There is a lot of talk on some of the blogs that I read about the horrors of feminism - from men and women alike. While it might be obvious to some readers, I think others might be surprised to know that I am very much undecided about whether or not I support feminism. The way I see it, there are two possible models for understanding the role of feminism in society, and I have yet to decide which one I subscribe to. Both agree about what feminism is trying to do - namely, homogenize or depolarize the sexes. They disagree strongly, however, about whether or not this is desirable.
Here is how I characterize the two models for understanding feminism's role in society:
Model 1 - Pro Traditional Sex Roles (Conservative in nature)
Here is how I characterize the two models for understanding feminism's role in society:
Model 1 - Pro Traditional Sex Roles (Conservative in nature)
"The differences between the sexes exist for good reasons. Men by nature assume masculine roles as protector and provider, while women by nature assume feminine roles as child-bearer and nurturer. The two compliment each other well, and harmony is achieved when the two work together. The characteristics of the two are innate and can be denied but not changed."
I will refer to the proponents of this scenario as traditionalists.
I will refer to the proponents of this scenario as traditionalists.
Model 2 - Pro Feminism (Progressive in nature)
"The differences between the sexes do not exist for good reasons. While difference does not always equate to inequality, in many cases - especially historically - this has been the case, and women have typically been on the losing end of the disparity. The characteristics of the two sexes are largely socially constructed, or engendered (hence the term "gender," from the Latin "generare" - to bring forth). Because they are engendered, they are also changeable; and we should do what we can to strive for equality."
I will refer to the proponents of this scenario as feminists.
I will refer to the proponents of this scenario as feminists.
Here is my Pyrrhonistic rationale, which is more a case for the plausibility of the feminist world-view than the traditionalist one, which needs less defense since it has historical precedence:
- While the traits of both sexes are certainly deeply rooted in the male and female psyche, or perhaps in the fabric of society, it isn't obvious to me that they are necessarily innate or eternal. The obvious difficulties that feminism has introduced could be symptoms of a species trying to bend against its nature, but they could just as well be growing pains on the path towards a better state of affairs.
- Traditionalists can make a strong argument that there are undeniable biological differences between men and women, and that these differences have far-reaching consequences, making men and women very different. But it is at least thinkable that we could shed these differences through evolution over the coming thousands of years, especially if we begin to conceive children outside of the womb - which technology will almost certainly allow us to do within the next 100 years.
- There is no question that men are less masculine than they were tens or hundreds of years ago, and women less feminine. But can this trend continue without a backlash or reaction? We are arguably seeing the inklings of this reaction the blogs that I referred to at the start of this post. This reaction could swing things back in the direction of extreme sexual polarity, which could persist, or else cause another reaction reinstating androgyny (at which point the cycle would likely continue ad infinitum).
- It certainly is difficult to imagine an androgynous society, but it isn't impossible. There is no doubt in my mind that the human race has evolved as quickly as it has due to the intense pleasure of sexual intercourse. But who says sexual intercourse is a permanent fixture in society? As we learn more about the brain and continue to discover mind altering substances (which are being legalized by the places that lead social and political trends worldwide), is it so difficult to envision a scenario in which sexual pleasure is usurped by some other experience? Even if the sexual organs never evolve off of the body, they could simply become insignificant - relics of a previous stage of human development (like the appendix).
To summarize: is isn't clear to me that the feminist "utopia" is impossible or undesirable. Even if it would be arguably a worse situation than the one that the we are in now (or were in traditionally), I don't see why that would mean we couldn't end up there as a species. As far as I can tell, feminism could conceivably achieve its goals.
Now, all that being said, I think there is one important point left to make. It is a point that underlies every word written on this blog: regardless of where feminism may be taking us, there are certain ways that a woman can behave to take advantage of the current social-sexual climate. Changes in social norms occur very gradually, so that you don't need to be concerned about the opposite sex suddenly being unattracted to the things it finds attractive now. Given this, women have two options
- Support feminism (and ultimately androgyny) by aligning yourself with its goals: suppress your feminine qualities and emphasize your masculine ones, in an effort to further your career and the feminist cause.
