Anti-Feminist Anger

[Chaldanya]

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.

Oops, I'm not that much of a ball-busting feminist!!

I have a huge problem with the colours available for babies clothes. Seriously you have a hard time getting anything not-pink for girls. But I tell ya when my goddaughter was born I went crazy on that shit. I bought her frilly dresses with matching pants in pastely shades of pink and purple. And I didn't even hand in my feminist card! /confession

Seriously, for a minute: Did she like it? Did you get her the pony when she really want some cool GI Joe stuff? And y'know what that's your call to make no matter how you answered the questions just now. But just to be wary that the choices we make about a whole heap of stuff is informed by this sexist society. I grew up in it just like you did. Just like she will; I just hope it's better for her than it is for us.

N

[Lord Mord]

Tempra,

Keep pretending that feminists have not played a role in creating the notion that feminists are "shrill evil man-hating extremist harpies!!"

Do you imagine for one moment, had feminism not had its share of willing participants in that stereotype:

1) that women would enjoy anything near the equality they do today?, or

2) that the establishment wouldn't have propagated the stereotype to describe them anyway?

[kungtotte]

Hit enter too soon, full reply incoming.

[kungtotte]

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.

Oh holy shit. I didn't really give a crap about the issue at hand, but seriously?! This is what you're giving me?

One line is in question in the anthem, I quoted it above in the thread already, but it demands patriotic love from the sons of Canada. It might be my Europeanness talking here, but in my eyes this really isn't something to be all guts and glory over. When an anthem is calling for your patriotism it usually means it needs you to be the meat shield in some war, and the word itself has been appropriated by various xenophobic organisations and as such it should be eyed dubiously. Do you understand what I'm saying? The obligation the anthem places on men is something negative.

The anthem emphatically does not state patriotism for men and kitchen-duty for the women, so would you please stop acting like it does? The way it is worded means it could be construed as sexist, but you'd have to put on your sexism-spotting-goggles and sort of squint at it for that to work out, and thinking that an athlete at the Olympic level is somehow demeaned for having to sing about Canada's sons is so completely loopy that I barely know where to begin. I will bet you anything that the women who took the gold in ice hockey were more put out by the fact that they got completely blasted for celebrating with cigars and beers rather than the fact that they had to sing that line in the song.

No, I don't think the anthem is particularly sexist. So would you please get the fuck off of your pedestal of judgement?

ETA

My bad. In all my ranty goodness I managed to double-post.

[Guest Raidne]

The anthem emphatically does not state patriotism for men and kitchen-duty for the women, so would you please stop acting like it does?

You know just as well as anyone else reading this thread that I haven't been arguing anything of the sort, but you might want to ask yourself, in the spirit of the thread, why you need to pretend that I have. Or that I'm on some kind of pedastal of judgment. I mean, I even started off phrasing my example with "Ummm....guys" and other passive phrases so I would be as incapable of coming off like a harpy as possible.

The only difference between the anthem and my voting analogy is a matter of scale. That's it. Your argument is just as illogical, although I see you've switched to some new ones, now. That's probably a good call.

[kungtotte]

If by arguments you mean examples, yes, they've changed. My position and general line of reasoning has remained consistent throughout the thread.

[Chaldanya]

Do you understand what I'm saying? The obligation the anthem places on men is something negative.

Y'know since feminism was a movement there have been naysayers stating that actually feminists don't want equality at all. What we want is all of the good stuff and none of the bad stuff [/paraphrasing]. Case in point when people point out front line combat or on-the-job-fatalities when talking about equality in the workplace. Just fyi, this is what your argument reeks of...sorta. "Why would you want equality in that, it's baaaaaddddd". I. Don't. Care. With the word sons, it's ruling out over half of the population. Call it a sin of omission if you like. In this day and age; is it that really appropriate??

