I agrre with this. I am biased against feminism because almost every feminist I have met are angry women who hate man and freak out if you say mailman instead of mailperson. I personally have not received any knowledge from a feminist that makes me support them. I am sure there are very intelligent feminists out their with perfectly valid points, but because of the ones I have met, when I think feminist I think crazy.
I had a conversation with someone that went something like:
"The mailman bring anything good other than bills today?"
"You mean the mail courier."
"Oh ya that's right, it's a chick. Okay, well the "femailman" bring anything good?"
":-/"
But ya the language shift to use less masculinized pronouns and so forth was always amusing to mess with people. Whenever I've faced criticism for not being gender neutral, I'm just more crass and utilitarian in my answer. If I'm not being offensive purposely and someone perfectly understand me. I see no need to be use gender neutral speech.
The only time I view gender neutrality as a necessary imperative is analyzing performance for promotion and so forth. Meritocracy is a great form to analyze people under.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
See, my reaction to this thread is mixed. On the one hand, I think the discussion between Mike and Blinking Spirit is extremely intelligent on both sides, and I think it's wonderful that such a productive discussion on feminism can take place on this thread.
But Mike, I'm sorry, it is really unfortunate that you posted this whole "male gaze" thing, because it is ridiculous, and it's not only garbage, but it seems the dominant topic of most of the thread's responses, and that's a shame really.
Because to me the concept does several things.
1. First of all, it is "male gaze", not objectification, "male gaze", making male the key word. So first thing it says is that men are the bad ones, because men sexually objectify women, not the other way around.
2. The second is that it is a concept that basically creates a situation in which it takes attraction between one gender to another and qualifies it as BAD. It is BAD that men are attracted to women, which frankly, I refuse to believe is either acceptable, nor anything other than blatant sexism. And as to this statement:
"No one is saying you can't find women attractive"
You're specifically saying just that. You're saying that finding a woman physically attractive in THIS case is good and finding a woman physically attractive in THIS case is bad. What do you hope to gain making arbitrary distinctions on when men can or cannot find women attractive? All this aims to achieve is to create unnecessary guilt complexes over finding women physically attractive, which benefits no one.
And the fact of the matter is the concept creates this odd little myth in which men are bad creatures because they want to have sex with women and this is bad whereas women are chaste and virtuous and do not want sex with men, and that is exactly the kind of thing feminists fought against. Now it's coming up again.
Again, it's a shame, because you had a really good OP going there until that point. It's still a good thread though, I'm impressed by how it's going.
And the fact of the matter is the concept creates this odd little myth in which men are bad creatures because they want to have sex with women and this is bad whereas women are chaste and virtuous and do not want sex with men, and that is exactly the kind of thing feminists fought against. Now it's coming up again.
Yes. This sort of thing is called benevolent sexism. If anyone doubts that this is detrimental to women, here are two papers that investigate it:
What's interesting about the first paper, is that (from the abstract) "Four experiments found benevolent sexism to be worse than hostile sexism for women's cognitive performance."
My first reaction to the Objectivist in the thread claiming that feminism is an altruism according to objectivism was that it demonstrates the fact that objectivists are almost entirely male.
It's obviously not an altruism if you're female.
It's also not an altruism if you realize the fact that patriarchal gender roles are detrimental to most men as well. If only because, as Nietzsche and Stirner demonstrated, in a relationship between master and slave, both parties are diminished in comparison to a union of egoists. More importantly, maleness creates a hierarchy in which those who better embody those ideals have power over males who are considered closer to femaleness (which is defined as an antithesis to maleness). In the most extreme forms it takes the form of militarism, national chauvinism and political fascism (which fetishizes stereotypically male values). In the less extreme, bullying of nerds (considered whimpy, less than male) by jocks (who embody male principles).