- Take advantage of the male-female polarity that (still) exists by allowing your feminine qualities to shine through, since this (still) attracts men.
Related Posts
1. "The Difference Between" and "The Difference Among"
2. Katy Perry Is Brainwashing Women
3. The Analogy Between Confidence and Beauty
Feminism has two parts.
ReplyDelete1) The increasing of female status and benefits over men.
2) The increase of masculine female status and benefits over feminine female stats and benefits.
It is a movement of masculine women to displace men and feminine women. I don't see why we should give such people an inch.
There really aren't very many unified goals of feminism. It's a disparate philosophy that many people with conflicting points of few prescribe too.
DeleteMost people who consider themselves feminist merely want equality. The ones who don't I wouldn't really consider feminist.
You are mistaking losing privileges for losing rights.
What privileges?
Delete"There is no question that men are less masculine than they were tens or hundreds of years ago, and women less feminine."
ReplyDeleteOur lives are easier than they were hundreds of years ago, so it's only natural that both men and women think and act differently. I don't think you can make a comparison.
The ideal view people had of masculinity has always been subject to change. Sensitive poet types have been going in and out of fashion for centuries.
If you take a look at contemporary cultures that have seen little feminist influence (arabic culture, some asian countries) you will find the men behave in ways that we in the west would view as more feminine, not less. I would argue that, as women become more masculine, men don't become more feminine but society redefines what masculinity means.
"Our lives are easier than they were hundreds of years ago, so it's only natural that both men and women think and act differently. I don't think you can make a comparison."
DeleteOur lives are easier because of the technology we created all long the way...therefore making each generation a little bit lazier! Think about it...with the internet, telephones, etc, there's no need to even 'go' into work (therefore no need to look and feel your best) when we can just work from home. Or how about something as simple as typing out a text message? Does anyone really know how to spell these days or is it just easier (a lazier way out) to use symbols, abbreviations and auto correct (heck, who even proof reads before sending a text?).
Think about the farmers across the US...they get up when the rooster crows and go to bed when the sun goes down. They actually WORK for what they have. Or how about the illegal Mexicans 2-3 generations ago? They found their way to the states, worked their assess off to send money back home to provide for their families. Now think about this generation...we expect everything to be handed to us! And if its not...all hell breaks loose.
Yes, life may be completely different then it was 1000s of years ago, however, that's due to what we have now to make our jobs, life, dealing with stress/family/work/life so much EASIER! To me, there's no excuses for that! We can work just as hard...but we choose not to do so...
I agree with your two options for women. Feminine women are more attractive to men. If you are a heterosexual woman who puts herself first then you should be feminine.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is though that women can have their cake and eat it too. We constantly hear about the wage gap. Most of this wage disparity is caused by different choices that women and men make. Men and women choose different fields, men work more hours, men work more dangerous jobs, men have more credentials (though that is changing rapidly). It isn't surprising that men and women aren't paid exactly the same. But people act like the wage gap is due to simple discrimination. At most a small percentage is.
By choosing option 2, women help themselves. But they also help feminism - because feminists can then point to feminine women and say the only reason these women are not androgynous is because they are oppressed.
Different men are attracted to different kinds of things. Blah blah blah, averages, but that doesn't change that the world is huge, and people get turned on by all kinds of things. You should act in such a way as to attract the men you want to attract.
DeleteThe wage gap is due to complex discrimination. Women are often encouraged by a bunch of different things to pursue jobs that are lower paying, and women are expected to do more of the housework, child rearing and such. Furthermore then are loads of people like you claiming that "masculine career women" are unfuckable.
That last sentence makes no sense.
"The wage gap is due to complex discrimination..."
DeleteSo you are claiming that women lack agency, that they can't themselves decide what they want, but are moved by evil forces in the society, like leaves in the autumn wind?
Strange, why didn't that work on the Africans who were forced to slavery? Why didn't they just accept their role as slaves? Can it be that the slaves had an agency that women lack?
