Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

[Cubarey]

" The reason I think the second group is just as important to keep in mind is because both show just how urgent the need to reform masculinity is, they need a healthy model of how to be men that lets them be complete people on their own rights.  "

 

Oh God and you wonder why there is a widespread movemnt against 3rd waqve feminists and SJW's. "Need to reform Masculinity" as if we were talikng about a delinquent child that needs some stern love to strighten him out. Traditional masculinity is something that has taken 500,000 years to develop it's not something that is going to be reformed in a couple of decades by the imposition of 'Feminisest" ideals into society. 

 

Moreover, when you analysed the White working class" you forgot to include that over half of white working class women voted for Trump. You might want to look at polls that show that less then 20 percent of women call themselves feminests. 

 

Plus, there is very little evidence that Hillary was defeated because she is a woman. She was defeated because she is widely known as not only personally corrupt and having few personal principles that guide her policies but because she was the epitamy of the Status Quo candidate. 

 

I hardly think that her defeat is at all relevant in a discussion of the whiplash against SJW values and methods. About the only people who voted against her because she was a woman was likely those minority men (especially hispanics and Asians) who have deeply conservative views on the proper role of women.

[butterbumps!]

21 minutes ago, Cubarey said:

" The reason I think the second group is just as important to keep in mind is because both show just how urgent the need to reform masculinity is, they need a healthy model of how to be men that lets them be complete people on their own rights.  "

Oh God and you wonder why there is a widespread movemnt against 3rd waqve feminists and SJW's. "Need to reform Masculinity" as if we were talikng about a delinquent child that needs some stern love to strighten him out. Traditional masculinity is something that has taken 500,000 years to develop it's not something that is going to be reformed in a couple of decades by the imposition of 'Feminisest" ideals into society. 

So because something is culturally ingrained, we shouldn't strive to change it if it's something that is harmful?   Are you against the term "reform" or the idea of reforming concepts of masculinity where those masculinity concepts are harming both men and women?

It's really a thing that there's a lot of jobs out there for the taking in the US.   But ideas of gender roles have been inducing tremendous anxiety, and traditional views of masculinity have gotten in the way of many men taking them.   
 

Quote

 

Moreover, when you analysed the White working class" you forgot to include that over half of white working class women voted for Trump. You might want to look at polls that show that less then 20 percent of women call themselves feminests. 

 

I think this issue is exactly what alarms a lot of us in the thread.  It's not just men who hold these concepts about gender roles and benevolent sexism.   

Quote

 

Plus, there is very little evidence that Hillary was defeated because she is a woman. She was defeated because she is widely known as not only personally corrupt and having few personal principles that guide her policies but because she was the epitamy of the Status Quo candidate. 

I hardly think that her defeat is at all relevant in a discussion of the whiplash against SJW values and methods. About the only people who voted against her because she was a woman was likely those minority men (especially hispanics and Asians) who have deeply conservative views on the proper role of women.

 

Is there a particular post you are responding to with this?   It's not relevant to Karaddin's post you quoted above, and I don't think anyone asserted these things you're railing against.  Plus, this seems dangerously close to becoming a US Politics discussion that Xray warned against.

[Theda Baratheon]

Yeah, was going to say "who are you responding to" ?? 

I love when people go on about "oh for THOUSANDS of years" all right. where's your knowledge coming from? do you have a genuine interest in anthropology, ancient history or archaeology or are you just using stuff you've read online to help your point?

[Cubarey]

So because something is culturally ingrained, we shouldn't strive to change it if it's something that is harmful?   Are you against the term "reform" or the idea of reforming concepts of masculinity where those masculinity concepts are harming both men and women?

 

First I would dispute that modern masculinity is harmful. Second and most importantly, the notion that you can "reform" a social construct that took 500,000 years to form at all much less wihout draconian measures is in my opinion "pie in the sky". 

 

" Is there a particular post you are responding to with this?   It's not relevant to Karaddin's post you quoted above, and I don't think anyone asserted these things you're railing against.  Plus, this seems dangerously close to becoming a US Politics discussion that Xray warned against. "

 

Actually the  argument which focused on the election makes this part of my post relevant. The poster I quoted thought the election was a good case study that confirmed the general notion about bad masculinity effecting society generally. My post was an attempt to question that assumption as in my view gender had nothing to  do with result and other qualities which Clinton possessed or was viewed as having were determinative in the election. That part of my argument was aimed at a specific claim made by the poster I quoted. That it covers materials covered in the US POLITICS thread is unquestionable but so does the arguement I was responding to.

 

 

[Cubarey]

10 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Yeah, was going to say "who are you responding to" ?? 

I love when people go on about "oh for THOUSANDS of years" all right. where's your knowledge coming from? do you have a genuine interest in anthropology, ancient history or archaeology or are you just using stuff you've read online to help your point?