Ironically, like for economic classes, it is the 'middle class' (beta males, like geeks) who are the most vocal defenders of the hierarchy (the middle class was where the fascists drew most of its adherents, it is also where the teabaggers and other far right wing movements like Al Quaida take theirs). The point is that people who have little privilege in life defend what little they have over others more fiercely than people who have a lot of privilege, because they feel any minor loss of status more keenly than people who have more.
My first reaction to the Objectivist in the thread claiming that feminism is an altruism according to objectivism was that it demonstrates the fact that objectivists are almost entirely male.
It's obviously not an altruism if you're female.
There's female objectivists though that reject the original premise of feminism.
It's also not an altruism if you realize the fact that patriarchal gender roles are detrimental to most men as well. If only because, as Nietzsche and Stirner demonstrated, in a relationship between master and slave, both parties are diminished in comparison to a union of egoists. More importantly, maleness creates a hierarchy in which those who better embody those ideals have power over males who are considered closer to femaleness (which is defined as an antithesis to maleness).
Untrue, the more "masculine" males that are leaders typically are able to balance talking and aggressive tendencies. Men that have truly antisocial qualities typically have lower testosterone than those that engage in male assertiveness coupled with positive social relationships.
Part of the patriarchal ideal is one that is able to do the "manly things" but also a man that is loyal and caring. You see this in military texts that a general must be stern, but also loving of his soldiers. This paternal love isn't exactly distant either, it is shown through ceremony and station, though.
Now, if we look at the most militaristic society, the Spartans, we see that even with the male ideal for a warrior. A Spartan woman was not only given more power, but greater expectations along with those freedoms to maintain a level of meritocracy. The Etruscans were also rather female egalitarian friendly, yet still had male leadership roles.
In the most extreme forms it takes the form of militarism, national chauvinism and political fascism (which fetishizes stereotypically male values). In the less extreme, bullying of nerds (considered whimpy, less than male) by jocks (who embody male principles).
Perhaps, but we take any form of assertiveness and aggressiveness to mean "masculine." Masculine is a fairly vague construct that changes from culture to culture. I'll concede within the realm of various cultures there is a range of masculinity, but I question whether it is more simple than "maleness impulses."
I would rather argue it to be cultural norms that have been engaged upon that are successful across varying histories, not because of masculinity, but rather that they are the more similar tactics to move people to rationalize the irrational. "Fascism" in the abstract places fervor onto the state itself and drives out all other forms of competition for the state power structure. We dub this with under the panoply of masculinity, but what is the proper structure to engage with "masculinity" and "femininity?"
I am loath to use "masculine" or "feminine" to complex mechanics found within history, because both of these ideals are subjective and relative to be bound upon time and philosophy. Even then setting up a subjective ideal of what either of those two gender roles mean, people would argue that they are a corruption of the "true philosophy." As some have overtime to defend most ideologies or philosophies.
Ironically, like for economic classes, it is the 'middle class' (beta males, like geeks) who are the most vocal defenders of the hierarchy (the middle class was where the fascists drew most of its adherents, it is also where the teabaggers and other far right wing movements like Al Quaida take theirs). The point is that people who have little privilege in life defend what little they have over others more fiercely than people who have a lot of privilege, because they feel any minor loss of status more keenly than people who have more.
I disagree. What you're trying to drive at is "beta males" are "middle class" with ignoring what defines middle class. Middle class is a term that describes economic status, along with working class and down or up the S. E. S.
Your second point with the "most to lose," this just seems like basic human group psychology and not truly connected with masculinity at all. Looking at some works about group psychology such as people looking at how others are acting before they react strikes against that. Looking at how riots start with sane people also moves suspicion about masculinity as a driver.
Looking at revolutions when they take place generally during an economic uptick provides that people are more driven by power than "beta" or "delta" mentalities. Furthermore, the upper classmen are not always of alpha mentality. There are rich people that ride on the coattails of the success of others, such as prestigious law firms. They "go that route" to success because it is a part of their family structure rather than they see themselves as a "true leader."
