| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to focus on sensible issues, not rush along with the latest call for action against whatever. As you say, manspreading falls far short of the level of a serious problem, so focusing on that invites articles that make fun of you. Besides, I liked sleep manpnea.
Besides, I liked sleep manpnea.
La Principessa snores much louder than I.
But, then again, I apparently manterrupt her quite a bit.
I'm working on it.
Ann Coulter made an amusing claim in her book, "Godless", which I'm going to misquote because I haven't read it in almost 10 years, but it goes something like this: liberalism's greatest achievement is its inability to be made fun of. No matter how ridiculous and over-the-top you try to satirize it, there are going to be liberals who will, or already have, seriously proposed your satire and genuinely believe in it.Wait... You mean someone took that article seriously?!Of you could just try reading the article linked and realize it is written with tongue firmly in cheek.National Review is about the lowest level of "journalism" you can get, and various 'isms are just beneath the surface. It gives me a good perspective on the ideas of people who read/post links to it however.Yeah, hiding this now. Some of this crap being bandied about is disgusting.Honestly curious about this one...
I think that is the first intelligent thing I have heard attributed to her.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's difficult to take a movement seriously that complains about things like "manspreading" and "manslamming" and then goes on to harass an innocent man because they don't like his shirt... Or when they say the authorities should ignore due process and always assume a man accused of rape is guilty.
Tumblr feminism is a joke. A irrational, hateful and bigoted joke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should read your articles closer, Citizen Fergurg.
"By the way, if a man ever tells you that your snoring bothers him, what he really means is that he is uncomfortable with the idea of women being heard."
I'm not bothered by it at all. If it wakes me up, I just wake her up and then we have sex. 'S all good.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question:
So, I think we can all agree that sexism exists, yeah? And at least some of us can agree that it's rooted in misogyny (so even when men are oppressed by sexism, it's because of a sexist valuing of masculinity and devaluing of femininity).
So the question is, what do you all think sexism is doing when it's not oppressing people in """"""""legitimate"""""""" ways? Like, even the rudest of you probably think that women should be able to vote and own property, etc., right? But what do you think people who blame rape victims, or think it's okay to abuse women, or hold strict views of gender roles ("women belong in the kitchen," etc.)--what do you think they're doing when they're not actively saying or doing obviously sexist things? Like they stop being sexist when they're on the train or just walking around? You don't think their views affect what they do on a daily basis, or what?
So if someone is a sexist piece of s$&!, they spread their legs on the subway to hurt women? Even if sitting beside men? Even if they are big enough that sitting normally on the tiny seats is a problem for them? I don't understand how that follows...
Question:
So, I think we can all agree that sexism exists, yeah? And at least some of us can agree that it's rooted in misogyny (so even when men are oppressed by sexism, it's because of a sexist valuing of masculinity and devaluing of femininity).
I think it's rooted in class society, but that's just me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ann Coulter made an amusing claim in her book, "Godless", which I'm going to misquote because I haven't read it in almost 10 years, but it goes something like this: liberalism's greatest achievement is its inability to be made fun of. No matter how ridiculous and over-the-top you try to satirize it, there are going to be liberals who will, or already have, seriously proposed your satire and genuinely believe in it.Wait... You mean someone took that article seriously?!Of you could just try reading the article linked and realize it is written with tongue firmly in cheek.National Review is about the lowest level of "journalism" you can get, and various 'isms are just beneath the surface. It gives me a good perspective on the ideas of people who read/post links to it however.Yeah, hiding this now. Some of this crap being bandied about is disgusting.Honestly curious about this one...
Really? Because Ann Coulter is a prime example of why it's impossible to satire the right without some of them thinking a) you're serious and b) you're not going far enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
~Shrugs~
My main point was that REAL problems of inequality exist, and result in all kinds of horrific real world consequences. Making the discussion about some strawman fringe argument (and/or making fun of that argument) isn't very funny when women are getting raped/assaulted on a very consistent basis. (It probably could be funny, but that article Fergug brought up didn't appeal to my sense of humor)
Liberals are not afraid of being made fun of, but when the joke is at the expense of people who get the short end of the stick and suffer real world consequences, it is about as funny as blackface whites making fun of silly negros.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(so even when men are oppressed by sexism, it's because of a sexist valuing of masculinity and devaluing of femininity).
See? This is the kind of statement that shows that tumblr feminism a joke.
"It's always misogyny. Even when it's not. Because Patriarchy."