I majored in ancient History as an undergraduate. Moreover, I am interested in antropology and cultural differences since while I am an American I was born in Latin America and cultural differences and similarities are topics of everyday concern to me besides being a "hobby" I am interested in. 

[The guy from the Vale]

Just because something evolved in some way for a long time does not mean it is necessarily unable to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. Also, just because something is culturally ingrained does not mean it is in any way good, or even likely to improve the life of humans in any way. You're mixing at least three different concepts here.

More to the point, if ingrained cultural practices were so unlikely to change, agriculture, sedentiary lifestyles, or the abolition of slavery all would have been impossible to achieve because they all went against received "traditional" wisdom and cultural practice.

In effect, your prediction is a self-fulfilling prophecy. "I don't think this can happen, so I'll oppose it, making sure it won't happen." There's no logical conclusion here, only petulance.

[mormont]

I'm puzzled by the idea that someone claiming to have studied history at university level can possibly believe that it took 500,000 years for the modern concept of masculinity 'to form at all'.

Let's start with the bizarre number of 500,000 years, which suggests the roots of the modern concept of masculinity pre-date the evolution of homo sapiens (a dubious claim to say the least). We can move onto the implication that the evolution of this concept has now reached some sort of peak or endpoint, from which it will be difficult to move, and the assumption that social concepts can't change quickly, despite the fact that in modern life they clearly can and have. The concept of masculinity has changed immensely in the last five decades - if it hadn't we wouldn't be having this conversation, which is not about how society handles that change, not about whether it's happening at all.

I'm glad to hear you have an interest in this subject and suggest you do some basic reading on it before contributing further.

[Cubarey]

" Just because something evolved in some way for a long time does not mean it is necessarily unable to adapt quickly to changing circumstances "

 

That would depend on how ingrained it is and it's importantce to the overall social structure.

 

" Also, just because something is culturally ingrained does not mean it is in any way good, or even likely to improve the life of humans in any way. You're mixing at least three different concepts here. "

 

The reverse is also true, that it is ingrained does not make it bad simply because you disagree with it. Moreover, that it became ingrained into a culture ( I would say that it's ingrained into all social structures and cultures except for a tiny percentage of "stone age" cultures), and as endured for hundreds of years if not hundreds of thousands of years indicates (wither you view it in a favorable or unfavorable light) that it weathered the ages for a reason; it plays a pivotal role in the maintenance of culture and society. Thus, any attempt to displace it must deal with the fact that its long duration likely makes it quire immutable from easy change and that those wishing to change it must ensure that its displacement does not cause the collapse of the underlying culture.

 

" n effect, your prediction is a self-fulfilling prophecy. "I don't think this can happen, so I'll oppose it, making sure it won't happen." There's no logical conclusion here, only petulance. "

 

Not at all, I am merely pointing out that changing it might take cosndireable more effort and force then you seem to think and that the impact of its displacement may itself be much more harmful to society as a whole then any benefit that can be gained by changing it or at least that it's displacement will lead to unforseen circumstances that you have not considered.

 

 

[Theda Baratheon]

27 minutes ago, Cubarey said:

I majored in ancient History as an undergraduate. Moreover, I am interested in antropology and cultural differences since while I am an American I was born in Latin America and cultural differences and similarities are topics of everyday concern to me besides being a "hobby" I am interested in. 

Well, so did I. How disappointing, most of my ancient history and anthropology friends are very well aware of what women have had to face throughout history and how harmful a strict template for masculinity can be and also ...How much people EVOLVE...like...human beings DON'T just stay the same way for THOUSANDS of years, all movements and "reforms" start with a few people. 

[Theda Baratheon]

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm puzzled by the idea that someone claiming to have studied history at university level can possibly believe that it took 500,000 years for the modern concept of masculinity 'to form at all'.

Let's start with the bizarre number of 500,000 years, which suggests the roots of the modern concept of masculinity pre-date the evolution of homo sapiens (a dubious claim to say the least). We can move onto the implication that the evolution of this concept has now reached some sort of peak or endpoint, from which it will be difficult to move, and the assumption that social concepts can't change quickly, despite the fact that in modern life they clearly can and have. The concept of masculinity has changed immensely in the last five decades - if it hadn't we wouldn't be having this conversation, which is not about how society handles that change, not about whether it's happening at all.

I'm glad to hear you have an interest in this subject and suggest you do some basic reading on it before contributing further.

Yeah. I have a BA in Ancient History and am working on an MA in Celtic History, History lot of that covering ancient British history and I just don't see how anyone whose studied ancient history in any great depth can have some of these ideas.

