Feminist fiction: The Awakening, The Color Purple, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, The Bell Jar, The Handmaid's Tale, etc.
Feminist films: https://np.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/ebxdeu/what_are_the_best_feminist_moviesfilms_what_are/
But if you want an accessible book, I'd recommend We Should All Be Feminists by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.
> Why is it such a common trend (from what I've seen) for many straight women to be progressive in virtually every other issue, but regressive when it comes to this?
I think you will have to provide stronger evidence than just your personal perception. As a rule, as societies become more egalitarian, traditional mating preferences seem to erode. See this study, for example. You can find a high-level overview here. Excerpt:
> "Then, Zentner and Eagly looked at individuals. Sex differences in what people want in a mate diminish not only when societies become more gender-egalitarian but also when individuals embrace more gender-equal attitudes. Men and women with traditional mindsets prefer partners that suit the old-style exchange of male breadwinning for female fertility and domestic skills. But those preferences have weakened considerably among people who favor gender equality."
Obviously, such a study is not the be-all and end-all of partner preferences, but it still beats personal impressions, which are usually colored by availability bias.
Also, it might be useful to subject your impression to a reality check. There simply aren't that many men who meet those exacting standards, and if women actually insisted on those, the vast majority would be single.
Actually the research is there and a lot of is very reputable stuff carried out by psychologists with controls and peer review and so on.
For example did you know that when a woman is taking a test in a male-dominated room of people also taking the test, her score (once you control for natural aptitude which the researchers are able to do statistically) is inversely proportional to the number of men in the room?
Stuff like this is all around us. Men don't know it and don't see it, and therefore don't think it exists. Women know it exists, but men don't listen to us.
I'm not sure if that's exactly the case; English is a mishmash of so many languages, and has been for a thousand years. In its early days, many words were still gendered, like we see in Romance languages today (such as Spanish).
It's been almost twenty years since I took a class in Old/Middle English language, and it wasn't my area of study, but if I remember correctly, nouns had a complex declension/conjugation just like verbs do, so basically you just had a base word and added the appropriately gendered suffix (or occasionally a prefix) to it based on the assumed gender of the person to whom you were referring. Again, I'm rusty on details, but if you're interested, this book covers it in Section Three, sections 41-2: The History of the English Language.
ETA: Though you're right, the masculine was probably always technically the default, but I think it wasn't something really thought about...I'm more interested now in the question as to why we lost the feminine versions rather than the masculine ones. I kind of like some of the feminine terms, especially the ones that end with an -x ending, like "aviatrix."
There are groups out there like Just Detention, https://justdetention.org that work on ending sexual assault in prisons.
Assault in prisons is a complex issue. There is assault from inmates, and assault from the correctional officers and other prison authorities. There is also data on a number of ‘false reports’ of rape in prison, but most prisoner rights advocates are suspicious of this as it is the justice system investigating itself and there is a strong reason they would want to hide poor procedures ensuring inmate safety and abusive officers remaining in the system, especially in for profit prisons.
If this is an issue you care about, I highly recommend checking out Just Detention and getting involved if able. If you are interested in men in prisons, a great book is Prison Masculinities, which covers a wide range of issues for men in the prison system. https://www.amazon.com/Prison-Masculinities-Don-Sabo/dp/1566398169
I think you just aren't that familiar with feminists and what they talk about.
One of the first books I read that got me interested in feminism was The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti.
I'm pretty sure I got her that one for Christmas last year, along with We Should All Be Feminists and The Second Sex. It hasn't seemed to really sink in yet. I probably should've included that in the OP. Sorry!
ETA: Also The Handmaid's Tale! Got her that one, too.
As far as I know the "sexism = power + prejudice" definition of sexism is limited to a few social science circles. In conversation I use the dictionary definition of sexism.
Men are stronger on average, but this does not mean there there are not strong women, or women who are stronger than nearly all men. If you randomly select a man and a women, and compare their physical strengths, there is only a marginally larger chance that the man will be stronger.
In combat roles, you obviously need strength. However, to deny that a woman is capable of reaching that level of strength is uninformed.
EDIT: An illustration of my point can be seen here.
A quick Google: Feminists testified before Congress against reinstating draft registration in 1980. They also said at that time that while they were against draft registration for everyone, they also believed that if it were reinstated for men, that it should be instated for women as well.
I do hope this does not sidetrack into an accusation that feminism must prioritize men's isues, as these types of questions so often do. For instance, I predict followups (not necessarily from you) to this response to be:
That was 1980. But what has feminism done for men lately?
Feminism claims to be for men's rights as well, so why isn't stopping registration for the draft their #1 issue?
Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, and GWW say that feminists are for the draft for men only and they're feminists too. And that feminists want to make the draft active so that more men can die to reach their goal of male genocide. Why do feminists want to kill men?
Women have enough trouble getting a chance to advocate on behalf of "women's" issues themselves — see the all-male panel on women's contraception held by Congress just recently.
> I did that google search for "child support suicide" and this was the first hit I got: another forum where people were talking about a guy who committed suicide because, in part, child support was an unbearable burden: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/66080582
> The following are some of the responses that sound just like something that would be said from a lot of feminists:
You're holding feminists as a whole response for what a few people on gamefaqs.com said? What the fuck?
Gerda Lerner's text The Creation of the Patriarchy is an excellent read. I highly recommend picking up a copy and reading the whole thing.
