 

Her existentialist point of view is grossly offensive and comes down to telling a depressed person to 'cheer up' or someone with a broken leg to 'walk it off'. The way each person handles a traumatic event is different, some people get over it easier than others. But to say that if a traumatic event is so bad you have trouble getting over it is somehow your own fault like its something you choose to do is just ridiculous. What does she know about it? Its so easy to judge others if you haven't gone through it yourself.

 

You must have missed the part where Camille Paglia's interviewer relates her experience of being raped and recovering from rape.

 

Also this idea of "patriarchy" - like there is some male conspiracy where we all get together in a smokey room and talk about ways to oppress women is ridiculous. 'Patriarchy' is another straw man.

 

Of course that is ridiculous. Which is exactly why patriarchy means something completely different. And no, you can't declare something a straw man argument on the basis of a ridiculous made up definition you attached to it yourself.

 

Ok sorry, bad example. I was being a little bit tongue and cheek. Patriarchy is a straw man because it is just playing the blame game. Namely blaming men for all the societal woes women face. I'm not saying there isn't male oppression of women, just saying that blaming Patriarchy is way oversimplifying.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Looking at someone and then making assumptions and generalizations about that person is not the same as objectification. Objectification occurs when you see someone and no longer see them as human beings but rather as objects (hence the term, Objectification). 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification

 

 

Now, if we are talking about the way people dress, well, beauty standards are dictated by society, and if society is patriarchal in nature, patriarchy decides beauty. So we get skinny, big boobs, blonde hair, etc. Those that do not fit that standard risk getting harassed about it (fat shaming for example). Interestingly enough, the patriarchy has a bit of a double standard when it comes to the way females dress. If women dress to 'provocative' you get people shaming them for dressing like that, but if women dress to modest, they get shamed for that as well. And then there are of course the dress codes, which reinforce patriarchal standards. Especially in the US we get these modesty standards more and more, about what girls can't show, supposedly because its to distracting for boys (apparently if boys see brastraps they can't think straight anymore).

 

The thing is, with dressing in a certain way, how much of it is dictated by society and how much is it because you think its comfortable to wear and looks nice. And to what degree is your personal taste influenced by society. The argument that patriarchy makes someone dress a certain way isn't necessarily incorrect or hypocritical though. 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

I have a couple of bones to pick with the phrase 'check your privilege'. It is irksome and an accusation that is poorly used. It seems to crop up quite a lot in feminist arguments, but I would counter with same accusation.

Now, Western privileges enjoyed by women, men, feminists and all of those men who hate women:
Electricity
Healthcare
Education
Oil imported from oppressive countries
Plastics, made of oil
Cheap clothes and goods made in either sweatshops or factories with hazardous working conditions
Running water
Sewers
Social security
Pensions
Political representation
Human rights
Right to a fair trial
Free speech

How can you check your privilege if you don't even know how truly privileged you are compared with other people, countries and nationalities?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

On the subject of makeup, two points:

1. Fewer females take part in politics because it is too much trouble to put makeup on two faces; and
    
2. The origin of lipstick would turn most women off if they knew what it was.  In the Roman Republic and later in the Empire, if a woman wore red lipstick is meant that she subscribed to fellatio.  Perfectly illustrated in the "Life of Brian".

 

Oh!  and red was the only colour available.

[Fatherted 129]

Aye Nonny, good point. Hey, if you want to send that message, more power to you, eh?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, if the ladies want to join the men, they should avoid fashion primps that have historical wrongs, eh?

[krbe 193]

As well as descending into the gaols and start dieing at the job.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Yes, you've got to watch out for the suicide Blonds.  Dyed by their own hand.

 

But seriously, if men have to romp around in straight jackets ... er ... business suits, then such things are also available for the ladies.  None of this "Look like the innocent flow'r/But be the serpent under't".  And yes they usually come with below the knee skirts.  Often, banker's grey with pin stripes, or consultant blue.

[Meg 368]

I have a couple of bones to pick with the phrase 'check your privilege'. It is irksome and an accusation that is poorly used. It seems to crop up quite a lot in feminist arguments, but I would counter with same accusation.

Now, Western privileges enjoyed by women, men, feminists and all of those men who hate women:

Electricity

Healthcare

Education

Oil imported from oppressive countries

Plastics, made of oil

Cheap clothes and goods made in either sweatshops or factories with hazardous working conditions

Running water

Sewers

Social security

Pensions

Political representation

Human rights

Right to a fair trial

Free speech

How can you check your privilege if you don't even know how truly privileged you are compared with other people, countries and nationalities?