As far as people that "have more to lose" I question, is it not also of the aristocracy? If anything in the past, and even now, "old money" tends to be more conservative in the preservation of hierarchy than the middle class. The middle class has always been more conducive towards upward mobility or the appearance of upward mobility.
I find that aggressive behaviors are far more simple; people don't like to lose. Aggressive types do not like the image of losing or feel that they are losing. I furthermore question whether "femininity" always has anything to do with aggressive behaviors at all. Any form of weakness or perceived weakness is a target for exploitation. Weakness is considered easy, and therefore because something is easy people more actively engage in the act.
If there is one thing that I have seen in this world is that people react strangely to sometimes the most mundane events, and it extends more out of fear than want. Fear as a general mechanic is normative to cause illogical behaviors. Therefore, I question whether masculinity is at the root of it or whether the psychosocial forces are more simple than that and we merely dub those psychohosocial forces as "masculine." In conclusion, what you deal with as your thesis with on masculinity is not what is healthy masculine traits in both the biological and cultural sense.
Ironically, like for economic classes, it is the 'middle class' (beta males, like geeks) who are the most vocal defenders of the hierarchy (the middle class was where the fascists drew most of its adherents, it is also where the teabaggers and other far right wing movements like Al Quaida take theirs). The point is that people who have little privilege in life defend what little they have over others more fiercely than people who have a lot of privilege, because they feel any minor loss of status more keenly than people who have more.
Well, I'm a 5'6, slender built, videogame/cardgame playing, academicaly-inclined artist/graphic designer/showman.
And I whole-heartedly support gender equality and even female superiority in some aspects. So there you have a "beta male" who isn't afraid of loosing women as a lesser in the bogus social pyramid.
I agree with Capt. Morgan, change is most distressing for those who have invested the most in the current enviroment, not to those in the middle.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yes sir, I take fantasy art and character design commissions, PM me for rates.
I totally support equality. However, understanding equality in my book and yours seem to differ a little bit. You see, as far as equality goes, they have the right to be near-nude on Billboards. Why? Cause they want to be. That makes them money, it makes the company they're working for money.
Sexual objectification is not something we, as humans, can fight. It's biological. People want to look at risque things that they're attracted to. For example, I'm a white middle-class straight American, and even though I'm married, I will still become interested in a Billboard with a nearly naked woman on it. Any straight man will agree with me. It's biological. A black upper-class straight Canadian will probably say the same thing, and to deny that is against human nature. If that woman didn't want to be up posing on that Billboard, guess what? She wouldn't be.
People who say that that's wrong are, in my opinion, infringing on that woman's rights to be on that Billboard. You're denying her a job. You're denying her a pay check. That seems un-feministic to me.
In an eight player game, is anything good? Don't you just sit there countering combos until someone genesis waves for 42 after all the blue players tap out fighting over a bribery?
I find it best to be a Post-Feminist! Women should not be trying to follow the path of men. Now that they have won freedom to express themselves, they should explore a new path of being unrelated to a comparison of masculine culture. I feel their destiny is comletely seperate from that of men.
"Feminism," huh? Why's it called feminism if it's just about equality?! It should be called something else!
No. Women are still the ones that are harmed the most by societal ideas of gender, so any movement for gender equality will, on balance, help women; hence feminism. Equality will be established by elevating the position of women until it is equal to that of men.
I think this is one flawed argument of feminism.
I do not deny that women do have challenges in modern society, however the idea that only women are at a loss and that only by helping women we can reach "equality" is wrong.
Men have their own problem as well and feminism does nothing to help them. Hence being a feminist is not about equality, it's about helping women, no more and no less.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
Men's problems are because of the expected gender roles, patriarchal gender roles. Feminism is about doing away with patriarchal gender roles.
