Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

There are disadvantages to being a member of either sex. Oppression goes both ways. Here's a Wikipedia article that lists masculist concerns and the disadvantages of being male.

Wikipedia - Masculism

Some of those concerns are valid and have also been pointed out by many feminists, whereas other points make me groan. But I found it interesting to read that many masculists (I always thought they were called malinists) are as concerned with true gender equality as most feminists, instead of promoting male interests over female ones.

I think this highlights one reason behind the suspiciousness with which many men approach the feminist movement. Neither the term feminism nor masculism suggests an interest in equality. Both sound as if the activists are taking one side in a struggle between the genders. Since liberal masculists and most feminists recognize that gender equality problems in Western societies go both ways, perhaps it is time to drop the old labels and adopt a gender-neutral and gender-equal umbrella term?

Ironically, some feminists contribute to this situation by decrying everything girly and overtly feminine as tools designed to keep women in their traditional place. Lynn Meletiche calls Barbie dolls "the ultimate symbol of women's oppression" and claims that "these dolls may help ensure a constant supply of decorative, nonfeminist, nonactivist women". And when the Lego Group recently announced a new line of feminine, pastel-colored toys geared primarily at girls, there was a huge cry of indignation.

To be fair, the new "Lego friends" toy line is not just a set of the usual Lego bricks in girly colors. It involves less creativity and is more akin to the playsets of Lego's competitor Playmobil. But nobody forces parents to buy their daughters the new cute and girly toys instead of the old, gender-neutral sets of bricks and robot-like, yellow-skinned little figures. Which I hated as a kid, because of their ugly and utterly unrealistic look. I think I would have rather played with a cute science lab like this, nevermind the pastel colors:



But nobody seems to consider that the new product line might appeal to boys as well, especially boys who dream of being a princess. It's wrong to want to be a princess, for boys and girls alike. Both genders are supposed to see themselves in grey business suits. Pink dresses stand for the traditional female gender role, whereas traditionally male clothes scream "strong and empowered woman". Skirts, bras, high heels, anything feminine represents a symbol of oppression according to a subset of feminists.

Men who dress up in lingerie, corsets and skirts are just getting a kick from acting out the role of oppressed women. Women who dress and act in a stereotypically feminine way are brainwashed Stepford wives who have succumbed to the expectations of a male-dominated society. If some extremists had their way, everything girly would end up under the guillotines of the feminist revolution. I think this mindset is as much responsible for the promotion of traditionally masculine traits over all things feminine as the male respect for tough and competitive women in combination with the male derision of feminine men.

[To be fair, the new "Lego friends" toy line is not just a set of the usual Lego bricks in girly colors. It involves less creativity and is more akin to the playsets of Lego's competitor Playmobil. But nobody forces parents to buy their daughters the new cute and girly toys instead of the old, gender-neutral sets of bricks and robot-like, yellow-skinned little figures. Which I hated as a kid, because of their ugly and utterly unrealistic look. I think I would have rather played with a cute science lab like this, nevermind the pastel colors:


I would have *loved* a set like that when I was a kid.

i am not speaking out against pink toys - i am speaking out that these things are considered lesser because they are traditionally feminine. if nobody looked down on them it wouldn't matter if boys wanted to play with them.

i have no idea about the psychology or philosophy behind men who dress up, but their choices should not be derided for being female. if a man wears a skirt it should not create waves.

I entirely agree with that. I'm only pointing out that both men and a number of women are participating in the demotion of traditionally feminine clothes, toys and role behavior, albeit for different reasons.

Skirts and heels are oppressive because they are literally debilitating. There is a long-standing tradition of fashions that make women less capable of moving than they would be in feminine equivalents of male clothing, from heels (which also deform the feet and cause back problems) to "hobble" skirts, to bound feet in china. Imagine, for example, a man striding authoritatively down the street in a business suit... and imagine a woman next to him in a knee-length business skirt, which inhibits her stride, making her appear to scurry rather than stride next to him. Bras, on the other hand, seem to be appreciated by women more than men because they inhibit the bounce.

That seems to refute a lot of the "gender roles in terms of political power are just human nature" arguments that certain anti-feminists make. To be fair, though, there are some feminists who are also gender essentialists*.

*Gender essentialism being the view that almost all or at least most gender differences are biologically based and that variation within gender groups is out-factored by differences between gender groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_ess ... d_politics

Men who dress up in lingerie, corsets and skirts are just getting a kick from acting out the role of oppressed women. Women who dress and act in a stereotypically feminine way are brainwashed Stepford wives who have succumbed to the expectations of a male-dominated society. If some extremists had their way, everything girly would end up under the guillotines of the feminist revolution. I think this mindset is as much responsible for the promotion of traditionally masculine traits over all things feminine as the male respect for tough and competitive women in combination with the male derision of feminine men.

I think this highlights one reason behind the suspiciousness with which many men approach the feminist movement. Neither the term feminism nor masculism suggests an interest in equality. Both sound as if the activists are taking one side in a struggle between the genders. Since liberal masculists and most feminists recognize that gender equality problems in Western societies go both ways, perhaps it is time to drop the old labels and adopt a gender-neutral and gender-equal umbrella term?

I believe in patriarchy on a global scale. I also believe it's alive and kicking in the West (though admittedly moreso in the USA than in Canada and some of the European countries like Germany and the Scandinavian countries). When there are honor-killings, sex-trafficking and sexual grooming of girls happening right on my doorstep, you can damn well bet that I'm going to focus on attacking patriarchy. Besides, most feminists agree that men have problems too, but these are really a result of patriarchy, also. I like using the term 'feminism' because it identifies the fight against patriarchy in the context of a struggle which has occurred for centuries, but you can call it 'banana hammockism' if you want, as long as it does its anti-patriarchal job.

You do realize that the Scandinavian countries are considered the most gender equal in the world right? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/1 ... Iceland__1

You do realize that the Scandinavian countries are considered the most gender equal in the world right? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/1 ... Iceland__1

Don't think I fancy living in some of those countries. Though Denmark would be alright.