And then there's also recent research saying that father absence really doesn't account for increased adolescent criminality. So no, not really sold that it is absent fathers that cause higher rates of adolescent crime.
I'm a female nerd and I've read all the stuff you linked over the past couple days as well as the huge thread blowing up Metafilter. Through the years I've often thought of nerds as an oppressed group and of bullying (which I experienced, like Scott) as a form of oppression. He's not saying that the lack of a ready sex dispensary is a form of oppression. He's saying that being bullied for being a nerd is. He's right, IMHO.
I've also personally known guys who held the self-hating attitudes Scott held because like him they didn't want to be oppressors. I think a lot of people are reacting with extreme hatred to Scott, which is ridiculous, accusing him of wanting to be handed a wife on a silver platter so he wouldn't have to bother with learning how to talk to women as people. I do think he makes a category error when he tries to turn to Andrea Dworkin for dating advice, though. "Talk to women as people; we're not aliens" is sort of the tl;dr of feminism as a whole when applied to intimate relationships. Anything more granular than that ought to be represented in social skills and etiquette classes which is outside of the purview of academic social philosophies.
/r/[yourcity]
You clearly aren't interested in actual advice that makes you critically think about your decisions.
It's weird to have to explain such basic shit to someone I think might be an adult.
<em>Delusions of Gender</em> by neuroscientist & academic psychologist Cordelia Fine is the best place to start if you're looking for a rigorously scientific and empirical introduction. It's also very cheap in the Amazon kindle store.
If you want to help, you can be a treasure trove of information, so that if she asks for your help, you are ready. Also, be there for her if she needs you.
I would also recommend making observations over passing judgments. For example, "That's a common tactic of abusers" is a plain fact, while "your boyfriend is an abuser" is a judgment that she may feel you are not equipped to make not really knowing the guy. You might bring her this book if you think she might be open to reading it.
Sometimes victims of domestic abuse need affirmation, especially if it's a pattern they've been in. You can tell her what you like about her and that she deserves better.
If she says something like "I don't know what to do," you can ask her how she feels about her options, or if she's tried to lay them all out, or if she'd like your help brainstorming. If she chooses abortion, there is a time limit on that one, and it will depend on where you live, so you can help her by looking things like that up before you meet with her, along with costs, locations, how to make an appointment, and where she can go if she's missed the deadline where she lives. If she seems surprised at how much you know, it's ok to tell her you thought she might want that kind of information given her circumstances (from the sound of her message, it didn't really seem like she wanted the pregnancy).
Ultimately it's her choice, and not really your business. But you can be a sounding board for her and help her think through her options in a nonjudgmental way, if you can manage that.
You reminded me of someone, so I'll ask, have you seen the "Am I a Lesbian?" masterdoc? Sometimes lesbians find compulsive heterosexuality ("comphet") difficult to distinguish from real attraction. If you find the idea of marrying a man unsatisfying, it might be worth exploring why: https://www.docdroid.net/N46Ea3o/copy-of-am-i-a-lesbian-masterdoc-pdf
For anyone else interested I googled some basic info. From her Wikipedia page: "Karen DeCrow was an American attorney, author, and activist and feminist. She was also a strong supporter equal rights for men in custody decisions and the choice of whether or not to become a parent."
According to her Wikiquote page, the full quote is actually "Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice." This was written in a letter to the editor of the New York Times in 1982.
Ethically, I think it can be slightly more complicated than this. Men can give the impression that they're interested in caring for a baby in the long term. If the women then gets pregnant with this understanding, and the man goes back on his word, then that's surely unethical. However, I don't think the law is capable of dealing with this kind of minutiae, and so it should be possible for men to legally absolve themselves of responsibility in the earliest stages of pregnancy.
Edit: Huh. Her Wikipedia page states that she's a feminist, but links her involvement in custodial rights to the MRM.
Seriously? This is common knowledge.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/us/abortion-planned-parenthood-videos.html?_r=0
Planned Parenthood was never "selling" fetal tissue. They were discussing passing off the tissue (with the consent of the patient) to stem cell researchers. The "selling" part comes from a gross misrepresentation of the reimbursement that Planned Parenthood would receive for the increased cost of adequately preserving the tissue. They didn't make any money on the arrangement, they were just dollar-for-dollar compensated for higher costs.
edit - I should also point out that the video was produced by the same activist who produced the heavily edited and misrepresentative ACORN video in 2008, which also used employees doing exactly the right thing to try to smear the organization they worked for.
The word gender is typically defined as belonging to the social realm, not the biological. That is essentially the difference between sex and gender-- sex is biology whereas gender is social. Moreover, it is useful to know that something like a "species," if we are going to get down to it, is more fluid than "it is or is not a member of X species." There are many ways to define what is and is not a species. The definition you use depends on your discipline and purpose; there is no species concept that is inherently "more correct" than any other. Some species concepts are more useful in certain disciplines, just as gender is useful in feminism.
Sure, here's the Nature publication of the study. It's probably paywalled, sadly, though you might be able to get it from this link. (It's not the same thing as the typing study StealthSid linked to.)
There’s what’s called the 3 i’s of oppression.
1) Internalized 2) Interpersonal 3) Institutional.
Internalized would be racism that you believe about yourself. Like, if you thought white people aren’t supposed to like hip hop. Interpersonal would be racism experienced between people. Like if someone else had a negative view of you for liking hip hop.
These 2 types of oppression are absolutely things that you, or anyone, can experience. But the final one, and assuming you live in a predominantly white country, is the one you most likely have not experienced.