Except that's not how it was phrased in the quote Darklightz was responding to. "Elevating the position of women until it is equal to that of men" is indeed a very poor way to express the feminist goal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I find it best to be a Post-Feminist! Women should not be trying to follow the path of men. Now that they have won freedom to express themselves, they should explore a new path of being unrelated to a comparison of masculine culture. I feel their destiny is comletely seperate from that of men.
Um... and at what point, in the separation of destinies, do men and women stop procreating together, raising children together, living together, etc.?
...
Discussion of feminism always seems to lead to sentiments that imply a nascent and brewing gender war. Why must this be so? Whatever happened to the wisdom of the Yin and the Yang, the harmonization of opposites?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
All human relationship is fundamentally a form of war. Between the Self and the Other.
From one perspective, yes. But from another, essentially human perspective (often associated with "mystical" experiences), the unbounded Self is united with all Others. This is the perspective that informs aspirations of "universal brotherhood," and which can be found at the heart of the successful and non-violent revolutions of the past century (MLK, Ghandi, Mandela, and so forth).
But to the extent that a movement prefers conflict to reconciliation; that it pursues the redress of its grievances without acknowledging the grievances of others; that it hardens itself along the Us vs. Them paradigm: to that extent, the movement runs in the monstrous tracks of Nazism and al-Qaida.
Which is just to say that the fact that some feminists have been referred to as "femi-Nazis" does not owe entirely to chauvenistic disparagement.
Um... and at what point, in the separation of destinies, do men and women stop procreating together, raising children together, living together, etc.?
When either functional sperms or ovaries can be created in a lab?
I have always thought that'll be the final evolution, maybe even the reason for WWIII, and it's kinda sad because I feel the only way society will allow gender equality will be with the homogenization of the sexes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yes sir, I take fantasy art and character design commissions, PM me for rates.
When either functional sperms or ovaries can be created in a lab?
I have always thought that'll be the final evolution, maybe even the reason for WWIII, and it's kinda sad because I feel the only way society will allow gender equality will be with the homogenization of the sexes.
Cultural change is slow and haphazard. We'll get there soon enough. Frankly, we're still trying to figure out government after several thousand years and doesn't mean we stopped trying or totally became one mind within some super entity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
BONUS GAME: watch any movie or TV show. Take a shot every time two women are alone in conversation, talking about something other than a man. You will be sober for a very long time!
However I would be dead If I watched a Hayao Miyazaki film.:p
I always find the debate of equality funny because it reminds me of communism. Its a nice thought but really equality is impossible for so many reasons. It means differant things to differant people being the biggest one. If I think that X is unfair and a woman thinks that not X is unfair then equality is impossible because equality alot like good and evil is a point of view. Alot of the things that are "Clearly" Sexist arent viewed as sexest at all by some but instead just the natural way of things.
Also an aside that really has little to do with today. Up untill the waneing years of the BC era women were more important then men in every aspect. We know this through art and writings left behind. It was a matriarchal society for the majority of human history so keep that in mind when getting angry about inequality.
However I would be dead If I watched a Hayao Miyazaki film.:p
I always find the debate of equality funny because it reminds me of communism. Its a nice thought but really equality is impossible for so many reasons. It means differant things to differant people being the biggest one. If I think that X is unfair and a woman thinks that not X is unfair then equality is impossible because equality alot like good and evil is a point of view. Alot of the things that are "Clearly" Sexist arent viewed as sexest at all by some but instead just the natural way of things.
Also an aside that really has little to do with today. Up untill the waneing years of the BC era women were more important then men in every aspect. We know this through art and writings left behind. It was a matriarchal society for the majority of human history so keep that in mind when getting angry about inequality.
Still is even in Islamic countries. The matriarch wields a lot of power within the family. It's part of the oversimplified narrative we see with feminism and why I hate women's studies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Also an aside that really has little to do with today. Up untill the waneing years of the BC era women were more important then men in every aspect. We know this through art and writings left behind.