N

[MinDonner]

One line is in question in the anthem, I quoted it above in the thread already, but it demands patriotic love from the sons of Canada. It might be my Europeanness talking here, but in my eyes this really isn't something to be all guts and glory over. When an anthem is calling for your patriotism it usually means it needs you to be the meat shield in some war, and the word itself has been appropriated by various xenophobic organisations and as such it should be eyed dubiously. Do you understand what I'm saying? The obligation the anthem places on men is something negative.

You're kind of missing the point of equality, then. And you do realise that pretty much exactly the same argument has been used to promote sexist policies in everything from voting to boxing to combat? Why, of course you dear ladies don't need the pain and responsibility of voting! Why would you want to risk death in combat anyway when the boys can do it all for you?

If an obligation is wrong, then remove it. But if it's acceptable for the men, then it should be acceptable for all. We don't need your damn protection from equality, thanks.

Edit: hahaha, and what Silanah said!

[Tempra]

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.

Strawman much? Besides, why do men think feminists are unattractive? Besides the obvious that men are weak creatures who don't like their privilege being challenged.

Why do women prefer egalitarianism? Could it possibly be because they do not want to associate with those who call themselves feminist?

And i'm glad you could distill down to a singular reason why women, who agree with "feminist policies," choose to forgo the feminist label! ETA: But hey, blame everyone else, it makes your own mistakes seems insignificant. Honest!

[Chaldanya]

MD always says it so much better. So I think in future I may just tell her what I'd like to say and let her go at it!!:D

N

[Guest Raidne]

I wouldn't vote for a law that excluded women from paying taxes. I wouldn't even vote for a law that allowed a tax credit for women for child care expenses. I would support a tax credit for parents for child care expenses.

[Tempra]

Tempra,

Do you imagine for one moment, had feminism not had its share of willing participants in that stereotype:

1) that women would enjoy anything near the equality they do today?, or

2) that the establishment wouldn't have propagated the stereotype to describe them anyway?

There is absolutely no way for anyone to honestly answer these questions.

[Guest Raidne]

Strawman much? Besides, why do men think feminists are unattractive? Besides the obvious that men are weak creatures who don't like their privilege being challenged.

Why do women prefer egalitarianism? Could it possibly be because they do not want to associate with those who call themselves feminist?

And i'm glad you could distill down to a singular reason why women, who agree with "feminist policies," choose to forgo the feminist label!

I am getting really tired of being misrepresented.

In my experience, some people prefer the label "egalitarian" because it emphasis the need for equality of the sexes without minimizing the ways that sexism adversely affects men. However, I've never heard of an "egaliarian" who was unsympathetic to feminism or thought feminists were teh evil and didn't want to associate with them, or whatever. And I said right in my post that I thought that was a valid criticism. And I said some women don't agree with feminism, and that's valid also.

{i]But when women who agree with feminism refuse to call themselves feminists for other reasons, yeah, I think the way men react has a lot to do with it.

[kungtotte]

I. Don't. Care. With the word sons, it's ruling out over half of the population. Call it a sin of omission if you like. In this day and age; is it that really appropriate??

My position has been, from my first post in this thread, that this particular case is such a fucking bullshit trivial issue compared to the huge pile of other issues that calling it sexist is borderline offensive.

For example: the women's hockey team. The men could celebrate with all the beer they wanted and nobody cared, but when the women did it was apparently the worst thing that ever happened in the history of hockey, but everybody's hung up about that damned anthem?

Get a sense of perspective, is what I'm saying.

[Guest Raidne]

Get a sense of perspective, is what I'm saying.

To which I say, stop telling us what our perspective should be.

[Lord Mord]

Tempra,

There is absolutely no way for anyone to honestly answer these questions.

Well, I give you the first one. Who knows what the effects of a more passive movement might have been?

But the second ... why can't you answer it honestly? I mean, if you think it wouldn't have happened, then say so. I admit I loaded the question with my incredulity, but I can be wrong and I'd like to know it if I am.