Said statement is often followed or anticipated by stuff like "every man is sexist! Some of them just don't know it.", which, ironically enough, is an extremely sexist thing to say.
So the question is, what do you all think sexism is doing when it's not oppressing people in """"""""legitimate"""""""" ways? Like, even the rudest of you probably think that women should be able to vote and own property, etc., right? But what do you think people who blame rape victims, or think it's okay to abuse women, or hold strict views of gender roles ("women belong in the kitchen," etc.)--what do you think they're doing when they're not actively saying or doing obviously sexist things? Like they stop being sexist when they're on the train or just walking around? You don't think their views affect what they do on a daily basis, or what?
So, what is the point here? A rehash of the nonsensical (and sexist) argument that is "men sit with spread legs specifically because they feel they are superior to women and deserve more space because of their superiority"?
If you really want to go into 'their bigotry affect all their decisions", then let's add this:
"Probably affects their lives the same way misandry affects the lives of those who say every man is a potential rapist, that men accused of rape should be convicted without fair trial, that men are the only ones who act like jerks, that men are sexist because their shirt has pictures of sexy women, or because they like a game with a male protagonist, or because,*gasp* they enjoy seeing hot women in the media they consume, that men (and only men) always objectify members of a different gender, that men have an agenda to oppress women (aka: The Patriarchy (tm)) etc."
Really? Because Ann Coulter is a prime example of why it's impossible to satire the right without some of them thinking a) you're serious and b) you're not going far enough.
I'd even go so far to say that you could probably make the same joke about any political category you'd care to mention. 'Cept maybe "moderates" or something.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
~Shrugs~
My main point was that REAL problems of inequality exist, and result in all kinds of horrific real world consequences. Making the discussion about some strawman fringe argument (and/or making fun of that argument) isn't very funny when women are getting raped/assaulted on a very consistent basis. (It probably could be funny, but that article Fergug brought up didn't appeal to my sense of humor)Liberals are not afraid of being made fun of, but when the joke is at the expense of people who get the short end of the stick and suffer real world consequences, it is about as funny as blackface whites making fun of silly negros.
1. The author was a woman.
2. I'm sorry, but when a group goes on a crusade (it has made national news and influenced government policy) against people sitting with their knees a foot appart claiming it is sexist, they don't get to use "but we are assaulted more" as a defense against mockery, unless they can somehow show a good correlation to guys casually sitting on subway cars and assault.
I guffawed heartily, Citizen K(e)rensky, even before I google searched it.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Question:
So, I think we can all agree that sexism exists, yeah? And at least some of us can agree that it's rooted in misogyny (so even when men are oppressed by sexism, it's because of a sexist valuing of masculinity and devaluing of femininity).
I think it's rooted in class society, but that's just me.
While I'm a staunch anti-capitalist, I don't know if we can trace the origins of sexism to the creation of class, at least not for the reasons stated in their paraphrase (I'm assuming?) of Engels. They assert that "For biological reasons women were required to look after children and hence their role in food production was based around gathering close to the home while men hunted further afield." And while they note that neither of these activities were considered superior/inferior to the other, it's tinged with this weird evolutionary biology feel, or at least it re-asserts the gender binary and gender essentialism. While feminism is as much a social issue as it is an economic one, this synopsis seems to come from a place of history which was determined by a sexist/capitalist narrative.
In any case, this brings up an interesting question: why didn't sexism disappear in communist/socialist countries? For instance, why were the female USSR soldiers who fought in WWII shamed, ostracized, and erased from Soviet history? Sure, Stalinism isn't quite the communism we could hope for (to put it lightly), but it certainly wasn't capitalist. So the question is: was sexism a holdover from the class society of pre-revolutionary Russia that communism failed to stamp out, or is it a fundamentally different (but intersecting) social class issue that needs to be addressed alongside economic inequality?
Sure, Stalinism isn't quite the communism we could hope for (to put it lightly), but it certainly wasn't capitalist. So the question is: was sexism a holdover from the class society of pre-revolutionary Russia that communism failed to stamp out, or is it a fundamentally different (but intersecting) social class issue that needs to be addressed alongside economic inequality?
Short answer: both.
Longer answer, complete with quotations from Lenin and Trotsky, in a second.