Yes? Then the premise of feminism is false, and women are just were they deserve to be.
No? Then the premise of feminism is false, and women are just were they want to be.
Or to put more eloquently, listen to Girl Writes What!, starting from the 11th minute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N_iTV3cQFoM#at=676
a woman with the same credentials, working the same job is STILL, on average, paid less than a man. That is sexist and there is no way around it.
DeleteI think this is actually incorrect. Most studies seem to miss a key point in the comparison. they don't take into account the different job preferences of the genders, experience or working hours. A woman working in the same field with the same credentials, experience and length of employment is paid the same or in some fields slightly more on average than men.
Deletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/
I also wanted to add that a large subset of MRAs actually are non-traditionalist. Specifically, they want men and women to be more similar. The big divide with feminists is that MRAs feel that men also have significant disadvantages in society (shorter lives, more likely to go to prison, more likely to be homeless, more likely to lose custody of their kids, etc.) These MRAs think that equal effort should be spent equalizing these outcomes for men, just as we spend effort helping women get into STEM fields or lead businesses or become politicians.
ReplyDeleteThis is known as a false equivalency. While the patriarchy hurts men too, it hurts women more. And we spend plenty of time on men's issues, we just don't usually explicitly call them men's issues.
Delete"While the patriarchy hurts men too, it hurts women more."
DeleteI don't believe this statement is true.
To put it simply, I think every woman is entitled to decide which option she likes better, but you definitely explained both options very well. Great post.
ReplyDeleteAs for me, I am alright with making less money than a guy if it means he will hold the door for me and buy me flowers from time to time :) I think those little differences are worth the pay cut.
In my same-sex high school, girls had not a clue about what feminism was. The entire ethos of the school was that of two, contradicting ideas of feminism, being a career woman, usurping men's traditional roles (scientists, professors, government officials) veering closely to your 2nd model of feminism -embracing masculinity. However, the school also seemed to define feminism as a celebration of femininity- teaching "how girls learn best" (whatever that means)and obsessing over the female body and brain. I thought we were getting the most confusing hodgepodge of messages: "I know you're all going to be CEO's someday" next to "so ladies, whose going to bake cupcakes for next week's advisory?" It reminds me of your "act wholesome, dress slutty" theory, which you've noted is quite difficult to achieve perfectly. In this case what young women are getting is: "express femininity, but be able to do a man's job better than he does." However, I'm not sure that it's possible to strike a good balance. Successful careers are a product of masculine thinking - being analytical, cold, and decisive. I'm not saying that women are unable to do so, but I wonder if exercising those masculine traits affect us significantly in situations that require femininity. How easy is it to switch between those roles and be stellar at both? Sounds like a lot of work for a very feminine woman to assume a man's role and then switch back gracefully. No wonder we (as you say, wrongfully) think we impress men with our intellect and accomplishments. We have to be men for 8 hours a day to feel like we're worth something.
ReplyDeleteThese coming generations are going to be so sick of feminism and all of its varying definitions.
But, see, you're describing someone of the impossible standards that are placed on women, and that feminism is trying to do away with. Some women are good at baking, some women are good at being CEOs. We should have space for both.
Deleteslight correction to my above post:
ReplyDelete"No wonder we (as you say, wrongfully) think we impress men with our intellect and accomplishments."
would be better expressed as:
"No wonder we (as you've noted) wrongfully think.... "
I can really identify with what you've written.As young girls we are taught to be high achievers, this equates to pursuing professional career choices once only open to men. Society values those with masculine status jobs and behaviour way above women.It is hard to switch off and be feminine when qualities such as caring and nurturing are way down the line compared to being analytical, decisive etc.This is reflected in pay disparities eg nursery teacher, care worker vs banking etc.This means a lot of women being so in control that they can't open up to a man,they want to lead and cannot be vulnerable. This makes relationships almost impossible unless you're with a feminine type guy.
DeleteBut this kind of stuff stems from society valuing men over women, and thus traditional masculine contributions over traditionally feminine contributions. Which is something that feminism is trying to fight.