What art and writings would these be? Be specific, now. Because the art and writings I'm familiar with (and I'm not exactly a layperson when it comes to ancient history) tend to depict patriarchies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What art and writings would these be? Be specific, now. Because the art and writings I'm familiar with (and I'm not exactly a layperson when it comes to ancient history) tend to depict patriarchies.
Google Venus statues. I dont know if posting them would be a Code of conduct violation so I will not but basically the time they are from (early to mid BC years) women were far more important than men because they raised children.
The role of raising children was not considered something to be talked down to or act as though they were being opressed as it is now. (as many women in america dont want to be "Baby factories" while in africa and india the idea of having an abortion or not being a mother is rarer than winning the lottery)
I truely believe modern feminism is directly related to the increase in specialization and technology. The relation would be that the more advanced a society the more it looks down on children as they are a drain financially unlike times in history where they were a great boon. The relationship to power of women is often times directly related to the value of children in the society.
Google Venus statues. I dont know if posting them would be a Code of conduct violation so I will not but basically the time they are from (early to mid BC years) women were far more important than men because they raised children.
Ah, you're going way back. If you google "Cerne Abbas giant" instead, though, you might come to the opposite conclusion. The fact is that we cannot conclude that "women were more important than men" on the basis of some idols(?) we've dug up. Consider: among the religions about which we actually have written records, there are often powerful female figures, despite the societies they spring from being über-patriarchal. Ishtar, Isis, Athena, Amaterasu, the Virgin Mary... again and again we see femininity exalted even as actual women get their usual short end of the stick.
We don't know that the same thing was happening in the cultures that produced the Venus figurines. But we don't know it wasn't, either. This is because we know very little about paleolithic cultures, period. We definitely can't say with any certainty that they were matriarchies, or even that the status of women was anything above that of sex objects.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Even if you ignore that case many societies over the history of the world have been matriarchal. The thing is that these societies are short lived in most cases. There could be any number of reasons for this however history has proven patriarchal societies last longer than matriarchal societies.
This isnt a knock against women it's simply stating facts.
Besides all that this obsession with equality is absurd. To be truely equal means to be identical in every way which would remove gender and individuality. All humans are NOT created equal infact that is the entire idea behind capitalism, those who work harder and have better skills do better.
I also find it funny that everyone loves equality but hates communism. I dislike both in the extream you should really follow an old saying
"Moderation in all things, including moderation."
I have no problem with feminism infact I support it but there is a point where it isn't about equality its about superiority.
Is there any actual data on the longevity of matriarchal vs. patriarchal societies? It would seem to me that history is filled with many very short-lived patriarchal societies, as well as a few long-lived ones. Is the record for matriarchal societies different? Some indigenous matriarchal societies remain extant. It seems to me the difference is in the number of both types, not in longevity.
If anyone's got any hard data on this, I suspect it'd make for a very interesting read.
I had a conversation with someone that went something like:
"The mailman bring anything good other than bills today?"
"You mean the mail courier."
"Oh ya that's right, it's a chick. Okay, well the "femailman" bring anything good?"
":-/"
But ya the language shift to use less masculinized pronouns and so forth was always amusing to mess with people. Whenever I've faced criticism for not being gender neutral, I'm just more crass and utilitarian in my answer. If I'm not being offensive purposely and someone perfectly understand me. I see no need to be use gender neutral speech.
The only time I view gender neutrality as a necessary imperative is analyzing performance for promotion and so forth. Meritocracy is a great form to analyze people under.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
But Mike, I'm sorry, it is really unfortunate that you posted this whole "male gaze" thing, because it is ridiculous, and it's not only garbage, but it seems the dominant topic of most of the thread's responses, and that's a shame really.
Because to me the concept does several things.
1. First of all, it is "male gaze", not objectification, "male gaze", making male the key word. So first thing it says is that men are the bad ones, because men sexually objectify women, not the other way around.
