Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

[Cubarey]

4 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

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]

I was never challenging your authority to moderate the thread as I specifically said. I therefore had no issue with it I asked the question because your statement could be miscontrued as also at least implying 2 and/or 3. Again my original post was not  intended to be a general refutation of the legitimacy of feminism I was focused on the issue of "bad masculinity" and the ability and or desirablity to eradicate it from our culture ( I think its generally reasonable to be in faovr of "feminism" but quible with a particular view of "masculinity" or the ability to eradicate it without great effort).

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

10 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

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

It suppression, but it has reasons for existing of course. We're talking about times where women needed to have multiple children to keep the population in surplus, where there was no contraception, where manual labour was necessary to make money. It was entirely necessary to split the roles, men went out to work, women stayed and looked after the family. That was literally the best way to do it. 

At the same time wars were happening all the time, you'd be called up to fight for your lord, your king, your country. It was expected and society held you in high esteem if you sacrificed yourself to protect others. Again it was necessary as manpower was what won wars. You see this becoming less of a thing when that changes and its technology that wins wars. WW1 was a game changer, then it didn't matter how many men you had, a machine gun can cut them all down. From that point self sacrifice became less heroic, it became pointless and almost stupid. 

[Chaldanya]

Just now, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

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 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. 

Women could be raped in marriage until 1994 (apologies, it's 94 and not 92). That's not being protected. Women were paying for their protection and provision with their bodies. And if you think women don't die in relationship, I've got news for you...

Also, whilst it may be true that the man had to work - you may find (and I'm sure Theda can back me up) that for poor people the women and children were working just as hard. (And not for nothing your bias around what constitutes work is telling. Raising children, making the house work and often taking in mending/washing etc for some extra money is still work no matter what you may think)

Given what you've said above and what I've said. Explain to me once more how expectations for men aren't toxic? What is your ACTUAL disagreement?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

2 minutes ago, Chaldanya said:

 

Given what you've said above and what I've said. Explain to me once more how expectations for men aren't toxic? What is your ACTUAL disagreement?

I'm disagreeing with the term Toxic, I simply dislike it. It implies that men of the past were in some way evil, and we are still carrying the same traits. Actually I don't think all these so called traits are toxic, but it depends which ones you are terming as toxic.


I also just wanted to point out that its the narrative that is constantly thrown at us that upsets me. It never mentions the millions of men who ACTUALLY DIED to protect women and children, who were sacrificing themselves, working in dangerous conditions to get enough money to keep women safe. The arguments are horribly one sided.

[mormont]

1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

That was literally the best way to do it. 

That's a contentious claim, to say the least.

How much social history have you actually read? Again, it seems to me you're vastly overestimating how common war was, underestimating how much women contributed to the family economically, and generally trying to make a one-size-fits-all caricature of 'history' that fits your point.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, mormont said:

That's a contentious claim, to say the least.

How much social history have you actually read? Again, it seems to me you're vastly overestimating how common war was, underestimating how much women contributed to the family economically, and generally trying to make a one-size-fits-all caricature of 'history' that fits your point.

Well I'm talking in general terms of course, but what would be the other way to frame society, considering women couldn't fight, were not as strong as men, men don't give birth etc?

[Chaldanya]

9 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I'm disagreeing with the term Toxic, I simply dislike it. It implies that men of the past were in some way evil, and we are still carrying the same traits. Actually I don't think all these so called traits are toxic, but it depends which ones you are terming as toxic.

Then you are not reading clearly at ALL.

Toxic masculinity is about the expectations set by society (including women) that define what it is to be a man and how men should define themselves). 

And I just want to hammer this point home.  In history women were not seen as people. It is why they could be owned. It is why they could be raped in marriage. It is why they couldn't own property. It is why everything they did own or were bequeathed passed to their husband on marriage (why do you think Elizabeth the first didn't want to marry?). Of course they were worshiped (you hope) and looked after (you hope) because that's what one does with their possessions.  And it is disingenuous at best to say otherwise. Or to say that the roles were beneficial.

Surely, that's a given in this thread. Surely?

[butterbumps!]

20 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I'm disagreeing with the term Toxic, I simply dislike it. It implies that men of the past were in some way evil, and we are still carrying the same traits. Actually I don't think all these so called traits are toxic, but it depends which ones you are terming as toxic.

