Anti-Feminist Anger

[john]

There's two things I don't quite understand.

First, the suggestion that we should change gender interactions from infancy. Encourage girls to play with trucks etc. How is this better than simply encouraging attitudes of acceptance? Gender equality is not gender neutrality.

Second, if we are going to be campaigning for change anyway, would we want to participate in the same system that's oppressing us in the first place. Only altered to be nominally more representative. Specific to the national anthem thing, why is lack of equality bad but jingoism is ok.

[Shryke]

Did I say I was surprised? But as others have said, the overreaction of people saying "NO THIS IS TRIVIAL SO STOP FUSSING OMG WHY ARE YOU MAKING SUCH A BIG DEAL" is usually way disproportionate to the original complaint, which then fuels the usual argument about privilege, wilful blindness, etc etc etc.... if it's so damn trivial then shut up and make the change already!

If it's so damn trivial, why do you want to make the change in the first place?

The argument works both ways and the people against change have inertia on their side.

The resistance to the change isn't really that disproportionate (most of the time) when you realise that most of what their complaining about isn't what you want to change, but the fact that you want to change it. It's the intent, not the change that makes people annoyed. And that's why it generally ends up reflecting back on feminism (because feminism is where said intent comes from).

You wanna change something trivial and alot of people will just thinking your a whiner. And thus, that feminism is nothing but a bunch of whiners. And people don't like whiners.

The change itself is jumped over because people's distaste with the intent behind the change overshadows it.

And that's not even touching on people not wanting to change stuff in the first place (which is actually resistance to the change itself). And this only reflects even more poorly on the trivial change and thus the intent behind it and it gets even worse.

To get back to the National Anthem example, you are asking to change a song people feel strongly about for "no good reason". And that's why people react strongly against it and hence, react strongly against feminism for bringing it up.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

So "being inclusive" is "no good reason"?

And, once again (for emphasis) THE ORIGINAL LYRICS didn't specify gender at all in that first stanza. THESE ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL LYRICS. Given that these are not immutable, surely that reduces some of the inertia?

[Chaldanya]

First, the suggestion that we should change gender interactions from infancy. Encourage girls to play with trucks etc. How is this better than simply encouraging attitudes of acceptance? Gender equality is not gender neutrality.

My personal take on it is this (and reading around various feminst blogs has informed this opinion). It's not about encouraging girls to play with trucks or boys to play with Barbie dolls. It's saying that no matter if you're a boy, girl or intersexed you can play with any damn toy you please without it having a value judgement of 'oh she's a tomboy' or 'oh he's a cissy'. Or casually re-inforcing these genderised behaviours by taking the doll away from the boy and giving him a truck with the phrase 'this is what you should be playing with'.

N

[kungtotte]

And so are they. I don't understand why that is so difficult to grasp for you. Is it just that you only want feminists to react in the ways that you do?

I'm not trying to dictate anyone's actions, but I call things as I see them and in my eyes this whole debate about the anthem is silly.

You still haven't addressed the points that I raised upthread about exclusive language feeding into the inherent sexism in society (and vice versa) - we've got to break that cycle somewhere.

I did say something about it, but looking back I don't think I was very clear. I think we should be trying to break the cycle in a different place, is all. When you go hunting for every piece of exclusionary sexist language out there and try to eradicate it you are going after the result-side of the cycle. This language pops up because of the sexism, the sexism doesn't pop up because of the language. What I'm trying to say is that I think we will achieve faster and better results by doing it "my" way, not that it is the right way to do things.

I think we are better served by doing away with the pink is for girls, blue is for boys type of marketing that permeates our culture. It starts with toys and baby clothes, but really everything matters. TV, books, movies, hobbies. I've only read a handful of fantasy books in which there were any good female protagonists, and fantasy is a genre in which you can do anything! Paksenarrion is probably the best example I can think of right now. By eschewing the traditionally female role in society she becomes a well-respected warrior that is a bona-fide warrior. She swings a sword, kicks some orc ass, gets her ass kicked and gets back up again without ever turning into a damsel in distress.

We need more books like the books about Paksenarrion if we really want to fix this whole sexism thing. And please for the love of Bruce, no more Twilight. D: Stephanie Meyer is who we really should be fighting when it comes to sexism, if you want to talk bang for your buck.

And as a collorary you haven't addressed Raidne's point about a woman standing on the podium getting an olympic medal and singing a song that excludes her. Now maybe the latter part is for the other thread.

I think it definitely is for the other thread. I will say this much though: I don't think the song excludes her at all. One line in the song states an obligation for men to do something, but it doesn't exclude women from doing the same thing. v0v

Or casually re-inforcing these genderised behaviours by taking the doll away from the boy and giving him a truck with the phrase 'this is what you should be playing with'.