2. The second is that it is a concept that basically creates a situation in which it takes attraction between one gender to another and qualifies it as BAD. It is BAD that men are attracted to women, which frankly, I refuse to believe is either acceptable, nor anything other than blatant sexism. And as to this statement:
"No one is saying you can't find women attractive"
You're specifically saying just that. You're saying that finding a woman physically attractive in THIS case is good and finding a woman physically attractive in THIS case is bad. What do you hope to gain making arbitrary distinctions on when men can or cannot find women attractive? All this aims to achieve is to create unnecessary guilt complexes over finding women physically attractive, which benefits no one.
And the fact of the matter is the concept creates this odd little myth in which men are bad creatures because they want to have sex with women and this is bad whereas women are chaste and virtuous and do not want sex with men, and that is exactly the kind of thing feminists fought against. Now it's coming up again.
Again, it's a shame, because you had a really good OP going there until that point. It's still a good thread though, I'm impressed by how it's going.
Yes. This sort of thing is called benevolent sexism. If anyone doubts that this is detrimental to women, here are two papers that investigate it:
http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/6525 (link to PDF at the bottom)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/d535365151855783/
What's interesting about the first paper, is that (from the abstract) "Four experiments found benevolent sexism to be worse than hostile sexism for women's cognitive performance."
Edit: A good summary / overview of the first paper by a blogger: http://www.strange-loops.com/blog/?p=33
It's obviously not an altruism if you're female.
It's also not an altruism if you realize the fact that patriarchal gender roles are detrimental to most men as well. If only because, as Nietzsche and Stirner demonstrated, in a relationship between master and slave, both parties are diminished in comparison to a union of egoists. More importantly, maleness creates a hierarchy in which those who better embody those ideals have power over males who are considered closer to femaleness (which is defined as an antithesis to maleness). In the most extreme forms it takes the form of militarism, national chauvinism and political fascism (which fetishizes stereotypically male values). In the less extreme, bullying of nerds (considered whimpy, less than male) by jocks (who embody male principles).
Ironically, like for economic classes, it is the 'middle class' (beta males, like geeks) who are the most vocal defenders of the hierarchy (the middle class was where the fascists drew most of its adherents, it is also where the teabaggers and other far right wing movements like Al Quaida take theirs). The point is that people who have little privilege in life defend what little they have over others more fiercely than people who have a lot of privilege, because they feel any minor loss of status more keenly than people who have more.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
There's female objectivists though that reject the original premise of feminism.
Untrue, the more "masculine" males that are leaders typically are able to balance talking and aggressive tendencies. Men that have truly antisocial qualities typically have lower testosterone than those that engage in male assertiveness coupled with positive social relationships.
Part of the patriarchal ideal is one that is able to do the "manly things" but also a man that is loyal and caring. You see this in military texts that a general must be stern, but also loving of his soldiers. This paternal love isn't exactly distant either, it is shown through ceremony and station, though.
Now, if we look at the most militaristic society, the Spartans, we see that even with the male ideal for a warrior. A Spartan woman was not only given more power, but greater expectations along with those freedoms to maintain a level of meritocracy. The Etruscans were also rather female egalitarian friendly, yet still had male leadership roles.
Perhaps, but we take any form of assertiveness and aggressiveness to mean "masculine." Masculine is a fairly vague construct that changes from culture to culture. I'll concede within the realm of various cultures there is a range of masculinity, but I question whether it is more simple than "maleness impulses."
I would rather argue it to be cultural norms that have been engaged upon that are successful across varying histories, not because of masculinity, but rather that they are the more similar tactics to move people to rationalize the irrational. "Fascism" in the abstract places fervor onto the state itself and drives out all other forms of competition for the state power structure. We dub this with under the panoply of masculinity, but what is the proper structure to engage with "masculinity" and "femininity?"
I am loath to use "masculine" or "feminine" to complex mechanics found within history, because both of these ideals are subjective and relative to be bound upon time and philosophy. Even then setting up a subjective ideal of what either of those two gender roles mean, people would argue that they are a corruption of the "true philosophy." As some have overtime to defend most ideologies or philosophies.