Toxic masculinity doesn't imply that.    It refers to constructed attitudes that reinforce and understand masculinity to be violent, sexually aggressive, stoic/ unemotional.   Importantly, it's about the way the patriarchy has been and continues to be harmful to men.   The implication is that women have not been exclusive victims of the patriarchy.  

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, Lyanna Stark said:

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.

Which is precisely why I didn't mention it. It had already been covered and I wasn't professing to speak about the entirety of people who voted that way, merely a subset that were embodying rage in a particular component of the backlash.

ETA: Given that poster is a self professed wealthy man who thinks its just if 1 billion people starve because our system is set up to ensure they cant afford food, I dont think there is even a scrap of moral common ground to bother engaging in a discussion of how the world should be (if hes not trolling, which the use of SJW suggests otherwise)

52 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, 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.

Ok two things, the primary victims of toxic masculinity when I talk about it are men. Women wind up as secondary victims when men are unable to cope and lash out, or search for a way to assert their masculinity and do it by putting women down, but its men that are directly harmed by trying to meet impossible and unhealthy standards. Secondly what I'm talking about as toxic masculinity is mostly a relic of the last century. Its not anything that you're talking about, its the idea that men cannot have any intimacy except from their wife, its the idea that men can't feel emotions other than anger.

I've seen it argued relatively convincingly (by a man, focused on men's issues no less! Nothing at all to do with feminism) that its in large part a result of the two world wars. You had a huge amount of two generations within 30 years wiped out in warfare, and countless men growing up without fathers, or with fathers suffering massive burdens from serving in the wars, and in this gulf the healthy models of masculinity were lost. Instead we had the survivors of WW2 picking up the pieces through one of the most socially regressive times that has existed in the western world. Women, who had propped up the economy through the war, were pushed back into domestic lives and men were forced to roles that were no less rigid. Alcoholism and smoking were through the roof, because everyone was fucked. Then their children took a lot of drugs in rebellion, then forgot everything that came before and sat down to build this capitalist paradise we live in now. Yes I'm being flippant at this point, but its the general shape of what happened.

Look at the writing of Tolkein, the relationship of Frodo and Sam. Through modern eyes it seems like there may be more going on, most don't think that's actually the case but it doesn't fit our expectations of men's friendship, yet he was depicting a close friendship between two men that actually share intimacy as part of their friendship. That needs to become normal again. 

I'm not vilifying masculinity, I'm vilifying the bullshit that's been added on as part of it which shouldn't be there.

[butterbumps!]

2 hours ago, Cubarey said:

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". 

I don't think anyone is referring to masculinity as a whole as being toxic or harmful.  We are referring to specific facets and traits of "masculinity" that actually are toxic, such as the characteristics I mention in my previous post (sexual aggression, violence, and lack of emotion) that are harmful to both men and women.  

Per the earlier references, these toxic ideas about masculinity, held by both men and women, are contributing to considerable anxiety in the aforementioned working class in terms of maintaining traditional roles as breadwinners, as well as perpetuating the desire for men to take only certain jobs they deem appropriately masculine.  Jobs which are unfortunately no longer tenable in a changing economy, which does have, incidentally, increasing openings for work, though many consider themtoo effeminate (office work) and feminine to perform with dignity.    So harmful notions of masculinity are very much wrapped up in a class crisis right now.  

[Cubarey]

" Which is precisely why I didn't mention it. It had already been covered and I wasn't professing to speak about the entirety of people who voted that way, merely a subset that were embodying rage in a particular component of the backlash. "

 

I acknowledge I had not read the entirety of the thread and therefore my comments on that part of your arguement misrepresneted your likely intent in mentioning white workiung class males without explaining  how the the fact that a majority of white working class women also failed to support Clinton.

 

"Given that poster is a self professed wealthy man who thinks its just if 1 billion people starve because our system is set up to ensure they cant afford food, I dont think there is even a scrap of moral common ground to bother engaging in a discussion of how the world should be (if hes not trolling, which the use of SJW suggests otherwise)"

 

You purposely misstate my point of view. As I said in the other discussion my view as that shortterm feeding of people in regions that can not feed themselves is necessary but unless something is done to curtail the growth in population in those areas and increase their production of food, we are only postponing the time when there will be mass starvation. And yes part of my analyis is economic. It costs a lot of money and resources to grow and provide food and unless the food can be paid for by those who consume it western societies will not be able to "afford" feeding the rest of the world for an extended period of time. That may not be a very altruistic viewpoint but it's own that is shared by anyone who cares to study the costs of food production.