(Work in progress)
Women’s liberation: The Marxist tradition
I thought that this bit was pretty good:
The leaders of the Russian Revolution of 1917 had from the beginning made combatting women’s oppression a central aspect of their revolutionary project. During its brief existence, this revolutionary government offered a glimpse of what a genuinely socialist society could offer in creating the material conditions for women to be liberated—but also the challenges that must be faced in making women’s liberation a reality in a post-revolutionary context.
Below I briefly examine the legal achievements and also the limitations of these in achieving genuine equality for women—indicating the degree to which further struggle will be necessary after a socialist revolution to eradicate women’s oppression.
To be sure, the revolutionary government enacted legislation establishing full social and political equality for women: the right to vote and to hold public office, the right to divorce at the request of either partner, the principle of equal pay for equal work, paid maternity leave for four months before and after childbirth, and child care at government expense. Abortion—viewed only as a health matter—was made legal in 1920, and women won the right to obtain free abortions in state hospitals. Only those who performed abortions for profit were considered criminals.
In addition, the revolution repealed all laws criminalizing homosexuality along with other laws regulating sexuality.31 Bolshevik Grigorii Btakis described the impact of the October Revolution on sexuality in 1923:
[Soviet legislation] declares the absolute non-interference of the state and society into sexual matters, so long as nobody is injured, and no one’s interests are encroached upon—concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offences against morality—Soviet legislation treats these exactly as so-called “natural” intercourse.32
But legal equality, while crucial, did not achieve liberation in everyday life within the family. As Lenin explained in 1919,
Laws alone are not enough, and we are by no means content with mere decrees. In the sphere of legislation, however, we have done everything required of us to put women in a position of equality and we have every right to be proud of it. The position of women in Soviet Russia is now ideal as compared with their position in the most advanced states. We tell ourselves, however, that this, of course, is only the beginning.33
Lenin commonly referred to women’s oppression within the family as “domestic slavery,” and he expressed alarm at its continuation in post-revolutionary Russia. In a 1920 interview with Zetkin, several years after the revolution, Lenin spoke in detail about the obstacles women continued to encounter in their domestic lives. The following quote from Lenin makes clear that Russian Marxists did not expect women’s oppression to automatically disappear after the revolution, but recognized the need for continued struggle:
Very few husbands, not even the proletarians, think of how much they could lighten the burdens and worries of their wives, or relieve them entirely, if they lent a hand in this “women’s work”. But no, that would go against the “privilege and dignity of the husband.” He demands that he have rest and comfort. The domestic life of the woman is a daily sacrifice of self to a thousand insignificant trifles. The ancient rights of her husband, her lord and master, survive unnoticed . . . I know the life of the workers, and not only from books. Our communist work among the masses of women, and our political work in general, involves considerable education among the men. We must root out the old slave-owner’s point of view, both in the Party and among the masses. That is one of our political tasks, a task just as urgently necessary as the formation of a staff composed of comrades, men and women, with thorough theoretical and practical training for Party work among working women.34
Trotsky likewise argued, “To institute the political equality of men and women in the Soviet state was one problem and the simplest . . . But to achieve the actual equality of man and woman within the family is an infinitely more arduous problem.” He concluded, “All our domestic habits must be revolutionized before that can happen. And yet it is quite obvious that unless there is actual equality of husband and wife in the family, in a normal sense as well as in the conditions of life, we cannot speak seriously of their equality in social work or even in politics.”35
The Bolsheviks thus never harbored the illusion that a victorious socialist revolution is all that is required to end women’s oppression. Old customs and attitudes cannot be expected to change overnight, but can only shift over time, as new generations grow up without the ideological baggage perpetuated by oppressive class societies over the course of centuries.
Indeed, it is more appropriate to appreciate the degree to which the Bolsheviks understood that the revolution was not the end, but the beginning of the struggle to win women’s liberation. Most importantly, they understood the centrality of freeing women from the drudgery of “domestic slavery,” however difficult, as the key to their future liberation in all spheres of life.
but the article doesn't talk about the marked blow against women's rights that was represented by the coming to power of Stalinism and was codified in revisions to the family code in, 1936?, I think, but lemme go look for more commie articles.
So if someone is a sexist piece of s!!%, they spread their legs on the subway to hurt women? Even if sitting beside men? Even if they are big enough that sitting normally on the tiny seats is a problem for them? I don't understand how that follows...careful ... you're manterrogating. <snicker>
Fergung, you monster! Sissyl is female , so you disagreeing with her and/or accusing her of behaving like... *gasp* a man, makes you a MANTERROGATOR!
YOU MANSTER!