I think marketing has to take a large part of the blame here. Even when parents let their kids do whatever they want, the kids will still be influenced by all the marketing out there. Only boys play with hot-wheels cars in the TV ads, only girls play with the Barbie dolls. There's also a distinct colour-scheme and effects-palette attached to each gender. Girl commercials will get pink and red shades and sparkly effects, and sort of a tinkly music. Boy commercials will get blue and black shades, fiery effects and an electric guitar soundtrack.

This is what's broken, and it's why boys and girls seem to prefer cars/dolls by "nature".

[Raskolnikov]

I agree that in the national anthem example, the change is indeed trivial. But the point is that our world view is shaped by a patriarchal environment that views the male sex the de facto one, with the female sex almost an afterthought at best (the second sex), and viewing it as an Other at worst. Like the pronouns 'he' or 'his' when talking about a hypothetical person. I think that this is what another poster meant with the trees and forest analogy. So some people think that there is nothing wrong with the message - that the problem lies with the minute details - that is precisely the point. Why is it that there is general acceptance of gender equality, but when you get to the nitty-gritty, suddenly you're a whiner?

[Shryke]

So "being inclusive" is "no good reason"?

And, once again (for emphasis) THE ORIGINAL LYRICS didn't specify gender at all in that first stanza. THESE ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL LYRICS. Given that these are not immutable, surely that reduces some of the inertia?

AFAIK they've been the lyrics for at least 30 years. That's a long time. So no, it doesn't really reduce the inertia that much.

But regardless, this isn't about the anthem itself, but about how people react to proposed changes of that sort. There's another thread if you want to talk about that.

[kungtotte]

Some people nailed that pretty good, I think. Galactus for example:

I think the issue is that feminism is a very... Uncompromising ideology (and rightly so, IMHO) it points out (often quite effectively) how YOU are helping perpetuate the system. While it discusses structures it tends to point out that YOU, personally, are a part of these structures. A lot of people react violently to this.

This is emphasised even more when you're talking about a national symbol like the anthem. When you tell people that they should change their national anthem, they won't listen to the reasons you bring to the table, because all they will hear is someone attacking their national anthem, and how dare you?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

AFAIK they've been the lyrics for at least 30 years. That's a long time. So no, it doesn't really reduce the inertia that much.

But regardless, this isn't about the anthem itself, but about how people react to proposed changes of that sort. There's another thread if you want to talk about that.

You brought up the anthem example again in here, so I replied to it.

Some people nailed that pretty good, I think. Galactus for example:

This is emphasised even more when you're talking about a national symbol like the anthem. When you tell people that they should change their national anthem, they won't listen to the reasons you bring to the table, because all they will hear is someone attacking their national anthem, and how dare you?

TBH, I do appreciate what you're saying, but frankly I think most of us are already aware of that. Those of us who've ever tried to make changes such as this, anyway. Asking nicely doesn't work, and telling us we should "just do something different" isn't helpful, so where do we go from here? (Not that I think you're telling us we shouldn't want change. Just that, well, we know people don't like change in general. So... now what?)

[Shryke]

You brought up the anthem example again in here, so I replied to it.

I brought it up to illustrate why people feel resistant to change, not to talk about whether the change is worth making or not.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Right, but you haven't shown that it's actually "no good reason". The bulk of the resistance boils down to "I don't want to change".

Even the "good reasons" that have been presented with the request for change are just dismissed. This applies to many situations like this, not just the Canadian national anthem, so I'll say to you what I said to kungtotte - how do we get these small but important changes made?

[Shryke]

Right, but you haven't shown that it's actually "no good reason". The bulk of the resistance boils down to "I don't want to change".

Even the "good reasons" that have been presented with the request for change are just dismissed. This applies to many situations like this, not just the Canadian national anthem, so I'll say to you what I said to kungtotte - how do we get these small but important changes made?

It's a trivial change. That's the point. It's not that important.

Certainly not to most people anyway.

[kiko]

Generally, as seen here, they reduce the actual argument (that maybe parents shouldn't only buy their daughters "girly" things, but could actually enhance their mental development but giving them trucks and legos in addition to My Little Pony) to something untenable and silly (you shouldn't buy your daughter dolls).

Then they get defensive.

After all, it's hard to defend the idea that only buying your daughter one kind of toy is good for her mental development.

True story. I bought the girl this toy for christmas: A pink pony with a princess coronet that you can dress up and comb. My first thought was: Oh purty! My second one was: Silanah will most likely kill me for it.

[Tempra]

Please, define the "forest" in this current discussion.

That feminists have played a part in alienating and discouraging women from accepting the label "feminists." Over 70% of women reject the feminist label (see the prior link for citation).

[Tempra]

I agree with her and and I'm 100% man, bro! :lol:

It does seem that the Anti-Feminist movement seems quite the same. Harkening back to the time of Wally and the Beaver. To the better times, perhaps when women, blacks, greasers, etc. knew their place. :D

Ah yes, if you disagree with feminists, over anything, it is because you want to see them back in the kitchen.