[Lyanna Stark]

46 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I'm disagreeing with the term Toxic, I simply dislike it. It implies that men of the past were in some way evil, and we are still carrying the same traits. Actually I don't think all these so called traits are toxic, but it depends which ones you are terming as toxic.

I'm sorry, this thread is not here to cater to your feelings. The fact that you feel this is wrong doesn't make you right.

Can I also please reiterate that articles on these subjects have already been posted. Please. Read. Them. You clearly haven't since we have to explain basic concepts which were described, in depth, in these articles. This ends up being ridiculous, non-productive discussions where research and informed discussion on feminism and toxic masculinity (because yes, there is one and it harms men) is pitted against feelings that "I dislike it". Those two are not equivalent. Karaddin and butterbumps! have both posted clear and concise explanations to the articles previously linked, which you yourself could have read, had you bothered to, before posting and sharing your feelings on this subject with us.

There is a large body of research available that supports the articles we are discussing. Unfortunately, it seems the thread "Do we live in a post-truth world?" is prophetic.

The fact that you are, seriously, coming into a discussion pertaining to Feminism and loudly stating that women were not oppressed is not only baffling, it is uninformed.  That you come in here to express that this was for the good based on how the population needed to grow and other random things not only beggars belief, but clearly show that to you, women are for breeding, and they aren't truly people with their own mind and body. That you continue to hold to this uninformed belief means you are either trolling, or you honestly believe that women were better off as chattel. Have you by chance read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaids Tale"? Because it seems to me, you don't object to women-as-breeders, so it should be just a neutral retelling of history to you, instead of something extremely oppressive.

Further, if we go back to what I quoted you saying: yes, men oppress women. Does that hurt your feelings? Let me again quote Margaret Atwood:

Quote

“Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”

 

Now, should you wish to continue this discussion in a productive manner, I again strongly recommend you to actually read the linked material. Because as much as your feelings are relevant to you, they are not relevant to this thread, and they are not based on reason, research or information.

[Jo498]

Because it was mentioned above, it seems that an aspect of masculinity that has changed fairly recently (if this true, I am not sure), is that men have only "buddies", no "intimate friends" and therefore need (and tend to abuse) women for emotional intimacy because it is deemed "unmanly" to share emotions at all or certainly not with male friends. This was definitely different for quite a bit of the 19th century. Men were often very emotional and had deep same-sex friendships. I don't know how and when it changed but this aspect seems to have died in the trenches of WW I or maybe even earlier and there might also have been national differences. And while I wonder if this was a European/milieu-related thing it seems that the partial reversal to reactionary roles in some respects (macho men and beauty-obsessed women) might be a reaction after the "softie" males of the 1980s.

Another more recent occurence is that children's toys were far more "unisex" in my childhood in the late 1970s. Sure, there were some boy/girl specific toys but a lot was de facto unisex. But because one can sell far more toys if they are gender specific this has drastically changed in the last decades and pink princesses abound. Maybe related to this is a disturbing and disgusting sexualisation of prepubescent girls by the toy/cosmetic/clothes industry.

So *some* things can change fairly quickly (and I admit this as someone who thinks that most of contemporary social constructivism/blank slatism is wrong and that for many things there are strong biological predispositions that are very hard to change).

[Lyanna Stark]

18 minutes ago, Cubarey said:

I acknowledge I had not read the entirety of the thread and therefore my comments on that part of your arguement misrepresneted your likely intent in mentioning white workiung class males without explaining  how the the fact that a majority of white working class women also failed to support Clinton.

Then I suggest you actually read before you open your cake hole. Which btw was specified as one of the rules for this thread in post 1.

I also suggest, AGAIN, that you read post 2 in this thread, which deals specifically with why working class women voted for Trump. This is basic feminist theory. It is not rocket science. It has been well known since the 90s.

Read. The. Linked. Articles. For. The. Love. Of. God. And then the related posts, laying out *in detail* how these are connected.