I've always liked this one:
The Russian Revolution and the Emancipation of Women
Pertinent bits about three-fourths of the way down, starting with The Family Code of 1926
Kinda skips from the thirties to the nineties. I've gotten the impression, though, after reading about this kinda shiznit for 20 years, that even at its worst (outlawing of abortion, for example), women's rights never dipped below their capitalist contemporaries and, for great periods of time, far exceeded them. I'm sure it varied from Iron Curtain state to Iron Curtain state, but I had gotten the impression that, for example, even bourgeois feminists (well, some, anyway) had to agree that the highest achievements in women's rights that have ever been made on this miserable f!#@ing planet were gained in East Germany.
Here is a fun documentary on the subject that makes me cry. A lot:
Do Communists Have Better Sex?
Now I am aware that I only addressed one of your paragraphs, so I'd better go re-read the question.
While I'm a staunch anti-capitalist, I don't know if we can trace the origins of sexism to the creation of class, at least not for the reasons stated in their paraphrase (I'm assuming?) of Engels. They assert that "For biological reasons women were required to look after children and hence their role in food production was based around gathering close to the home while men hunted further afield." And while they note that neither of these activities were considered superior/inferior to the other, it's tinged with this weird evolutionary biology feel, or at least it re-asserts the gender binary and gender essentialism. While feminism is as much a social issue as it is an economic one, this synopsis seems to come from a place of history which was determined by a sexist/capitalist narrative.
[EDIT: On re-reading, I probably misunderstood some of your reasoning and made false assumptions about what you meant. I'm gonna leave the post as is, though. Probably only Point 2 is pertinent and that's the one where I say, "beats me."]
So, here I have to confess to a real lack in grounding in anthropology, but:
1) Your quote is not where they trace the origins of women's oppression. As you note, they further state: "However, despite the split in work, women were not viewed as inferior to men and their status was aided by the fact that families were traced through the mother line, since without marriage and fidelity as a social norm it was impossible to be certain of a child’s father." I don't know about gender binary essentialism, or what that is, but, for the record, that's not where they're identifying the source of women's oppression.
2) I only took one anthropology course ever, Intro to Cult Anthro at the Freshman level, with this young professor who was part-time both where I had her at UMass Boston and over at Boston University. She was pretty smart, funny, and decidedly feministic, but not particularly Marxist as far as I could tell. She made repeated efforts to drive home to a bunch of multiracial working class kids and some weirdo 30-year old stoned bearded dude in an airport worker's uniform how little of what "we" (not me, of course) think of as traditional gender roles and traits or whatever was "social," not "natural" (Caveat: I'm sure these weren't her words.)
And when she laid out the part on hunter-gatherers, and what the men did and what the women did, and then said that a trait of hunter-gatherer societies was that there was no sexual division of labor, I pretty much asked the same question that you just asked me. And she basically shrugged her shoulders and said "Well, there wasn't much." I still don't know what that means and, alas, I don't have an answer. But,
3) The comrades at the IMT trace the origin of women's oppression to the advancements in technology that led to the development of slavery and the family. They put it, pretty dully I admit, thusly:
"The creation of surplus saw the beginnings of class society, as it was now possible for some men to sell their surplus for profit, creating distinctions between rich and poor. As some began to amass wealth they also bought slaves and paid other men to work on their land; here we see the first example of worker/landowner.
This process led to women being seen as inferior to men in society, as it was within the work of men that profit was to be found. The creation of surplus also led to the creation of inheritance. The greater status of men meant that families were now traced through the male line, which necessitated the enforcement of female fidelity. Here we see the origins of marriage."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the articles, comrade. I'll have to set aside some time to read these fully, but from that first one, it seems like one of the largest obstacles to overcoming class oppression is the lack of intersectional struggle against the ruling class(es).
Yeah, that's a lot of shiznit. Sorry about that. I got a little stoned about an hour ago.
To try to answer your question more succinctly, I hope: Yes, it's absolutely true. The greatest obstacles to smashing capitalism is the racial, sexual, whatever, divisions within the working class and that the only way to smash those divisions is for the working class to struggle against all forms and varieties of oppression.*
Workers of the world, unite!
Vive le Galt!!!
*
1. The author was a woman.
2. I'm sorry, but when a group goes on a crusade (it has made national news and influenced government policy) against people sitting with their knees a foot appart claiming it is sexist, they don't get to use "but we are assaulted more" as a defense against mockery, unless they can somehow show a good correlation to guys casually sitting on subway cars and assault.