Don't get me wrong Cubarey, I'm glad of the discussion but if you're contribution to the thread is to just make vague comments and ridicule other posts then I don't see how much discussion is to be had. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I would have assumed that the concepts of masculinity and femininity are always evolving. I also feel they change in accordance with the needs of the society in general. The concept that 'old' masculinity is toxic and dangerous is unfair, as is the idea it was being used to supress women. IMO it was simply that society needed warriors and protectors because people lived in dangerous societies where there was the risk of people coming and killing everyone and taking all your 'stuff'.

So men were prized for their protection qualities, their expendability and willingness to sacrifice their lives in order to protect their familes and countries, lords etc. 

That still holds throughout the 20th century, men were expected to protect their families financially and possibly with their lives too. It was clearly changing at that point as being a warrior was less relevant.

Now those qualities are not needed, we don't have anyone trying to kill us, its all about how well you fit into a commercial society, how much money you can make and how well you work socially. So traditional masculine qualities are not needed, to the point where they have become almost vilified. 

The same has happened with traditional female qualities which are now frowned upon. 
 

[Lyanna Stark]

1 hour ago, Cubarey said:

" The reason I think the second group is just as important to keep in mind is because both show just how urgent the need to reform masculinity is, they need a healthy model of how to be men that lets them be complete people on their own rights.  "

 

Oh God and you wonder why there is a widespread movemnt against 3rd waqve feminists and SJW's. "Need to reform Masculinity" as if we were talikng about a delinquent child that needs some stern love to strighten him out. Traditional masculinity is something that has taken 500,000 years to develop it's not something that is going to be reformed in a couple of decades by the imposition of 'Feminisest" ideals into society. 

 

Moreover, when you analysed the White working class" you forgot to include that over half of white working class women voted for Trump. You might want to look at polls that show that less then 20 percent of women call themselves feminests.

May I advice you, before you try to troll this thread, to read the intial post and also post no 2, which deals with

A. Stop trolling

B. White women voting for Trump

You are currently spouting 1. baseless bullshit about 500.000 years for masculinity to develop which you have backed up with no source, and 2. you clearly haven't even read the previous post since it dealt SPECIFICALLY with what you claim hasn't been discussed, namely which mechanics are behind women voting for Trump and being hesitant to call themselves feminists, because those two are related.

If you have issues with Feminism being needed, then start a discussion on that in a separate thread, this is for discussing things pertaining to Feminism and viewing social issues through a feminist lens, not for complaining about "SJWs" or whether feminism is needed or not. Take. It. Elsewhere.

EDIT: I STRONGLY advice people to read before posting if you are new to feminism. The articles are helpful, they explain thoroughly the thoughts and reasoning behind benevolent/hostile sexism and how they are tied together, based on thorough academic research. In fact, there are even academic articles linked, which can be perused independently. Generally, we try to approach this from a perspective of reason, and reasoned arguments, instead of "gut feeling". You may very well feel feminism is unfair to masculinity and that is your right to feel, without a doubt. However, that has nothing to do either with a.feminism or b. reason.

 

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Please read the OP. We are not here to discuss the legitimacy of feminism -- that is a given. Further, anyone who uses "SJWs" as an epithet will be assumed to be trolling and and will be banhammered out of the thread. Last warning. Argue intelligently and good faith, or GTFO. [/mod]

[Chaldanya]

17 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

 The concept that 'old' masculinity is toxic and dangerous is unfair, as is the idea it was being used to supress women. IMO it was simply that society needed warriors and protectors because people lived in dangerous societies where there was the risk of people coming and killing everyone and taking all your 'stuff'.

Women got the vote in 1918 in the UK.  It was resisted for so long because women were 'delicate' and couldn't handle the information needed to make a decision. Women were not allowed a credit card until 1974 for much the same reason. So, I'm sorry, but 'old' masculinity is very much toxic.  And I will resist any attempt to bring any other narrative that skews it elsewise.  In the first three pages of this post we have documented examples of how today's expectations of male behaviour is stifling to men and outright dangerous to women.  How can it not be toxic?

Please note that when we say masculinity is toxic we ARE NOT saying men are toxic. We are saying the current model for them is toxic. They are to find their value through: work, anger and only allowed to express themselves to a romantic partner.  How lonely is that? 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

14 minutes ago, Chaldanya said:

Women got the vote in 1918 in the UK.  It was resisted for so long because women were 'delicate' and couldn't handle the information needed to make a decision. Women were not allowed a credit card until 1974 for much the same reason. So, I'm sorry, but 'old' masculinity is very much toxic.  And I will resist any attempt to bring any other narrative that skews it elsewise.  In the first three pages of this post we have documented examples of how today's expectations of male behaviour is stifling to men and outright dangerous to women.  How can it not be toxic?

Please note that when we say masculinity is toxic we ARE NOT saying men are toxic. We are saying the current model for them is toxic. They are to find their value through: work, anger and only allowed to express themselves to a romantic partner.  How lonely is that? 