 

That is the point:  to look at the privileges that we have that are taken for granted.   In many, if not most, cases, people are not aware how privileged they are.

 

Yes, it can feel irksome because it IS a slap upside the head.   For example, you're right: Westerners do take running water for granted.   The lack of it is a major issue in some places.    Pick a link, any link.

 

How can you check your privilege?   By becoming educated on what life is for people other than yourself. 

 

Why should you check your privilege?  Because on a planet as overpopulated as this one, it isn't going to work to crawl into our cocoons and pretend other people don't exist.   The cocoons are all going to get kicked open as we struggle over limited resources.   It's best to know what is outside the cocoon.

[Duke87 1,070]

And, to be honest, who had it harder? The men or women? Well the men certainly worked long hours, and quite a few occupations were rather hazardous. And yes the women had no ownership over the home, or over land or to the man's money. But if patriarchy is really as oppressive as it claims, then a lot of men and husbands would have abused it when they were fed up with their spouses- you know the kind of really nasty spat which all couples go through. At times it was abused: look no further than the numerous poorhouses, the churches providing for the needy and the number of homeless people. But how dire was this homelessness?

 

Again, who had the rawest deal? Who had the most to worry about? Which sex toiled less every day? I think the answer is not as obvious as it first seems.

 

I remember when I was a prepubescent boy I asserted that life for boys was a lot easier than life for girls. My number one reason why? Because having to sit down to pee must be awfully inconvenient.

 

 

Levity aside, yes... being a man versus being a woman, at different places and times in history, presents different struggles. And while there is certainly some bias in modern society which favors men, it isn't all lopsided. I have heard women lament that men have it easy for various reasons. On the other hand I have also heard men lament that women have it easy for various reasons. I suppose sometimes the grass is always greener on the other side.

 

 

The choice to wear makeup IS a choice. I know a girl (not in any way what I would call a feminist but all for equality), and she never wears makeup (says it is uncomfortable and pointless). My point? She is comfortable how she is and is all the prettier and more attractive of a person for it. Of course, it helps that she's literally the nicest person on earth

Feminists that wear makeup cannot preach that women should be allowed to be comfortable with their bodies. My opinion? A woman who wears no makeup and is comfortable how she is is more attractive than a woman who can't feel comfortable without makeup, in my opinion. Of course I agree, you can wear what you want. You can't skip being judged for your dressup though.

 

*applause*

 

Well said. Women who feel they have to wear makeup sell themselves short. Your world really opens up if you can come to the realization that you have a choice about a lot more things than you are led to believe. Conforming to the expectations of others should never be made a higher priority than meeting your own needs. Never be afraid to go against the grain if doing so means being true to yourself.

 

---

As for the whole "check your privilege" thing... what shop do you recommend I go to if my check privilege light is on?

[LexusInfernus 908]

- She isn't saying feminists are to blame for everything and neither am I.

 

- She isn't saying being raped is solely a woman's responsibility and neither am I.

 

- She isn't saying guys can't help it because they are biologically wired to want to have sex and their sex drive overrides reason and neither am I.

 

- She never pretends Social Constructivism isn't a thing.

 

This is why the rape discussion is going nowhere - because mainstream feminism has no room for nuance or complexity. Mainstream feminism is anti-intellectual. It is about phony moral superiority. If you dare suggest something different well then you must be part of an MRA. There is only room for one view; one doctrine. It is like a religion.

Just because she doesn't blame feminism for literally everything or puts the responsibility solely on the victim doesn't mean she is off the hook. She does blame feminism for a very large degree, saying that its somehow the fault of feminists that they didn't prepare women for rape. That argument alone is already ridiculous. Feminists didn't rape her, and they are not responsible for getting people raped just because they claim that women have rights and are equal to men. It is shifting the blame from the rapists to feminists. It is ridiculous.

 

And sure, she doesn't blame the victim completely for her rape, but she does put it in a way like all rape victims were just casually strolling through dark alleys in the middle of the night in the bad parts of town, wearing almost nothing and then casually chatting up total strangers. The way she presents rape victims is completely unrealistic. Worse even, she pretends that if women are just careful, walk in pairs and dress modestly, and don't drink at parties, they are safe. For one, thats nonsense, rape can still happen even if you take these precautions, and two, it again puts a significant part of the blame for rape on the victim itself. Sure, she calls its reasonable precautions, but how reasonable is it to expect from women that if they go to a party in college they don't drink? That they don't wear burcas to cover themselves up and look as unattractive as possible. 