 

[Chaldanya]

7 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

Because it was mentioned above, it seems that an aspect of masculinity that has changed fairly recently (if this true, I am not sure), is that men have only "buddies", no "intimate friends" and therefore need (and tend to abuse) women for emotional intimacy because it is deemed "unmanly" to share emotions at all or certainly not with male friends. This was definitely different for quite a bit of the 19th century. Men were often very emotional and had deep same-sex friendships. I don't know how and when it changed but this aspect seems to have died in the trenches of WW I or maybe even earlier and there might also have been national differences. And while I wonder if this was a European/milieu-related thing it seems that the partial reversal to reactionary roles in some respects (macho men and beauty-obsessed women) might be a reaction after the "softie" males of the 1980s..

I find this unspeakably sad and it sounds lonely.  I have a few really close intimate friends outside of my relationship with my husband that help me keep an even keel. I hope that as I bring up my son I can find a way not to let this filter through and he has the same fulfilment that I find with other platonic intimate relationships./end non-productive contribution to thread

[Relic]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

It never mentions the millions of men who ACTUALLY DIED to protect women and children,

From other men, presumably? 

[Cubarey]

18 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

Because it was mentioned above, it seems that an aspect of masculinity that has changed fairly recently (if this true, I am not sure), is that men have only "buddies", no "intimate friends" and therefore need (and tend to abuse) women for emotional intimacy because it is deemed "unmanly" to share emotions at all or certainly not with male friends. This was definitely different for quite a bit of the 19th century. Men were often very emotional and had deep same-sex friendships. I don't know how and when it changed but this aspect seems to have died in the trenches of WW I or maybe even earlier and there might also have been national differences. And while I wonder if this was a European/milieu-related thing it seems that the partial reversal to reactionary roles in some respects (macho men and beauty-obsessed women) might be a reaction after the "softie" males of the 1980s.

Another more recent occurence is that children's toys were far more "unisex" in my childhood in the late 1970s. Sure, there were some boy/girl specific toys but a lot was de facto unisex. But because one can sell far more toys if they are gender specific this has drastically changed in the last decades and pink princesses abound. Maybe related to this is a disturbing and disgusting sexualisation of prepubescent girls by the toy/cosmetic/clothes industry.

So *some* things can change fairly quickly (and I admit this as someone who thinks that most of contemporary social constructivism/blank slatism is wrong and that for many things there are strong biological predispositions that are very hard to change).

With all do respects I think you are confusing two different things. Generally in western cultures (in this I include latin American cultures) it's considered to be weak for a man to be "emotional" in public. A man would thus not show the depth of his feelings to his "buddies". It's my experience however, that the vast majority of men even in very "Macho" cultures will reveal their true feelings to a few close friends. I do however, recognize certain cultural differences as Brits of a certain social class and many WASP American men follow the philosophy of a "stiff upper lip" to an extent not generally followed by Latins or men who are "white" but  "ethnic". 

[Lyanna Stark]

23 minutes ago, Relic said:

From other men, presumably? 

Quite.

It also assumes that going to war is both an objectively good deed (it is not) and that men went to war to save women and children and not because those in power ordered them to go to war and die. Also not necessarily true, or even mostly true. In fact, as far as I know, extremely few wars were started because women and children needed urgent saving, but because of religion/money/political power games/colonialism/etc.

War is, on average, extremely harmful to men and have in the past wiped out whole generations. To praise it as Channel4JonSnow is doing is a sign of precisely what he, himself, is trying to disprove: facets of toxic masculinity (glorification of war and violence) is more harmful to men than anyone else (unless you are really, really fond of dying in the mud in Flanders, perhaps).

[Relic]

1 minute ago, Lyanna Stark said:

Quite.

It also assumes that going to war is both an objectively good deed (it is not) and that men went to war to save women and children and not because those in power ordered them to go to war and die. Also not necessarily true, or even mostly true. In fact, as far as I know, extremely few wars were started because women and children needed urgent saving, but because of religion/money/political power games/colonialism/etc.

War is, on average, extremely harmful to men and have in the past wiped out whole generations. To praise it as Channel4JonSnow is doing is a sign of precisely what he, himself, is trying to disprove: facets of toxic masculinity (glorification of war and violence) is more harmful to men than anyone else (unless you are really, really fond of dying in the mud in Flanders, perhaps).

^ all of this. 100%. 

[Xray the Enforcer]

2 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

(unless you are really, really fond of dying in the mud in Flanders, perhaps).

Yo our flying cars weren't going to destroy themselves.