Institutional racism exists within the massive institutions like the criminal justice system or society as a whole. Black people for example are more likely to be arrested for marijuana then white people, and less likely to be offered a job if they have a traditionally African name. Often when people say white people don’t understand racism, this is the type they’re talking about, although many don’t articulate it well.
Because white people within the US don’t experience institutional racism, it’s less likely they’ll experience the other two types as often as minorities. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m just saying it’s less likely because the institution isn’t empowering it.
So if someone has the racist belief that black people are prone to criminality, that might manifest itself on an interpersonal level, but the criminal justice system or the media is encouraging the belief by targeting or portraying black people because the institution believes that.
I do believe that white people can experience racism, but we don’t experience racism in the same way minorities do.
Just to be clear, OP said that without "oppression of women" (their words, not mine) 80% of men would be sexually unfulfilled. If you think they were talking about monogamy, then you've gleaned some insight that I missed.
I find it hard to believe that 80% of men don't have children or families. This survey says that 47% of men are fathers of at least one child. Furthermore, I doubt that childlessness is a major source of unfulilment for all of the remaining 53% of men. There are men who don't want children.
I'm a man. I'm single by choice. I'm a feminist.
In fact, when I first heard about the MGTOW acronym I checked them out, thinking it might be an organization/movement for people like me even though my "spidey sense" was tingling. Took one look at their subreddit and nope'd the heck out of there. It's not people like me they're representing.
And you know that was my exact experience with the MRA movement way back when? The other day I read an article describing all these alphabet-soup groups as "New Misogyny" and I completely buy it. The PUAs and the Red Pillers and the MRAs and MGTOWs and who knows what else all criticize one another, and often hate one another, and make a big deal about how different they all are from one another.
But from the outside looking in they're all balkanized factions of a common sub-ideology. People who, no matter how bad they are at the Patriarchy Game, are so afraid of losing they'll fight viciously against any attempt to dismantle it.
Tl;Dr I'm an mgtow who's not an MGTOW because I applied a single standard and saw who they really were.
P.S. You made me realize how much that bugs me about Markdown, so I did some digging but sadly this is the best lead I could find. If anyone knows a better way to reformat block quotes so they'll copy/paste into Markdown code I'd love to hear it.
This paper does a really good job of making comparisons between the two: https://www.academia.edu/8817976/Female_genital_mutilation_FGM_and_male_circumcision_Should_there_be_a_separate_ethical_discourse
In addition, Planned Parenthood spends 42% of its budget in STD treatment and 9% of its budget on cancer screening, that's why funding it is a women's rights issue - it's basically a pay-what-you-can reproductive health clinic.
And both of those services are available to men
I've always been kind of feminist leaning, but I had this idea that just because I was a women in male spaces, that was enough for the cause. In college a friend lent me this book Female Chauvinist Pigs and it kind of opened my eyes to how women can also be complicit in sexism, and then I joined a lot of feminist spaces online to try to learn and discuss more.
I think reading is definitely a good starting point :)
I'm afraid I can't recommend any novels, but you might find Living Dolls interesting. It's nonfiction. In the introduction (you can read this on amazon) it also mentions some older, more classic feminist texts. I happen to think that the modern ones are the most accessible, but YMMV.
I would rather you write five word sentences. You use too many words attempting to sound smarter than you actually are. That's all. I'll leave you with a quote from The Elements of Style by Strunk and White, "Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
Uhm, "I love you" is now evidence that she lied? Seriously? Do you have any idea what it feels like to be raped by someone you love and trust? I was raped by my ex boyfriend. I was still in love with him for close to two months afterwards. Please just stop with this bullshit and pray that no friend of yours gets raped and seeks support from you. I certainly do.
Maybe actually read the screenshots of the messages in context, too.
> Cathy young being a rape apologist? Really? Seriously? Why do presidents of the National Organization for Women go out of their way to be interviewed by well known rape apologists like Karen DeCrow does here?
Karen DeCrow hasn't been a feminist for decades. She abandoned NOW once her MRA views regarding custody and financial abortion got on everyone else's nerves and switched sides. She's right up there with Young, Hoff Sommers and the other right wing "egalitarian" feminists.
As for Young's rape apologia, there's zillions of articles written about it. Go read some of them.
What? I didn't say anything about equality or "equal in the main thrust of things." Are you talking to the right person?
Also:
>Ban
>to prohibit especially by legal means
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban
Preventing something from being heard is no part of the definition of a ban.
really? When I google objectification hundreds of peer reviewed scholarly articles come up.
*Edit- I also remember seeing this site get brought up quite a bit.
I think that the main point in the video is inconsistent ruling by twitch.
He gives an example of a streamer being told that she may do squats for subscriptions but not for bits. I don't know much about the platform but that seems like a distinction without a difference (except in the percentage taken by twitch).
This article featuring women who do both makes the same point. They suggest that twitch learn from camsites and clarify their rules.
>Why is it then that despite increases in medical technology to prevent unwanted birth which has granted women control over their sexual reproduction has out of wedlock births, teenage pregnancy, single motherhood is increasing and continues to increase?
1) Out-of-wedlock births: decreased stigma of such, decreased stigma associated with premarital sex, increased coupling without marriage or even necessarily eventual plans of marriage, increased stigma of abortion and restrictions/barriers to abortion access.