 

 

On a biological level men and women aren't equals - get over it. Women are naturally better at certain things than men and vice versa. There are such things as biological functions that make male and female bodies and minds work differently. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for social equality or that social equality is impossible.

 

Your genetics/chromosomes make you a man or a woman. Just because a man identifies as a woman or cuts off his penis doesn't mean he is one. Mutilating your body with drugs or surgery and putting on disguises doesn't change what you actually are. However I do believe there are rational cases for gender reassignment and I have nothing against transsexuals because I believe in freedom of choice.

 

I would argue that attraction to breasts is not entirely socially constructed; there is a biological rationale. Breasts are indicators of a woman's ability to reproduce and raise her children. They indicate sexual vitality. This all happens on an unconscious level. But I agree, there is a certain value western culture puts on breasts that is socially constructed.

 

So basically you are saying that a transwoman isn't really a woman but a man. Do you have any idea how offensive that is? You are denying a group of people their identity and their experiences because they were born differently. And, its a little inconsistent. If your gender identity is really biological, then why are there so many people trying so hard to change it? The very fact that a group of people cannot identify with the gender they might biologically have been assigned too, means gender identity is not biological. 

 

As for the breast bit, you would have a point if there was an uniform attraction to a certain breast type. But as it stands, people are attracted to all kinds of breasts. Again, breast attraction is what people make of it themselves. 

 

 

You must have missed the part where Camille Paglia's interviewer relates her experience of being raped and recovering from rape.

 

Ok sorry, bad example. I was being a little bit tongue and cheek. Patriarchy is a straw man because it is just playing the blame game. Namely blaming men for all the societal woes women face. I'm not saying there isn't male oppression of women, just saying that blaming Patriarchy is way oversimplifying.

 

Yeah, her interviewer, not Camille Paglia herself. But her interviewer is not making all those claims about how others should deal with such a traumatic event or blaming them if they have trouble getting over it. 

 

As for patriarchy, it is just the overarching system that continues to give more privileges to men.  It has no face, its not the fault of men per se, its just the system everyone grows up in. And sure, there are some that continue to promote it, agents if you will. The Republican party in the US has a lot of them. But not all those agents are males, plenty of females are in there as well (Princeton mom, Camille Paglia, Thatcher, Palin, Bachman, etc). 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

 

As for patriarchy, it is just the overarching system that continues to give more privileges to men.  It has no face, its not the fault of men per se, its just the system everyone grows up in. And sure, there are some that continue to promote it, agents if you will. The Republican party in the US has a lot of them. But not all those agents are males, plenty of females are in there as well (Princeton mom, Camille Paglia, Thatcher, Palin, Bachman, etc). 

 

 

I'm sorry but Maggie Thatcher helped to perpetuate patriarchy? And 'patriarchy' failed to stop Maggie Thatcher become the UK's first female prime minister because... ?

 

///

 

Now here is an example of female privilege when it comes to committing crime.

 

Here is the video of Jennifer Berube attacking a police officer with a knife, and cutting right at his throat.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrRK1xI6eks

 

But she was acquitted of both the charge of attempted second degree murder and attempted aggravated assault with serious bodily injury.

 

http://www.policeone.com/edged-weapons/articles/7251371-Vt-woman-who-cut-officer-s-throat-acquitted-of-charges/

 

 

///

 

 

Now imagine that it was a man who attacked the police officer and not Jennifer Berube. Would he be acquitted?

 

Now also imagine that the police officer was a woman attacked by this man. Would the man still be acquitted?

 

In the second imaginary scenario, they would have thrown the book at him and he would be in prison for twenty or so years and villified in the media- quite rightly so.

 

But Jennifer Berube? Well she's a woman, they know better, they don't do stuff like this, it's not as serious as it looks, there were mitigating circumstances, charging her would be a disproportionate punishment. I can hear the excuses pouring in. Clearly the justice system is still riddled with patriarchy.

 

Female privilege in action folks.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Another curious thing are the far higher suicide rates in men compared with women. In both the US and the UK men are at least three times more men are likely to commit suicide than women.