Misconception that men have always been able to vote. Most men were no eligible to vote until 1884. Universal sufferage allowed women to vote in 1918, but at the same what it actually did was remove the need to own property to vote, so actually enabled more men to vote at the same time. I find the narrative that is given for women not having the vote is a little deceptive. It wasn't that men have been in control the whole time, it was that a VERY small elite (who were mostly men, but not always, look at British monarchs) were in control. 

My point is that what you are calling 'toxic masculinity' is only supposedly toxic in the late 20th and early 21st century. The reason for this is that the need for society to have traditionally masculine men has stopped. We don't need warriors or fighters, we don't need that level of aggression or violence that was important before. 

Thats why I object to the term 'toxic'. Its wasn't toxic hundreds of years ago, in fact it was holding society together. Women weren't oppressed, they were simply performing a different role in society, in many ways they were worshipped and protected. Now we have the ability to work as equals and its not as necessary to split the workforce down gender lines, our views on the roles of men and women are changing. Society is just playing catchup, possibly IMO going too far, trying to imagine that men and women are 100% the same, a blank slate, when biology means that simply isn't true. 

Toxic masculinity in many ways vilifies some behaviours that are probably natural to most men, it vilifies masculinity itself. Its hard to pick and choose which bits you do and do not like.

[mormont]

I have to say, I'm in my forties and still finding aspects of the masculinity that I was brought up with that hamper me psychologically and get in the way of my own relationships and happiness, to say nothing of those who are or have been in my life. So I'm definitely of the opinion that yes, old masculinity - even relatively modern masculinity - can be toxic.

As for the idea that this concept of masculinity was at one point beneficial, I think you severely overestimate the importance of war and battle in history. Also, women were oppressed. That's not even a question. I'm not saying that there are no reasons why that concept of masculinity came to be, or that it served no social function at all. But this looks very much like reasoning backwards from your conclusion.

[The guy from the Vale]

That women were suppressed and that that suppression may have been socially necessary at some point is not a contradiction at all, though.

[Xray the Enforcer]

3 minutes ago, Cubarey said:

As to whether legitimacy of of femenism is a given.

1. Are you saying that that is a guideline that must be accepted in this thread ( which I have no objections to);

 

I'm moderating the thread, which means item 1. If I put something in [mod] brackets, it means I'm enforcing board and/or thread rules. And, I will add, [mod] board/thread rules are not up for debate. Thank you. [/mod]

[Chaldanya]

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Thats why I object to the term 'toxic'. Its wasn't toxic hundreds of years ago, in fact it was holding society together. Women weren't oppressed, they were simply performing a different role in society, in many ways they were worshipped and protected. Now we have the ability to work as equals and its not as necessary to split the workforce down gender lines, our views on the roles of men and women are changing. Society is just playing catchup. 

But it is now, right? So still not seeing your problem, tbh.

And you may be perfectly happy with the roles as they were in history and you may not see the oppression.  But when women were literally killed for being witches because they had knowledge they weren't supposed to and were seen as godless because of it - that's oppression.  When women were literally a man's property and passed from one man to another and ownership denoted by a change of name - that's oppression. When women couldn't be educated, or be artists or could be raped in marriage until 1992 - that's oppression.  These things weren't holding society together at all. They were in place because women were seen as lesser (and I will say still are).

You are in a thread discussing feminism for fuck's sake. Cop on to yourself.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

7 minutes ago, Chaldanya said:

But it is now, right? So still not seeing your problem, tbh.

And you may be perfectly happy with the roles as they were in history and you may not see the oppression.  But when women were literally killed for being witches because they had knowledge they weren't supposed to and were seen as godless because of it - that's oppression.  When women were literally a man's property and passed from one man to another and ownership denoted by a change of name - that's oppression. When women couldn't be educated, or be artists or could be raped in marriage until 1992 - that's oppression.  These things weren't holding society together at all. They were in place because women were seen as lesser (and I will say still are).

You are in a thread discussing feminism for fuck's sake. Cop on to yourself.

i'm not happy with the roles from the past, but I think the narrative is incorrect and I find it a little toxic in itself. It paints a picture of the past of women being in virtual slavery, men as the masters. Its clearly hugely untrue and it poisons discussions we have about male female relationships now. The preconception is that men owned women.. yet when a man gets married he had to go out and work to provide for the woman he married, to keep her safe and alive, he was expected to DIE to protect her. That isn't a one sided deal, its a mutual deal which serves to work for both parties. 

It wasn't that men were educated and women were not.. the RICH were educated and everyone else wasn't. The actual narrative is one about wealth, not gender. 

I'm not saying that women weren't seen as inferior in some situations, that is true. But we also need to recognise that society had been built around protecting women, and using mens lives to do it.