2) Teenage pregnancy: decreased stigma of such, decreased stigma of teen sexuality, glamorization of teenage pregnancy by popular media, poor sex education, restriction/barriers to minor access to abortion, and the teenage brain (the decision-making portion of the brain is still maturing, and more prone to making impulsive decisions or not thinking through long-term consequences, which can affect contraception usage).
3) Single motherhood: combination of both the former points, as well as decreased stigma in divorce or dissolution of relationships. Also, I highly recommend <em>Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage</em>.
The Wealth of Nations is really two books. One describes the way things are, the other describes the way things should be. Barring a couple of minor amendments, Smith seems pretty much on the nail about the way things are. But as Hume famously argued, you can describe as accurately as you want the way things are and you will never make any difference to the way things should be.
So if we are going to use Adam Smith as our supreme authority (and I absolutely don't think that is a good idea - its an appeal to authority in any case) you have an argument that runs thusly:
.1. Free markets pay those who are more valuable more money
.2. Free markets should be tempered by moral sensibility
(Both from The Wealth of Nations)
.3. Women are paid less than men
(From observational data)
.4. Therefore women are less productive\stupider\lazier than men
(From 1 and 3)
.5. Therefore we should pay women 25% more than the market dictates they are worth
(From 2 and 4)
Now this is a decent syllogism, although to be strictly complete you need a couple of clauses explaining why it is right that women are not discriminated against. Unfortunately, it means you must admit 4. Now there are two problems with doing this:
1) It is fundamentally evil and throws us back into the Victorian era
2) It is insane because it totally contradicts established reality
By using a logical device called the reductio we know that at least one of our three axiomatic premises must be wrong. We know it isn't 3, so it must be 1 or 2.
And that, my friend, is the crux of the OP - if it is 1 then explanation 2 in the OP is right. If it is 2 then explanation 3 is right.
So I'm afraid I have to conclude that you're begging the question, but in a very, very sexy way that I didn't spot until a minute ago after digging out all my Adam Smith to take a look at what he said on the subject
Here's a definition from the Journal of Clinical Psychology:
> Toxic masculinity involves the need to aggressively compete and dominate others and encompasses the most problematic proclivities in men.
You can see a few examples given in that same study which focuses on TM as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison:
> Toxic masculinity is the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence. Toxic masculinity also includes a strong measure of the male proclivities that lead to resistance in psychotherapy (Brooks & Good, 2001; Meth & Pasick, 1990). In prison, toxic masculinity is exaggerated. It erupts in fights on the prison yard, assaults on officers, the ugly phenomenon of prison rape (Kunselman, Tewksbury, Dumond, & Dumond, 2002; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2000; Stop Prisoner Rape, 2004), and other hypercompetitive, sometimes violent, interactions (Toch & Adams, 1998).
It looks incredibly basic to me. If you want to "delve deeper" into it, you'll have to ask specific questions.
Edit: Here's the full study since you insist so much on a "real scientific pov".
>Life insurance rates are absolutely based on risk factors like occupation, family history, smoking habits, weight and age.
https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/
They can only set it by age(up to 3 times higher), smoking status(up to 50% more), location, plan type, and who it covers.
Women cost more to provide health insurance too, but get the same price on health insurance due to Obamacare.
>I get that you're never going to actively try to put women on selective service,
Dude, do you know anything about feminism? It's obvious you've got a point to prove and you don't actually want to ask a qeustion for a healthy discussion. Stop making assumptions and do a little basic research and then come back if you'd like to talk about something rather than try to get us to say what you want so you can point your finger at feminism and pat yourself on the back for 'proving us wrong'.
> Half the country did not think that Trump was the way to go. That’s not an accurate depiction of what happened or even logical.
> The current population of the United States of America is 327,306,620 as of Wednesday, September 26, 2018, based on the latest United Nations estimates. (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/)
> Estimates show more than 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls during the 2016 election (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/voter-turnout-2016-elections)
> HRC received 65,844,954 total votes. Trump received 62,979,879 total votes.
> 65,844,954 (HRC votes) / 327,306,620 (US pop) = 0.2011 or ~ 20% 62,979,879 (Trump votes) / 327,306,620 = 0.1924 or ~19%
> So “half the country” did not think Trump was the way to go, like you assert. 19% of the country thought he was the way to go.
Your stats make them look even more useless.
More than 40% of the population just went, "Yeah we don't care. We really don't care who becomes our face to the world."
And if 19% of the population managed to strong arm the rest of them into letting that narcissist into the most powerful office on this planet you have to ask yourself do the rest of them really deserve a better president or a better judge.
Edit: no seriously thanks for the assist with the stats. I wouldn't have been able to make this point without your help.
Half the country did not think that Trump was the way to go. That’s not an accurate depiction of what happened or even logical.
The current population of the United States of America is 327,306,620 as of Wednesday, September 26, 2018, based on the latest United Nations estimates. (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/)
Estimates show more than 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls during the 2016 election (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/voter-turnout-2016-elections)
HRC received 65,844,954 total votes. Trump received 62,979,879 total votes.
65,844,954 (HRC votes) / 327,306,620 (US pop) = 0.2011 or ~ 20% 62,979,879 (Trump votes) / 327,306,620 = 0.1924 or ~19%
So “half the country” did not think Trump was the way to go, like you assert. 19% of the country thought he was the way to go.
This is tangential to the family dynamic that you're talking about, but as for the math/science bit, I've heard good things about Khan Academy and that might be a useful tool to help her with some of the academic stuff that she finds challenging.