DeleteAnd there are plenty of men who have no problem with women behaving in a traditionally masculine fashion.
"And there are plenty of men who have no problem with women behaving in a traditionally masculine fashion."
DeleteRight, the traditionally less masculine men.
"But this kind of stuff stems from society valuing men over women, and thus traditional masculine contributions over traditionally feminine contributions. Which is something that feminism is trying to fight."
DeleteI have NEVER witnessed a feminist trying to fight this. Instead, the feminist approach is usually to push women into male-dominated fields. If feminists wanted feminine contributions to be valued, they would encourage women to take care of themselves, looking feminine, staying home with children, learning how to cook. These are feminine skills. But they do not - they believe women need to excel in masculine fields to "prove their worth". Modern feminists value masculine skills more than feminine skills, which is why they find it degrading for women to be referred to as emotional or less ambitious. Of course not all women are, but most. Feminists are more enemies to traditional, feminine women than chauvinistic men are.
You haven`t been reading your Deida enough Andrew there is a third option which falls closer to the traditionalist view but incorporates some of the feminist one as well:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.masculinity-movies.com/articles/the-three-stages-of-david-deida
http://www.masculinity-movies.com/articles/newsletter-bonus-deida-iron-john
http://www.masculinity-movies.com/articles/why-you-need-to-address-feminism
http://www.masculinity-movies.com/articles
Testosterone and estrogen will keep having it`s effects. You can not take a woman born with very, very high estrogen and low testosterone and make her as masculine as a man born with tons of it unless you put her on a sex change diet of hormone shots.
The stages Deida refers to describe personal evolution, not societal evolution; they explain how an individual (or couple) can change in their relationship with each other, not how men and women act within a society.
DeleteGranted, society is simply a large group of individuals, but the forces that act on a society as a whole are often very different from those that act on each individual. I would need to be significantly more convinced before agreeing that Deida's third stage is feasible for society as a whole.
Hormones and their effects are actually very poorly understood.
DeleteAn MRA that takes a Deida view is Pelle Billing:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pellebilling.com/2010/10/mens-rights-manifesto/
So, feminism isn't really about erasing the sex differences, and I'm not sure why everyone thinks that. Feminism is more about letting people chose, making people free. If a woman wants to marry a man, clean his house and raise his children, fine, that's a good life choice for her. But it's also fine if she wants to go climb mountains or fight fires, or he wants to make dresses or whatever the hell it is people want to do with their lives. It's about getting everyone to but out of everyone else's business so we can all find where our happiness is. And part of doing that is loosening the strict gender roles so that people who don't fit into them can still find happiness.
ReplyDeleteJust because something has a historical precedent doesn’t make it true.
Can you prove these statements?
“the traits of both sexes are certainly deeply rooted in the male and female psyche”
“There is no question that men are less masculine than they were tens or hundreds of years ago, and women less feminine.”
And you equate an androgynous society to a sexless one, which is baffling to me. Androgynous people still most certainly enjoy sex. But neither sexlessness or androgyny is a feminist goal, and I don't think our society is at all headed in that direction.
So, I guess my point is that it doesn’t actually matter weather or not sex differences are innate or important or whatever. There are people who exist who fall outside of the norms. This is an immutable fact. It doesn’t matter that they are a minority, they deserve respect and the right to pursue their happiness. And feminism is trying to help them.
Do you doubt that in the wake of feminism the sexes are depolarizing?
DeleteWell, no, I don't really doubt that in the sense that different genders get along better then they used to.
DeleteBut that has nothing to with what I said, really.
Maybe I got it wrong, but I don't think "depolarizing" meant that we are not disagreeing anymore. It means we're becoming genderless.
DeleteMore and more women struggle to find men with a natural masculinity, apart from the obvious assholes. Most men don't find masculine career-women attractive.
Depolarization is negative in terms of attraction, and as it is a consequence of feminism, it is relevant to what you said.
Well then, yes. I doubt every part of what Anonymous said.