1. In black/white racial issues, there is the term house negro* for those who serve the master at the expense of their own. I'm not sure what the term is for women, but throwing your own under the bus for profit/privilege has never been cool except in the eyes of the master. It is why Coulter, Palin, Crowley are tolerated, but no woman who stands up for other women is allowed in the boys club.
2. Just to be clear, what national group are you talking about specifically? I have heard Fox "news" bend over backwards to say "manspreading" over and over, (it was pathetic to view that) but what "group" are you referring to. Also, to be clear, there is NO GOVERNMENT POLICY related to how you sit on mass transit. It might not be legal to take up more then one seat, but that has next to nothing to do with an advertisement campaign related to "courtesy". You are being distracted by a circus sideshow.
The entire point is that this whole thing is a strawman whose purpose is to mock "the dumb femnazis" while ignoring actual issues. It is rather sad to see so many people fall for it. Keep talking about how people sit on the subway, then wonder why women's paychecks are smaller then men's.
He characterizes the house Negro as having a better life than the field Negro, and thus unwilling to leave the plantation and potentially more likely to support existing power structures that favor whites over blacks. Malcolm X identified with the field Negro. The term is used against individuals, in critiques of attitudes within the African American community, and as a borrowed term for critiquing parallel situations.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So essentially what I find problematic in this analysis is that it posits men as the hunters and women as the gatherers, and then points to that division of labor as what gave men access to surplus, profit, and power (as a corruption of the "separate but equal" division).
I don't know about gender binary essentialism, or what that is [. . .]
Basically, gender essentialism is the position that the categories of male and female, of masculine and feminine, etc. exist "naturally," as opposed to being social constructs. In reality, gender is a cultural invention which is presented as an essential, inherent quality of people. There are a lot of implications and consequences of this (for more, see the work of third-wave feminists like Judith Butler), but for now I'll stick with our example here.
I see this explanation of the creation of the family, and its relation to inheritance/marriage/the gender dynamics of class inequality, being portrayed as a corruption of the "natural" egalitarian division of gendered work in the Neolithic era. The problem is that we have no way of knowing how people in the Stone Age conceived of gender, and the supposition of the division between men/women and hunter/gatherers is rooted in a (relatively) contemporary and western concept of the family and the gender binary (the gender binary stating that people are either masculine cis men or feminine cis women). Basically what I'm getting at is that it's entirely possible that people of all genders/sexes in the Neolithic era were both hunters and gatherers, and to say that "women were gatherers [and not hunters] because of biology" is a reflection of the sexist assumptions that the oppressive nuclear family structure created.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm a staunch anti-capitalist, I don't know if we can trace the origins of sexism to the creation of class, at least not for the reasons stated in their paraphrase (I'm assuming?) of Engels. They assert that "For biological reasons women were required to look after children and hence their role in food production was based around gathering close to the home while men hunted further afield." And while they note that neither of these activities were considered superior/inferior to the other, it's tinged with this weird evolutionary biology feel, or at least it re-asserts the gender binary and gender essentialism. While feminism is as much a social issue as it is an economic one, this synopsis seems to come from a place of history which was determined by a sexist/capitalist narrative.Oooh... Scary use of buzzwords [. . .]
They stop being "buzzwords" when you understand what the terms mean. If you don't understand any terms I'm using, that's understandable, as some of it is cultural theory/sociological jargon, which are used as shorthand for ideas that are explained in more depth in other texts. Unfortunately, those texts are often locked behind the pay-wall of educational elitism, so I'd be happy to try to explain some of these things to you!
You could also use Google or Wikipedia as a starting point, and see what you can glean from them, and come back to me with questions! I'm just here to help. :)
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Or you know, the evidence presented by anthropology, primate studies, and archeology, etc.
Oh , wait, those are all inventions of the straight, white, cisgendered male to keep others down.
Edit: Also, lol at anthropology. Is there a field with more sexist and especially racist origins? Probably not!
So essentially what I find problematic in this analysis is that it posits men as the hunters and women as the gatherers, and then points to that division of labor as what gave men access to surplus, profit, and power (as a corruption of the "separate but equal" division).
I don't know about gender binary essentialism, or what that is [. . .]Basically, gender essentialism is the position that the categories of male and female, of masculine and feminine, etc. exist "naturally," as opposed to being social constructs. In reality, gender is a cultural invention which is presented as an essential, inherent quality of people. There are a lot of implications and consequences of this (for more, see the work of third-wave feminists like Judith Butler), but for now I'll stick with our example here.