I think my odd belief comes from the seemingly endless supply of stuff like this. Underhanded comments like "sorry having a small dick affects you so much" that minimize the female lead objectification of men and then blames me for reacting negatively to such sexism don't help either.
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I don't believe in gender roles or "feminine" and "masculine" skills. I said that some skills are seen that way by society. Do I think that those careers actually need "feminine" skills? No. So I'm not defending the gendered nature of those careers or trying to argue that it's logical for them to be gendered, because it's not.
People associate (wrongly and arbitrarily) STEM careers with men and humanities careers with women, there's lots of research proving this. And for education, here's an encyclopedia article. Doing a quick search for human resources, I also found this article.
So like I said I'm speculating that gender roles are the main explanation. I also speculated that it might be family leave policies, which would be a good thing and something we should support. I can't think of anything else that could explain what's unique about the careers you listed.
Yes, feminists want equal representation of women in leadership and management levels, but not because of stereotypes about what's feminine and masculine. So if the stereotypes are behind women being better represented in those careers, it's a bad thing.
You want math, history, and proof? Let's take systemic racism, with which you seem to take issue above.
Read The New Jim Crow and The Color of Law and stack those against your 3.4%. I'll read any reputable counter-sources you might have, even though there aren't any.
Your example of "sexism" against men as your mythical strawman solution to the gender wage gap shows exactly the depth of your consideration here. Accusations of "reverse sexism" have been a cornerstone of the misogyny-apologist crowd for decades.
Hey there. One of the things that's hard about feminism and other anti-oppression work is that it's not all intellectual. There's a lot of feelings and deeply embedded attitudes that don't go away just because one has done the reading. Lots of time and experience is involved.
One thing you might try is to talk about your feelings and experiences with some women friends and get their reactions. Sexism causes lots of misunderstandings between genders and sometimes we misread what the other person's motivations are. Sometimes it was you. Sometimes it was them. Getting other perspectives might help you figure out where you may be falling down, and where actually someone else was being unreasonable.
If not a friend, talk to your psych counselor (everyone should have one) about your feelings and experiences. They're good at helping you identify what might be going wrong when you try to date. Sometimes just recounting your story is enough to help you see what went on in a new light.
There is plenty of non-sexist dating advice out there. I wish I had some titles for you, but look and you'll find. One that isn't particularly about dating, but deals a lot in interpersonal skills is "The Feeling Good Handbook" by David D. Burns. It's a breathtaking wealth of good and useful advice that's not too new-agey or too medical.
> There is a strong history of business being done in casual, typically male social environments, particularly golf courses. That's what the "boy's club" means. They won't just go elsewhere to find their clients when high-ranking officers in large companies prefer these environments. It will simply make the majority pool of business unavailable to women in that locale.
Note also that there has been research (paywalled beyond the abstract, a free copy (pdf) is available) about the discriminatory effects of businesses using strip clubs and brothels as opportunities for networking.
>This is not to say that those actions need to be banned by law or by university rule, but I'm really not down with this "it helps us identify the assholes" mentality. Bigots should not feel comfortable spewing hate speech.
This was the gist of the professor's email. I really recommend that everyone who is interested in this situation read it.
Its a standard intro to sociology textbook. edit: its a Macionis edition 13
I was just going to ad, that specifically my question is more "Is this what social conflict feminists actually believe? If so how influential are they within feminism".
I can totally see how there are problems in that position. But this is the law: no position is problem-free; there is only the broad-strokes approximation of justice in written law.
They argue that violence against women is inherently gendered, and that therefore gender-neutral laws are inherently biased. That's a position many find distasteful but it's not as easy as they may think to refute, à la In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
All that notwithstanding, the question isn't "Refuge: what's the deal?" It's "OP: deliberately lying about their position or just a lax reader?"
I'll repost something from on a different forum that I found insightful:
> it's not that it's shocking that old dudes in positions of power can be racist or sexist or whatever - it's proof. so much of being a victim of oppression is gaslighting - so when the donald sterlings and the tim hunts of the world come out with what they really think, it shows that we're not crazy, that this is really what these people think, and that the things they think actively hurt those they're bigoted against.
Also, the Gaurdian just released a study of it's own comments. The headline is >As part of a series on the rising global phenomenon of online harassment, the Guardian commissioned research into the 70m comments left on its site since 2006 and discovered that of the 10 most abused writers eight are women, and the two men are black.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments
The word "pressure" carries more of an "insistent" meaning, which "ask" lacks. But "put pressure on" and "request" come up as synonyms in the thesaurus. So I think this is not a totally black and white distinction.
From the debate on here and elsewhere, I'm clearly not the only one who thinks that this is ambiguous. Just because you feel it's obvious doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone, or that your definition agrees with everyone else's.
You gave me an exact number '6 times as likely'. There are plenty of statistics that break homicide in the us down by race- nowhere is it 6 times. So I'm asking where did you get that number?
Again. It's calling out sexism. That's not sexist. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism
The mathematicians who founded it had a winner -- and good for them! But they sold it to Match.Com and it went downhill from there. Their data blog was fascinating as they'd compare and contrast what people were telling them about themselves.
​
Of course, when Match bought them them out the first thing that disappeared was their essay on how paid for dating web sites are fibbing about their membership numbers because the math simply doesn't make sense. (I have it on a hard drive somewhere...)