I disagree. What you're trying to drive at is "beta males" are "middle class" with ignoring what defines middle class. Middle class is a term that describes economic status, along with working class and down or up the S. E. S.
Your second point with the "most to lose," this just seems like basic human group psychology and not truly connected with masculinity at all. Looking at some works about group psychology such as people looking at how others are acting before they react strikes against that. Looking at how riots start with sane people also moves suspicion about masculinity as a driver.
Looking at revolutions when they take place generally during an economic uptick provides that people are more driven by power than "beta" or "delta" mentalities. Furthermore, the upper classmen are not always of alpha mentality. There are rich people that ride on the coattails of the success of others, such as prestigious law firms. They "go that route" to success because it is a part of their family structure rather than they see themselves as a "true leader."
As far as people that "have more to lose" I question, is it not also of the aristocracy? If anything in the past, and even now, "old money" tends to be more conservative in the preservation of hierarchy than the middle class. The middle class has always been more conducive towards upward mobility or the appearance of upward mobility.
I find that aggressive behaviors are far more simple; people don't like to lose. Aggressive types do not like the image of losing or feel that they are losing. I furthermore question whether "femininity" always has anything to do with aggressive behaviors at all. Any form of weakness or perceived weakness is a target for exploitation. Weakness is considered easy, and therefore because something is easy people more actively engage in the act.
If there is one thing that I have seen in this world is that people react strangely to sometimes the most mundane events, and it extends more out of fear than want. Fear as a general mechanic is normative to cause illogical behaviors. Therefore, I question whether masculinity is at the root of it or whether the psychosocial forces are more simple than that and we merely dub those psychohosocial forces as "masculine." In conclusion, what you deal with as your thesis with on masculinity is not what is healthy masculine traits in both the biological and cultural sense.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Well, I'm a 5'6, slender built, videogame/cardgame playing, academicaly-inclined artist/graphic designer/showman.
And I whole-heartedly support gender equality and even female superiority in some aspects. So there you have a "beta male" who isn't afraid of loosing women as a lesser in the bogus social pyramid.
I agree with Capt. Morgan, change is most distressing for those who have invested the most in the current enviroment, not to those in the middle.
Sexual objectification is not something we, as humans, can fight. It's biological. People want to look at risque things that they're attracted to. For example, I'm a white middle-class straight American, and even though I'm married, I will still become interested in a Billboard with a nearly naked woman on it. Any straight man will agree with me. It's biological. A black upper-class straight Canadian will probably say the same thing, and to deny that is against human nature. If that woman didn't want to be up posing on that Billboard, guess what? She wouldn't be.
People who say that that's wrong are, in my opinion, infringing on that woman's rights to be on that Billboard. You're denying her a job. You're denying her a pay check. That seems un-feministic to me.
Thanks to DarkNightCavalier
[Clan Flamingo]
I think this is one flawed argument of feminism.
I do not deny that women do have challenges in modern society, however the idea that only women are at a loss and that only by helping women we can reach "equality" is wrong.
Men have their own problem as well and feminism does nothing to help them. Hence being a feminist is not about equality, it's about helping women, no more and no less.
I'll be a post-feminist when we get to the post-patriarchy.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Except that's not how it was phrased in the quote Darklightz was responding to. "Elevating the position of women until it is equal to that of men" is indeed a very poor way to express the feminist goal.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Um... and at what point, in the separation of destinies, do men and women stop procreating together, raising children together, living together, etc.?
...
Discussion of feminism always seems to lead to sentiments that imply a nascent and brewing gender war. Why must this be so? Whatever happened to the wisdom of the Yin and the Yang, the harmonization of opposites?
All human relationship is fundamentally a form of war. Between the Self and the Other.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
From one perspective, yes. But from another, essentially human perspective (often associated with "mystical" experiences), the unbounded Self is united with all Others. This is the perspective that informs aspirations of "universal brotherhood," and which can be found at the heart of the successful and non-violent revolutions of the past century (MLK, Ghandi, Mandela, and so forth).