 

Hmm... So men who have more privileges and advantages thanks to patriarchy, and women who have it a bit more worse off then men and are suffering from rape culture, clearly this means more men are going to kill themselves.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

 

Methinks men have it a bit more tougher but complain, moan and whine less about their problems. While women have it a bit more easier but complain, moan and whine more about their problems.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I'm sorry but Maggie Thatcher helped to perpetuate patriarchy? And 'patriarchy' failed to stop Maggie Thatcher become the UK's first female prime minister because... ?

 

 

Now imagine that it was a man who attacked the police officer and not Jennifer Berube. Would he be acquitted?

 

Now also imagine that the police officer was a woman attacked by this man. Would the man still be acquitted?

 

In the second imaginary scenario, they would have thrown the book at him and he would be in prison for twenty or so years and villified in the media- quite rightly so.

 

But Jennifer Berube? Well she's a woman, they know better, they don't do stuff like this, it's not as serious as it looks, there were mitigating circumstances, charging her would be a disproportionate punishment. I can hear the excuses pouring in. Clearly the justice system is still riddled with patriarchy.

 

Female privilege in action folks.

Yes, Thatcher was well known to be against feminism and did absolutely nothing to promote female rights. And again, patriarchy is a spectrum, it doesn't necessarily mean that women can't ever reach a position of power. 

 

And female privilege? How is it relevant? Does this somehow excuse their lack of career opportunities? The wage gap? The miserable support for rape victims? The 'entitled to sex' attitude of men? One bad doesn't excuse another bad. 

[Prens 168]

Another curious thing are the far higher suicide rates in men compared with women. In both the US and the UK men are at least three times more men are likely to commit suicide than women.

 

It's not considered 'manly' for men in these cultures to be sensitive, show emotion, talk about their feelings, or seek help. There is probably many men who don't feel like they have an outlet and bottle their emotions up because of this negative stigma. 

 

There is many other factors to consider too. Women could be more resilient be it naturally or through living in a harsher environment, which would have an impact, considering a lot of suicides are a spur of the moment decision caused by overwhelming emotion.

 

Under Epidemiology in the wikipedia article you linked there is another article for Gender Differences, which states that women actually have a higher reported amount of suicide attempts than Men.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Don't we think that the "feminism movement" has shot its bolt and what we have now are echoes of sour grapes?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Feminism has never been just one movement with a specific set of goals. There have been waves of Feminism. The first wave was when women wanted basic rights like voting rights and equal treatment under the law. Then there was the second wave, which started somewhere in the 60's and ended in the 80's. They came up with the Title IX idea, and they wanted more equal treatment in areas outside legal and political rights. This was also the movement that was more against pornography and prostitution, and when you have someone like Camilla Paglia complaining about Feminism, you see that she is mostly complaining about elements that were common in the second wave feminist ideology. Then there is the third wave feminism, which started in the 90's and is going to this day. It is the most 'individualistic' form of feminism, not so much about telling women whats good for them (which second wave feminists kinda did a lot) but saying they should have a free choice in doing whatever they feel like doing. Its also a lot more sex positive, no longer seeing sex as dirty and submissive but as something women can enjoy just as much as men. They are also more open to pornography and prostitution as not necessarily degrading of women (incidentally making a lot of Paglia's complaints about Feminists completely pointless). And third wave feminism is also more interested in seeing feminism from perspectives other than straight white middle class women.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, I don't know about the rest of us, but I for one and sick of squeaky wheels and non-cause causes.  Long term social attitude adjustments are what is needed and I believe that, where possible, this is underway.  Too bad about India.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well what do you think Feminists try to do? Exactly that, bring about long term social attitude adjustments in order to promote equality between people. 

[Duke87 1,070]

 

I would argue that attraction to breasts is not entirely socially constructed; there is a biological rationale. Breasts are indicators of a woman's ability to reproduce and raise her children. They indicate sexual vitality. This all happens on an unconscious level. But I agree, there is a certain value western culture puts on breasts that is socially constructed.

 

As for the breast bit, you would have a point if there was an uniform attraction to a certain breast type. But as it stands, people are attracted to all kinds of breasts. Again, breast attraction is what people make of it themselves.

 

Last I checked there wasn't a uniform attraction to a certain type of anything. Different people prefer different things. But that doesn't mean it's socially constructed, it just means there is diversity in the details of how desire manifests.

 

As for the whole "but Amazon tribes let women walk around topless!" argument, there is a social construct at play here, but it isn't the sexualization of breasts - it is the idea that being nude in public is unacceptable. The statements "breasts are a sex organ" and "there is nothing wrong with having bare breasts in public" are not mutually exclusive. The former is readily scientifically verifiable, the latter is also accepted as true in some places.