I'm an anarchist feminist, I don't support states, much less "absolute power". I'm sorry but since you clearly don't read the things I write past the first paragraph I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion. ACAB, period. Always and forever. There's an entire internet full of anarchist writings on the topic, go help yourself if you want answers.
To be perfectly honest, not one comes to mind about gender relations in particular that'd be relevant to modern times. I think the Feminine Mystique was an excellent expose on the target demographic at the time (white suburban women at a crossroads in society), and rightfully eviscerated Freud. I do take issue with Friedan misrepresenting herself as some housewife at the time, however, seeing as how she was an active political socialist.
As for fiction, well, I'm an enormous Twain and Faulkner fan. I think Stephen King is more or less a master of prose, and On Writing should be on any writer's bookshelf. Pratchett should also be going down as the world's best fantasy writer at this point, and is way under-appreciated. And of course Ray Bradbury and Vonnegut.
Other non-fiction authors include Sam Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, Bertrand Russell, and John Rawls.
Well, as someone who actually is against abortion (no downvotes for just that fact please, just trying to give a different perspective), it's entirely based on the child's well-being for me personally. However, I do know people who are pro-life simply because they think sex is immoral and that people should be punished for it, so there are extreme rationales that I won't deny.
In case people are wondering why I would be for abortion, here's a group whose arguments are generally in sync with mine. Not really here to start an abortion debate (even though one might surface), it's just for those who are curious about my stance.
>relies on men and women being the same psycologically (generally)
.
>hormonal levels, differences in physical strength and eyesight
Those aren't psychological differences.
Regardless of whether there are legitimate biological differences between the sexes, there is more than enough overlap among people to ensure that, by trying to treat people as inherently different, you'll be shoving someone into a box they don't fit into.
Isn't it better to strive for a world where all people's treatment and opportunities are not limited by their sex, or by their race, or by any other superficial feature? We can make sweeping generalizations about groups, yes, but when we try to apply those generalizations to specific people, we quickly get into trouble. There's a massive amount of variance from the mean (median? I'm not a statistician) within each group, so it's not very useful to say something like "Women typically have less upper body strength than men" when you're standing in front of Sarah Robles and, I don't know, let's say Joss Whedon. Generalizations are not great at helping you make statements or decisions about individuals.
So ultimately, as a feminist, I'm not terribly interested in whether there are biological differences that trend one way or another. I mean, I'm interested in it academically, I suppose, but the answer doesn't have any effect on my goals as a feminist. I think it's a cop-out to say, "Oh, men and women are different and should thus be treated differently." It's a viewpoint that ignores the extreme variance within each sex in favor of overemphasizing the (by all accounts) relatively small variance between sexes.
>Now, just because you have the legal and ethical right to do something doesn't make it morally right to do.
Did you mean a different word?
>Oh sure, you have the legal right to do that, but that's not morally right.
... but somehow it would be ethically right? Maybe this is why I usually don't get along with feminists.
> Define "rape apology".
Sigh Read that person's post to see, that is the conversation that you put yourself into. They made the comparison between these joke statuses and rape jokes, slut-shaming/rape justification, whatever else.
>No, I disagree. If it is your opinion that you are being wronged and your advocacy to end that wronging, then perpetuating a cycle of toxicity is not going to reap positive results.
Yeah, it's absurd to shut down people who aren't actually in danger of causing any harm. Welcome to my point.
The majority of rape jokes? Perpetuate real, material damage on a massive scale.
The majority of jokes about terrorizing white guys? They could normalize the college-girl-driven persecution of white men in the U.S. according to this source.
College girls and feminists are never going to have a "terrorizing white guys" epidemic. When feminists make their objections, they better be directly tethered to reality, as the major tenets have been since the start of the movement. That's why this conversation is pointless.
There's a couple of articles linked by others here, but I like how the following article addresses differences in self esteem between men and women:
https://www.headspace.com/blog/2015/06/23/he-vs-she-how-gender-affects-our-self-esteem/
The answer is that it's complicated. Men and women experience self esteem differently. There's a lot of factors including how we measure self-esteem well as how we react to gender stereotypes.
This isn't totally related but I found it a while ago. It found that people who view porn would less sexist views than people that don't.
There are tons of excellent consent-themed books for kids from babyhood through adolescence that address these issues. Here's an example (I haven't read this so can't vouch for it, but there are tons like this, just go to a local bookstore and browse, woke kids' books are all the rage today) https://www.amazon.com/Consent-Kids-Boundaries-Respect-Charge/dp/0316457736. Similarly, there is YouTube content with age appropriate lessons for kids. These types of resources are great jumping off points for conversation with the kids to further understanding.
There's a great book about "growing up with an immature mentality". It was written in the 70s and still so relevant: https://www.amazon.fr/King-Warrior-Magician-Lover-Rediscovering/dp/0062506064. Let me know if you'd like a TL;DR :-)
First accept that they're a natural thing and you're going to get them for so many years with almost as much guarantee as morning following night and winter following autumn - you don't protest about winter coming do you? (you might not like it but you know it's something you have to bear with).
The second thing I'd recommend is learning everything you can about them, like everything you can find. Learning about stuff largely takes the fear out of a thing. (Learn about spiders too, they're such a discriminated against animal!)
Finally, if you have Android download Periodical it allows you to record when you get your period and even if you get them at short or long intervals it can help you predict when your next one is due so you can plan ahead. You have to enter two lots of periods before it begins guessing when your next one is due.