OTOH, if you concede that it would have happened anyway, then what difference does it make that there've been some feminists who have participated in the distortion?

[Chaldanya]

My position has been, from my first post in this thread, that this particular case is such a fucking bullshit trivial issue compared to the huge pile of other issues that calling it sexist is borderline offensive.

For example: the women's hockey team. The men could celebrate with all the beer they wanted and nobody cared, but when the women did it was apparently the worst thing that ever happened in the history of hockey, but everybody's hung up about that damned anthem?

Get a sense of perspective, is what I'm saying.

How do you know that the women involved in this campaign also don't campaign for other things that you don't find offensive to care about? This argument is also well known on the derailing for dummies website and all over feminist blogs from here to there. What you're doing is dismissing the very real issue which is this feeds into the sexist culture and sometime baby steps are needed. But that's fine you continue going around saying that it's borderline offensive to you.

And also one more time. It's trivial to YOU. But I note that you are male (from your profile) so when things are referred to in the default language of his/him you are automatically included. I'm not. It's not trivial to me. And to echo Raidne, you don't get to tell women what their experience of living in a sexist culture is and is not.

But we're just going 'round in circles as you appear to have a sincere and massive empathy fail.

N

[Blaine]

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?

There is definitely a circular effect in tastes/styles being created, then being fed back to people, and so on. The point though, is that ultimately consumers decide everything. Whether they are informed primarily by whatever someone insanely creative in brooklyn is doing - or whether they are informed by what their mom and dad wore 20 years ago or an ad they saw on Tuesday, their tastes create the demand.

Smart marketing merely makes the most of existing demand, it almost never can create it out of thin air. Like when Coke went to a "new flavor", they created some trial demand, but ultimately it was a failure.

So in answer to your question, will seeing gender-neutral marketing inspire more gender-neutral marketing? Maybe. The trends have been heading that way for years. But it won't be "the standard" until everyone in middle america wants that, too. If they ever do.

Edited to add: I'm obviously talking purely about American tastes. The rest of the world varies by culture and is way outside my area of knowledge.

[Blaine]

And also one more time. It's trivial to YOU. But I note that you are male (from your profile) so when things are referred to in the default language of his/him you are automatically included. I'm not. It's not trivial to me. And to echo Raidne, you don't get to tell women what their experience of living in a sexist culture is and is not.

But we're just going 'round in circles as you appear to have a sincere and massive empathy fail.

So the only possible reason he could find this a trivial issue is because he is male? Oh, and also he can't comment on whether he thinks it's a trivial issue for the same reason?

Seems totally fair.

[Tempra]

Tempra,

Well, I give you the first one. Who knows what the effects of a more passive movement might have been?

I think this is a false dichotomy. I don't think feminists get a bad stereotype solely because they advocate their position zealously. You can argue that women should be afforded every opportunity to work whatever position they want without claiming that women who want to stay at home and have children betray the female sex. The first part makes you an advocate; the second part makes you a "shrill harpie" to use someone else's terminology.

If I had to wager a guess, i'd say that the movement would be as successful. Why? Because in any movement, the radicals are the most visible, but society can easily dismiss those people as radicals. It is when a movement becomes so pervasive within society, way beyond the point of being able to dismiss the crazies, that real changes occur. We can argue whether it would reach that point without the crazies, but that is a bit of a chicken/egg argument.

But the second ... why can't you answer it honestly? I mean, if you think it wouldn't have happened, then say so. I admit I loaded the question with my incredulity, but I can be wrong and I'd like to know it if I am.

OTOH, if you concede that it would have happened anyway, then what difference does it make that there've been some feminists who have participated in the distortion?

Because I don't know. I mean, whenever one group advocates change, the party seeking to maintain the status quo and the party seeking to change the status quo will throw barbs back and forth. I have no doubt that would happen regardless of whether the herstory/womyn brand of feminists were part of the group seeking change. Would those attacks be exactly (more or less) the same had those feminists been part of the movement? I have no clue.