Right.

[Guest Raidne]

First, the suggestion that we should change gender interactions from infancy. Encourage girls to play with trucks etc. How is this better than simply encouraging attitudes of acceptance? Gender equality is not gender neutrality.

*Sigh* No, no, that's not the suggestion. Girls are encouraged to play with dolls, boys are encouraged to play with trucks - by advertising, by grandparents from previous generations, friends, and by a million other social cues. So, if you want your daughter to be able to identify her interests on a nuetral field, you expose her to a range of toys and activities.

Second, if we are going to be campaigning for change anyway, would we want to participate in the same system that's oppressing us in the first place. Only altered to be nominally more representative. Specific to the national anthem thing, why is lack of equality bad but jingoism is ok.

Oh fine, we'll just give up on gender equality until the rest of the world is perfect. Spoken just like a union representative from the middle of last century.

I think we are better served by doing away with the pink is for girls, blue is for boys type of marketing that permeates our culture. It starts with toys and baby clothes, but really everything matters. TV, books, movies, hobbies. I've only read a handful of fantasy books in which there were any good female protagonists, and fantasy is a genre in which you can do anything!

Well, the reason the focus is on the other stuff is that it can actually be achieved through legislative action.

I think it definitely is for the other thread. I will say this much though: I don't think the song excludes her at all. One line in the song states an obligation for men to do something, but it doesn't exclude women from doing the same thing. v0v

F*ing easy for you to say.

That feminists have played a part in alienating and discouraging women from accepting the label "feminists." Over 70% of women reject the feminist label (see the prior link for citation).

Sure, to the extent that Katie Roiphe and Camille Pagila are feminists, then, yes, feminists have played a - deliberate, even - part in alienating and discouraging women from accepting the label feminists.

And surely the fact that men go on and on about how unattractive "feminists" are has nothing to do with it. I think some women reject the term "feminism" in favor of "egalitarianism" and a few other valid reasons (including, you know, that they don't actually support the idea of feminism), but I'm going to put myself out there and say it: if you, as a woman, support most "feminist" policies, but reject the label "feminist" because you - supposedly - don't like what it has come to stand for, I call bullshit. You rejected it because the men you hang out with don't like it, plain and simple - you rejected it because it's not palatable.

You don't see people who fight for racial equality dropping out of the game because of the black panthers.

[Blaine]

I think marketing has to take a large part of the blame here. Even when parents let their kids do whatever they want, the kids will still be influenced by all the marketing out there. Only boys play with hot-wheels cars in the TV ads, only girls play with the Barbie dolls. There's also a distinct colour-scheme and effects-palette attached to each gender. Girl commercials will get pink and red shades and sparkly effects, and sort of a tinkly music. Boy commercials will get blue and black shades, fiery effects and an electric guitar soundtrack.

It's so easy to blame marketing for everything. Why not? We're used to it.

But you're shooting at the cart, not the horse. Fact is, most consumers want pink frilly princess shit for girls and tough, flame-detailed shit for boys. If consumers wanted something else, marketers would be on that faster than Usain Bolt.

Because that's what marketing generally does - follow consumer tastes. Not create them (despite their own hype about being trend-setters, they are most assuredly trend-followers).

Already you're seeing gender-neutral baby and child options that weren't there 20 years ago. We regularly buy T-shirts and decor that is theoretically "for boys", but that our daughter loves without losing any bit of her femininity. Now we're seeing makeup advertised to boys.

Is it 100% equal? Not even close. Do the majority of consumers want 100% equality? Not even close, either.

But if they did, it would be there. On the other hand if a marketer - say, Gerber, decided to abandon gender specific kid's marketing to be fair - then they would suffer huge losses, because that's not what people want. Yet.

[kungtotte]

F*ing easy for you to say.

Did you really have to go there?

ETA

@Blaine, wouldn't you say that one informs the other, and that as we see more gender-neutral marketing people will respond to this and in turn desire more gender-neutral marketing?

[Smashing Young Man]

Feminists are so much easier to get in the sack. From a single guy's perspective, what's there to be angry about?

[Guest Raidne]

Did you really have to go there?

Don't blame me. You're the one who said women shouldn't feel excluded because the song imposed a "duty" on men, and at the worst, left them out of it. Yes, I'm sure it is so freeing for an athlete standing on the podium to be at liberty to loathe and despise the country who's uniform they are wearing. Excellent point, all around.

Hey, I mean, why don't we run ads during the next election encouraging the country's "sons" to vote? I mean, at best, women would know they're included, and at worst, we're just not making it mandatory for them to do anything, right?

I was nice.

Feminists are so much easier to get in the sack. From a single guy's perspective, what's there to be angry about?

Hmmm...we may have gone off the rails there, also. About to start a thread on that.