I've gotten catcalled or followed while running several times and I live in a SUPER safe area (Midwestern suburbs and a small insulated college campus). I cant imagine a safer place to run so I just think it happens no matter what. It sucks though. I bought a pair of shorts on Amazon for about $20 that have a zipper pocket where my phone goes and I always run with it. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07WFMZVGF/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
It's a bastardization of the original idea in Nicomachean Ethics but the point wasn't about what is bad, that's just a conversation that leads to nothing. The point is that people are affected by those around them and those who intend on making an impression on that person in a way that shapes their personality/perspective.
I'm not trying to be universally metaphysically esoteric, I'm trying to imagine the best, most generalized remedies which, in a practical way counteract extremism. Social construct theory does make sense, of course, but once it goes into the realm of intense nihilism, it just becomes redundant.
You might find "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" an interesting read by Paulo Freire.
Ya Really!
Labiaplasties on little girls ARE banned and would be mutilation.
If you disagree with our tactics, that is fine. I think our tactics regarding nomenclature are perfectly okay.
Read this:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
and this
9davids.blogspot.com/2010/11/50-reasons-to-leave-it-alone.html
and this:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutilation
It IS mutilation. And we will continue to call it that until someone can prove that it isn't.
Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: check for yourself what it has to say about the word "objectification" specifically in terms of interpersonal interactions.
>Fetishization means taking something in without understand its origin.
Ok, I thought I responded to this before but I guess I forgot to press reply.
I'm really skeptical of this because all of the modern studies and surveys we've done on sexual frequency, fetishes, desire, etc, seem to indicate that men want sex from their partners much more often, are much more likely to be displeased with the lack of frequency of sex they have with their partner, and are much more likely to cite sex (specifically a lack of it) as a core reason separation.
This is not at all some wild unknown thing. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Is-There-a-Gender-Difference-in-Strength-of-Sex-and-Baumeister-Catanese/5f8446340d4ed375007351539e7993fa44e2e31b?p2df
This is very conclusive famous study, but if you did a random google search you'd get a lot of results to confirm. If you looked up leading causes for divorce you'd get a lot of sources to confirm as well.
Are there exceptions? Absolutely, older but premenopausal women tend to be much more horny for example.
So, is there any hard evidence available to suggest this was the reverse in the Christian Medieval World? Is there some context here? Is this an issue middle aged lords are having with their older but premenopausal wives? I'm just really skeptical.
The source that they use in your link is using information from 2002, before the FBI had expanded the definition of rape to include men in more ways, such as a man being forced to penetrate against his will. So the source your using should be replaced with more recent statistics that aren't based on an outdated view
Victimization and Perpetration of Unwanted Sexual Activities amount High School Students
I'm sorry that this happened to you but my point is there's no reason to bring up "men rapping boys and other men" specifically, because anyone can be a victim or can commit it it feels like it's desensitizing women assaulting men when the reply is talking about men rapping men or women.
"Victimization and Perpetration of Unwanted Sexual Activities Amount High School Students":
"Now in regards to feminism, I feel that a lot of feminists come to see it as their little group that they must defend above all else"
No. It is about us, personally. Being a woman who is treated like a second-class person is not a thing we do in our free time, it is our lives.
If you really want to learn about why oppressed people are the way they do I suggest reading "Pedagogy of the Oppressed."
There are definitely vegan peanut butter cups and probably vegan versions of all your other favorite foods. Check out r/VeganChill/ and /r/vegan for inspiration. I did my transition gradually, but honestly I wish I did it quicker, and it's easier now than ever before!
Bad feminist in that context might be related to this
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Feminist-Essays-Roxane-Gay/dp/0062282719
>Bad Feminist explores being a feminist while loving things that could seem at odds with feminist ideology. Gay's essays engage pop culture and her personal experiences, covering topics such as the Sweet Valley High series, Django Unchained, and Gay's own upbringing as a Haitian-American.
These!
https://www.amazon.com/Water-Resistant-HydraHyde-Wells-Lamont-3204S/dp/B07KD5QHYV
I think I got mine at Home Depot, but these are the exact ones. If not Home Depot, it was Lowes. They might still carry them in store.
They fit my hands perfectly, and they're really sturdy.
I just suggested this somewhere else but it is so good I am going to suggest it here again to read: "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire'. It will help you sort out the issues you are talking about. It's not a light read but an interesting one.
I suggest you read: "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire'.
>Feminism is rather specifically about resolving inequity, isn't it?
Yes, but inequity affects everyone in different ways for different reasons.
>I'm not terribly knowledgeable on on feminist takes on trans asks, but I had sort of put gender reassignment treatment (paid for by health insurance) more in the bucket of LGBTQ+ asks and assumed feminists as a whole might not have a strong or unified position here. Is that correct or am I off base?
Well first I'm a woman, so I don't see why Feminism wouldn't apply to me. Transgender isn't my gender. It's just an adjective that describes my gender. There is also a good book you can check out called Whipping Girl written by Julia Serano that talks about Feminism from a trans woman's perspective.
Also, are you familiar with the concept of Intersectional Feminism?
They were Japanese canvas safety boots. Kinda like this but fancier
There is therapy, the internet, and books about misogyny and oppression and how our male-dominated world affects men negatively. There are loads of resources and research about how advocating for women benefits communities and nations. For example, DrawDown by Paul Hawken compiled reams of data proving this.