DeleteBut even if I didn't it doesn't change my position.
Feminism won't cause a genderless society. If one came about, a genderless society would not be a sexless society. Most Feminists do not want a sexless or genderless society. There are people who fall outside of the normative ranges of gender expression. These people deserve protection.
" But neither sexlessness or androgyny is a feminist goal, and I don't think our society is at all headed in that direction."
ReplyDeleteActually androgyny is the EXPLICIT goal of the swedish feminist state. They have educated specialists that are hired in schools and kindergartens in order to eradicate any trace of men being more masculine and women being more feminine than each other.
Proof, please.
DeleteAlso, I'm not Swedish. And Feminism is not some perfect, agreed upon organization. It's a basic ideology that sexism against women exists and is a problem.
I can't speak for anyone but myself. But I can describe some basic trends in what I believe in what the feminists I know believe.
Jesus. I live in scandinavia. Everyone here knows this because it is said constantly in the press by government officials. Go read Pelle Billings english blog and you will find tons of proof. Go to the swish government website and try to find what they write about gender equity. As I said the swedish government has educated and hired tons of gender specialists who's job it is to make all the children gender neutral. I haven`t dreamt that, I live in Scandinavia.
DeleteIn addition most feminist classics and almost all feminist researchers internationally see masculinity and femininity as entirely socially constructed.
Damn autocorrect. Swedish not Swish.
ReplyDeleteI think that Feminism, in terms of women having "choice" is fine - certainly not all women are cut out for the traditional, biological female role, and they should have to choice to pursue whatever they want.
ReplyDeleteWhere Feminism hurts women, and is dreadfully wrong, is in the "have it all" idea. In other words, the idea that women should and can achieve both traditionally female and male roles. Here are the ways that this idea hurt women:
1. Many of my girl friends from college (we are now in our late 30s) bought into the "have it all" idea. They finished college, went on to multiple graduate degrees, some even joined the military as officers. They never viewed this as an "instead of" type of choice - they were laying the foundation of "having it all". Once they finished their graduate degrees, medical internships etc, they had to establish careers and pay their loans. Now they are all feeling ready to add in the marriage/family half of "having it all" in their late 30s, and just now coming to the horrible realization that their natural fertility is going to be at 0 in the next 3-5 years. Ooops. They never planned to NOT have children and family, they just wanted to "have it all". They now are under high pressure to find a man, and pop out a baby before its too late. Problem is, men their age and older are taken. Those men in their late 30s and early 40s who aren't taken are either complete losers, OR they are highly accomplished and established (having been doing the same things of establishing grad school and careers) and the 'high value' men in this age range are choosing women in their mid-late 20s NOT women hovering at age 40. So, by the pure lie of the feminist "have it all" idea, many of my highly accomplished and intelligent girlfriends have accidentally cheated themselves out of the marriage/family half. Once the window of opportunity closes, it's slammed shut and there is no going back.
2. The second way the "have it all" idea hurts women is in devaluing women who choose a traditional female role. Many of my same friends who are now living scenario #1 ridiculed me when I married after college and focused on starting a family in my mid-20s. When I chose to work only part-time in order to focus on raising my children, they'd ask me "what do you do all day?!" as if raising children and tending a home isn't a 24 hour / 7 day job. They'd say "you're not reaching your full potential" and pitied me, because I was academically gifted and "should have gone to law school". Well, now my children are in elementary school. I'm in my late 30s, with a fine husband and an established family. Looking into my 40s, I see graduate school and a career on my horizon, but I'm in no rush. It will always be there. I'll time it according to my children's developmental level. Now, many of my friends who ridiculed me in my 20s for "only getting married and having kids" envy me, many have even said as much.
I feel really bad for women who don't get the timing right. I'm thankful that the Feminist idea of "choice" means that I can choose further education and career in the future. I'm sad for those women who try to follow a traditional male timeline and do all the education and career building in their 20s-30s. We are NOT biologically equal, and for women those are our prime years to attract a quality man and reproduce, at 40 a woman's fertility is down to about 5% of what it was in her 20s, while a man age 40 who has multiple graduate degrees and a great career is still 100% fertile.