I see this explanation of the creation of the family, and its relation to inheritance/marriage/the gender dynamics of class inequality, being portrayed as a corruption of the "natural" egalitarian division of gendered work in the Neolithic era. The problem is that we have no way of knowing how people in the Stone Age conceived of gender, and the supposition of the division between men/women and hunter/gatherers is rooted in a (relatively) contemporary and western concept of the family and the gender binary (the gender binary stating that people are either masculine cis men or feminine cis women). Basically what I'm getting at is that it's entirely possible that people of all genders/sexes in the Neolithic era were both hunters and gatherers, and to say that "women were gatherers [and not hunters] because of biology" is a reflection of the sexist assumptions that the oppressive nuclear family structure created.
[Ramblings about subjects I don't really know much about, but, then again, I gather most of you don't either]
Hmm. Well, I would agree that the comrades from the IMT's statement about the men being hunters and the women being gatherers is a little, I don't know, unfluid? I don't know if Engels would have said exactly that (I'd have to check), but I think they're trying to summarize the findings of mainstream anthropology (or, at least as Prof. LaPorte taught it at UMass.) And, doing so, I admit, they're a little clunky.
What my prof taught us, and I have no idea whether it's true or not, is that in hunter-gatherer societies, women TENDED to take care of the kids more (the men also took care of the kids) and the men TENDED to go hunting more, but that that was pretty much a recreational trip with the boys because most of the time the men just gathered alongside the women which was usually sufficient to meet the h-g's dietary needs. Or so I was taught. As I said, I asked her about her claim that there was no sexual division of labor, and she said "Well, there wasn't much."
The part I bolded up above kinda made me go "hmmmm." Never thought of it that way. IIRC, Engels's famous summation of that was "the world historic defeat of the female sex." I'll have to think about that some more, I guess.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is impossible to be sexist toward men in the same way that it is impossible to be racist toward white people or classist toward the ruling class. Please note that I'm using these "-ist" terms in the context of their existence as oppressive systems, not as simple prejudice.
EDIT: fruitless inb4 wild misunderstanding and misconstrued backlash against this.
All I'm saying about that particular article's summary of one of Engels' points is that the particular conception of Neolithic gender is most likely based in an understanding of history from the viewpoint of Engels' contemporary conception of gender. Humans have a degree of sexual dimorphism, sure, but it's much less pronounced than in most primates. Also, the very concept of "two sexes" is a product of biological classification. And I'm not saying that there aren't sexual differences between given human bodies (duh), but rather that our classification of them is still just a product of culture (fun fact: the sciences are cultural institutions, as much as some people like to assert that they're somehow outside of, or objective with regards to, culture).
1. The author was a woman.
2. I'm sorry, but when a group goes on a crusade (it has made national news and influenced government policy) against people sitting with their knees a foot appart claiming it is sexist, they don't get to use "but we are assaulted more" as a defense against mockery, unless they can somehow show a good correlation to guys casually sitting on subway cars and assault.
1. In black/white racial issues, there is the term house negro* for those who serve the master at the expense of their own. I'm not sure what the term is for women, but throwing your own under the bus for profit/privilege has never been cool except in the eyes of the master. It is why Coulter, Palin, Crowley are tolerated, but no woman who stands up for other women is allowed in the boys club.
2. Just to be clear, what national group are you talking about specifically? I have heard Fox "news" bend over backwards to say "manspreading" over and over, (it was pathetic to view that) but what "group" are you referring to. Also, to be clear, there is NO GOVERNMENT POLICY related to how you sit on mass transit. It might not be legal to take up more then one seat, but that has next to nothing to do with an advertisement campaign related to "courtesy". You are being distracted by a circus sideshow.
The entire point is that this whole thing is a strawman whose purpose is to mock "the dumb femnazis" while ignoring actual issues. It is rather sad to see so many people fall for it. Keep talking about how people sit on the subway, then wonder why women's paychecks are smaller then men's.
** spoiler omitted **...
You obviously don't have connections to feminist blogs on twitter or tumblr, where the term originated. I first came across manspreading on a Huffington Post article talking about how terrible it was. I've seen it talked about on msnbc. It's not just Fox news talking about it. They mocked something after it became news when the transit authority put out advertisements against it, they didn't create the thing whole cloth.