 

Of note: it has been established in New York that having bare breasts in public does not count as public lewdness unless something sexual is being done with them. The state supreme court ruled that citing women simply for being topless in public was unconstitutionally discriminatory in 1992. It is rare that someone will exercise this freedom, but legally you can should you choose to.

[LexusInfernus 908]

As for the whole "but Amazon tribes let women walk around topless!" argument, there is a social construct at play here, but it isn't the sexualization of breasts - it is the idea that being nude in public is unacceptable. The statements "breasts are a sex organ" and "there is nothing wrong with having bare breasts in public" are not mutually exclusive. The former is readily scientifically verifiable, the latter is also accepted as true in some places.

Yeah but even from a biological point of view, breasts aren't sex organs. Guys have them as well you know. Its just that guys do not produce the hormone that allows breasts to develop. But start taking those hormones and those breasts develop by themselves. 

 

And think about it. We have sexualized breasts by covering them up and putting them away. By telling everyone that breasts are sexy, a possible turn on, we got special bras that make them look bigger. But really, we consider breasts sexy because we have been told by our environment that breasts are sexy. But if you go to some tribe where everyone walks around naked, no one cares if they see some breasts. Its completely unsexualized, everyone considers it a normal thing to see breasts, no one gets aroused by them. 

[Beren Erchamion 12]

 

 

But this Patriarchy is still a mystery to me. If one were to replace Patriarchy with Illuminati it would be laughed off. That's how I see Patriarchy, it is as likely to exist as the Illuminati.

 

Except not, because the Illuminati nonsense asserts the real existence of a conscious conspiracy.

 

The discourse of patriarchy does no such thing.  Intent, conspiracy--they're all irrelevant.  It's just concerned with the systemic structural effects of social values.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Now we seem to be talking about something entirely fictional.  There are not now, nor ever have been any Illuminati except in Dan Brown's imagination.  Time to get a life, you guys.

[Beren Erchamion 12]

Now we seem to be talking about something entirely fictional.  There are not now, nor ever have been any Illuminati except in Dan Brown's imagination.  Time to get a life, you guys.

 

It's like you go out of your way to utterly fail at reading what people write.  Because if you were successful at that, you'd understand that no one's claiming that they exist, but instead using them as an example of something that's plainly a nonsense notion.

[Duke87 1,070]

Yeah but even from a biological point of view, breasts aren't sex organs. Guys have them as well you know. Its just that guys do not produce the hormone that allows breasts to develop. But start taking those hormones and those breasts develop by themselves.

 

In the sense that breasts, unlike the core reproductive system, are something that can be activated or suppressed by playing with hormones, yes... in therms of biological mechanics, they are distinctly different. But then, it can just as easily be said that from a biological point of view, sex is a means of reproduction. But the reality of course is far more complex than that.

 

Now, I get the appeal of wanting to desexualize breasts since it can be seen as a question of gender parity to say "hey, if men can walk around shirtless, why not women?". And the latter is an understandable goal, but using the former as a means to the latter is kludgy at best. Making sexualization of breasts context-sensitive rather than a blanket all the time thing is fine, the aformentioned tribes have managed this. But swinging the pendulum past that and eliminating it in all contexts is a repression of sexual reality, and as a society we already have more than enough of that.

 

I would also point out that it is a false characterization of things to say that men are free to walk around shirtless if they please. Um, no, we are not. In some contexts we are, but you will find that most stores and restaurants not located adjacent to a beach will have a "no shirt, no service" policy and will not welcome topless men. And you will find that although walking around the street randomly because you feel like it with no shirt on is perfectly legal, it is also kind of weird and may get you looks.

 

So, if you want to create gender parity, fine: allow women to ditch their bikini tops at the beach or pool and don't interpret it as doing something naughty. Make it legal for them to go topless in public, but also keep it legal for the owners of stores and restaurants to turn them away if they show up as such. Or else make "no shirt, no service" policies illegal for both men and women.

 

And don't fault us when we say "ooh, she looks hot with her shirt off", since women say the same thing about men all the time.

[Fatherted 129]

Women are also more protected by society. Take an a couple of experiments that can be found on the web. If a man spikes a woman's drink in a bar, many people will speak up. If a woman does the same, people will notice but won't speak up until she's gone. Likewise, a man beating up a woman in public will be shamed by those in the street, whereas a woman beating a man will be egged on and the man ridiculed.

Both genders have privileges. Check yours.