Men who want to recover need to look out of their bubble and find reliable resources outside of their echo chamber and learn about the world. Women have had to learn how to advocate and learn for themselves and get into therapy and recover with little to no help from men. I wouldn't expect any less from men who are just as capable as women which is what feminism is all about. There are no easy answers here. It takes work to learn but men who want to recover from their wrong thinking have to want enough to put in the work without leaning on women because it is not the job of women to fix men. We spend our lives being looked at by the men in our lives wanting us to fix them. It is not our job and it will not help when people need to help themselves.
This book has gotten a lot of credit from many whenever I post it as having really helped them. It is required reading in some college classes. "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire.
If you really want to learn how to be an advocate, you need to learn about your privilege and I am not saying that because you are a white cis male, I needed to learn too as a white cis woman. This book is not light reading but it gets to the core of oppression and how to understand the thinking behind all of it not just what is related to feminism because really, there is more to it than just the oppression of women.
This book can help you to be an advocate for all people and to be able to see oppression more clearly in all areas.
"Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire
It looks like if you have Amazon prime you can download it for free from here
But other than that, no idea.
If you want a short article:
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/100-years-of-communismand-100-million-dead-1510011810
If you want an in-depth analysis written by professional historians:
Check out Indigenomics by Carol Ann Hilton and engage with First Nations people to learn about us and our worldview. Our models are about taking what we need, ensuring everyone has what they need, appreciating the sacred rights of our relations and making decisions for the next generations.
Ancient Scythians has less rigid enforcement of gender roles
The Amazons: Lives and Legends of Warrior Women across the Ancient World https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691147205/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_J0TWP3FSATMSZ6GW60WM
The study's basis for link between Me Too and rape myth acceptance is a feminist author called Karen Boyle and her 2019 book "#MeToo, Weinstein and Feminism". That's the basis. We'd have to buy the book to find out what it's all about since it's not a study. I too find it curious that there isn't more focus on the changing political landscape in the US during this time period? It's an interesting theory, but surely other hypotheses could have been made?
The study speculates that Me Too highlighted the power differential between men and women. To think that you'd have to assume that the power differential between men and women was somehow seen as smaller in 1984, or that rape wasn't in 1984 seen as something that only men did to women. Now, I find that hard to believe.
I recommend reading Lundy Bancroft's book Why Does He Do That: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men, as it sounds exactly like what you're looking for. It's really meant more for people who need to identify abusive behavior in others so they can help themselves, but it's absolutely insightful for self-reflection as well. It doesn't just address obviously abusive behavior, it gets deep into subtle behaviors that people normally wouldn't think about or would just feel is normal, but in the end are actually intentional and harmful (which sounds like what you're looking for).
As you're reading, try to take note of whenever you put up resistance. You'll have a lot of thoughts like "Oh come on that's such a nitpick," and "there's no way that was intentional, this book just makes men out to be evil." But by checking those thoughts as they appear you end up learning a lot about yourself and about the subject matter.
My favorite bit is that after reading it, there isn't this feeling of "Oh, I'm totally in the know about abusive behaviors, so now I'm physically incapable of being abusive." Instead you have this feeling of recognizing that you will always need to check yourself.
Anyway, you can get it here on Amazon,
Or if you want to get started right away here's the whole thing for free in Godawful formatting.
> It was not particularly fun, especially when the school tried to take us away from our folks for not heeding the doctors orders.
I'm about a quarter the way through this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20505067-feminist-thought
It is a decent overview of different feminist perspectives and theories. Though if you check reviews, the older editions are less comprehensive, so I would scope out a newer one. Tong is unbiased as to the "correct" type of feminism and clarifies some of the confusion that exists in understanding different feminist approaches.
There was a collection of essays I read maybe 15 years ago that focused on different topics and places where different feminists diverged. Unfortunately, I can't recall the title offhand, but I could probably contact the friend I borrowed it from and see if she remembers.
Personally, as much as I like bell hooks in terms of what she brought to feminism, I'm kinda on the fence whether it's a book for an anti-feminist. A friend of mine loves it and says it converted her to identifying as a feminist, but I'm not sure she was ever completely unsympathetic to the idea.
If what's bothering you is the idea shared by many modern feminists that gender roles do not have an innate component tied to sex, I suppose you could seek out some writings from folks like Christina Hoff-Summers or Camille Paglia. I don't really want to recommend those, but they do identify as feminists and have been highly critical of social constructionism within feminism. Hoff-Summers defines herself as an equity feminism, which is basically classical liberal feminism, but individualist or libertarian feminism are terms you might also see.
it is.
Here's an interesting read that I feel really explains why "don't be that guy" is bad.
I have also heard that in the first account the word for people is kind of a neutral plural gender, like 'them'. Then, in the second telling, you see a move from a genderless humanity to a gendered humanity.
There is a section of this episode or the Bible Project podcast that discusses it. They have a whole series on the creation story and early Hebrew cosmology that I really enjoyed!
>There is a cogent, enforced duty to not commit crimes; that is what makes it a responsibility. A responsibility is not something you do if you feel like it, but something you must do. You're now trying to imply that that is not the case despite having said that several times.
I think you're confusing different definitions of responsible
>I think there is no conduct more idiotic than saying someone is an idiot for not doing something irrelevant without knowing their reasons.
You think locking one's door is irrelevant to getting broken into?
>We've been through this. One can't control 'risk' when it arises from another person's behavior.
It can if their behavior is opportunistic and you can control the opportunity.