How the government spends money is government policy. Funding an advertising campaign is spending money.
Feminists created the term and championed the cause. Mocking them for its idiocy is not somehow attacking a strawman. It is attacking the ridiculous cause they created.
recreationally metabolising mild toxins and waiting for something that required heavy lifting or violence.
I considered, but left out, a tangent about that.
[bubble bubble buble]
Actually, throw in the part about the woman doing most of the work (well, money-making anyway) and it's what I hope my life with La Principessa will be like. Except I'll do all the dishes and shiznit.
It is impossible to be sexist toward men in the same way that it is impossible to be racist toward white people or classist toward the ruling class. Please note that I'm using these "-ist" terms in the context of their existence as oppressive systems, not as simple prejudice.
EDIT: fruitless inb4 wild misunderstanding and misconstrued backlash against this.All I'm saying about that particular article's summary of one of Engels' points is that the particular conception of Neolithic gender is most likely based in an understanding of history from the viewpoint of Engels' contemporary conception of gender. Humans have a degree of sexual dimorphism, sure, but it's much less pronounced than in most primates. Also, the very concept of "two sexes" is a product of biological classification. And I'm not saying that there aren't sexual differences between given human bodies (duh), but rather that our classification of them is still just a product of culture (fun fact: the sciences are cultural institutions, as much as some people like to assert that they're somehow outside of, or objective with regards to, culture).
When you try to use a specific specialized definition (that many people don't agree with) of a term that has many different ones, and you don't specify until after the fact, don't be surprised when people misinterpret your argument.
Personally, I think the idea that you can't be sexist against men or racist against white people to be b!+@#+~+. 1. The systematic definition you are using is not the one people will colloquially use. 2. It ignores the idea that power dynamics can be different within different areas of a culture.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
1. The systematic definition you are using is not the one people will colloquially use.
Good thing I specified that I was talking about systemic forms of oppression, then, instead of relying on the common colloquial understanding, eh?
2. It ignores the idea that power dynamics can be different within different areas of a culture.
Of all the things I've been accused of, and in all the ways my arguments have been misrepresented, saying that I'm ignoring the intersections and context of power dynamics is probably the least true thing I've ever been characterized as. Sorry, that sentence got a little messy.
]You obviously don't have connections to feminist blogs on twitter or tumblr, where the term originated. ...
True.
EDIT: I should add that I am not a woman, or what I consider a feminist. I believe in equality, but don't tent to identify with groups that have the "ist" suffix.So... "some blogs" is the best you got? Then Huffpost and other "news" organizations talking about what some blog wrote? Is there perhaps some organization? Oprah? Anything with a shred of credibility?
"Some bloggers" created something. Trashing "Feminists" over it is the textbook definition of strawman. I think you are being fooled.
NOTE: There was also a "don't be a jerk" transportation campaign a while back, but there is no government policy against being a jerk. Advertisment does not equal policy.
Define: Policy - a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
There are certainly fuzzy bits around the edges of our gender classification system - and some "primitive" cultures had their own ways of addressing those, but for the basic view from 10,000 feet (or 10,000 years into the past) those fuzzy bits really aren't too relevant. Unless you're going to argue that people back then didn't also grasp the two basic divisions, while possibly acknowledging some others.
So, while I'm glad you put "primitive" in quotes to acknowledge the often problematic use of that term in describing people, the term "two basic divisions" seems weird to me because it still relies on a binary idea of gender and sex. There are contemporary cultures across the world that have more than two genders, and they don't consider those gender options to be "male, female, and then the other one(s)." I dunno, I would have more to say about this but I guess it all just boils down to: "the gender binary is bad and outright dangerous and other lethal for anyone who doesn't conform to it."
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. In black/white racial issues, there is the term house negro* for those who serve the master at the expense of their own. I'm not sure what the term is for women, but throwing your own under the bus for profit/privilege has never been cool except in the eyes of the master. It is why Coulter, Palin, Crowley are tolerated, but no woman who stands up for other women is allowed in the boys club.
You know, I avoid posting on this thread because of all the crap that's throw around but this is seriously the most offensive thing I've seen on here and I can't let is slide. So, not only did you yank in a grossly racist comment into the discussion for pure shock value, but the point you were trying to make was essentially "If a woman's opinion doesn't confirm to the precepts of feminist theory then they are gender traitors and they really should keep their mouth shut." Seriously? I guess women lib is only for those who toe the line, right?