But to the extent that a movement prefers conflict to reconciliation; that it pursues the redress of its grievances without acknowledging the grievances of others; that it hardens itself along the Us vs. Them paradigm: to that extent, the movement runs in the monstrous tracks of Nazism and al-Qaida.
Which is just to say that the fact that some feminists have been referred to as "femi-Nazis" does not owe entirely to chauvenistic disparagement.
When either functional sperms or ovaries can be created in a lab?
I have always thought that'll be the final evolution, maybe even the reason for WWIII, and it's kinda sad because I feel the only way society will allow gender equality will be with the homogenization of the sexes.
Cultural change is slow and haphazard. We'll get there soon enough. Frankly, we're still trying to figure out government after several thousand years and doesn't mean we stopped trying or totally became one mind within some super entity.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
However I would be dead If I watched a Hayao Miyazaki film.:p
I always find the debate of equality funny because it reminds me of communism. Its a nice thought but really equality is impossible for so many reasons. It means differant things to differant people being the biggest one. If I think that X is unfair and a woman thinks that not X is unfair then equality is impossible because equality alot like good and evil is a point of view. Alot of the things that are "Clearly" Sexist arent viewed as sexest at all by some but instead just the natural way of things.
Also an aside that really has little to do with today. Up untill the waneing years of the BC era women were more important then men in every aspect. We know this through art and writings left behind. It was a matriarchal society for the majority of human history so keep that in mind when getting angry about inequality.
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
Still is even in Islamic countries. The matriarch wields a lot of power within the family. It's part of the oversimplified narrative we see with feminism and why I hate women's studies.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
What art and writings would these be? Be specific, now. Because the art and writings I'm familiar with (and I'm not exactly a layperson when it comes to ancient history) tend to depict patriarchies.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Google Venus statues. I dont know if posting them would be a Code of conduct violation so I will not but basically the time they are from (early to mid BC years) women were far more important than men because they raised children.
The role of raising children was not considered something to be talked down to or act as though they were being opressed as it is now. (as many women in america dont want to be "Baby factories" while in africa and india the idea of having an abortion or not being a mother is rarer than winning the lottery)
I truely believe modern feminism is directly related to the increase in specialization and technology. The relation would be that the more advanced a society the more it looks down on children as they are a drain financially unlike times in history where they were a great boon. The relationship to power of women is often times directly related to the value of children in the society.
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
Ah, you're going way back. If you google "Cerne Abbas giant" instead, though, you might come to the opposite conclusion. The fact is that we cannot conclude that "women were more important than men" on the basis of some idols(?) we've dug up. Consider: among the religions about which we actually have written records, there are often powerful female figures, despite the societies they spring from being über-patriarchal. Ishtar, Isis, Athena, Amaterasu, the Virgin Mary... again and again we see femininity exalted even as actual women get their usual short end of the stick.
We don't know that the same thing was happening in the cultures that produced the Venus figurines. But we don't know it wasn't, either. This is because we know very little about paleolithic cultures, period. We definitely can't say with any certainty that they were matriarchies, or even that the status of women was anything above that of sex objects.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This isnt a knock against women it's simply stating facts.
Besides all that this obsession with equality is absurd. To be truely equal means to be identical in every way which would remove gender and individuality. All humans are NOT created equal infact that is the entire idea behind capitalism, those who work harder and have better skills do better.
I also find it funny that everyone loves equality but hates communism. I dislike both in the extream you should really follow an old saying
"Moderation in all things, including moderation."
I have no problem with feminism infact I support it but there is a point where it isn't about equality its about superiority.
Sorry kind of went off on many tangents there.
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
Throwing this coin once proved that head comes up way more often than tails.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
If anyone's got any hard data on this, I suspect it'd make for a very interesting read.