Having a "choice" is not always a good thing. Check out a book called "The Paradox of Choice" by Barry Schwartz. He points out (and I have seen this in a lot of girls) that people can end up agonizing about deciding which path to take, rather than following (what used to be) a convention.
DeleteFertility is a genuine, biological difference between men and women that cannot be ignored. The choice of having children and adjusting life choices accordingly, is significantly different for men than it is for women.
DeleteThe problem between "traditional" and "non-traditional" roles established in society is that even tendencies of both sexes might be suitable to perform duties that have been classically associated with one sex or the other. Successful leadership does not just require aggression, it also requires creativity and empathy --- even if that empathy is only exploited in order to understand how to manipulate or persuade others. Andrew argues that aggression is associated with masculinity and creativity is associated with femininity, but then why should we assume leadership is inherently masculine or feminine? The sciences require abstract creativity, too, nursing --- an occupation that was, for too long, associated with femininity --- requires emotional strength and quick, "take-charge" emergency responses, something generally assumed to be better handled by males.
How can feminists be mostly wrong, if what the movement really pushes for is representation of females in power?
The other problem with telling women they can "have it all" is that they often find themselves actually DOING it all, without any help from their SO.
DeleteI got married in my early 20s and had a baby right away. I worked 40 hours a week, cooked all the meals, cleaned the entire house, handled home repairs and yard work, and did all the parenting, including play dates, parent teacher conferences, extra curricular activities, etc. My husband contributed NOTHING towards household chores or parenting. Granted, he did work a full time and part time job, but he thought that his contribution to the marriage stopped there. Not to mention I was paying a larger share of the household bills as well. Needless to say I'm divorced now.
I've heard from many other women that thought they could "have it all" - i.e. be mothers and have a career and that their husbands would pick up the slack in the parenting and housework department. Sadly to only find their assumptions were wrong.
No, women, you CAN'T "have it all". Something is going to suffer, be it your career, your children, or the house, especially if you don't have a man that is willing to step in and help out.
There is more and accumulating evidence for the innateness of sex differences than you seem to realize. Also, androgyny is higher in non-Western societies, in some regards. Occupational segregation is higher in the West where women have more occupational choice. Also, I cannot recall the details, but apparently personality differences are greater in the first world between the sexes. I think you give feminism way too much intellectual credit. And give "the social construction of gender" way to much intellectual credit in your post. How about not the traditionalist view but simply an observationally accurate view with respect for personal freedom? It's not about natural roles, just observations of the desires and nature of normal people and the advice to accept reality and act accordingly when trying to achieve the life you want. ... You essentially do say that... But honestly, you give way too much credit to the idea of societal influence on human behaviour (not that it deserves none, mind you).
ReplyDelete... I recommend The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, for example. I dislike feminism for its condescension, censoriousness, inaccuracy, and power within public institutions beyond its agreement by the average person (about 75% of US women say they aren't feminists... They say agreement with the dictionary definition shows that women don't understand feminism, but I think the dictionary definition is inaccurate, and that's the point.)
"androgyny is higher in non-Western societies"
DeleteI'd be curious to hear more about this comment.
"Anonymous" has contradicted himself/herself in this post. They give an example of cultural differences to support their opinion and then go on to express that they Andrew gives "way too much credit to the idea of societal influence..." Which is it, Anonymous?
DeleteOf course men and women are different in some ways; most notably, physically. It's the value assignment and classification of those differences, that's the problem.
ReplyDeleteMaybe there's a third option, Andrew. Realize that de-sexualizing yourself will not help you attract potential partners who see sexual intimacy as a vital part of committed relationship, yet, not accepting societal dictation that states that male differences are superior to female ones or vice versa?
All differences serve a purpose for humanity and society and are often complimentary, but society needs to serve our humanity and recognize this. Once a tradition, law, rule doesn't recognize that yes, women must bear children but that child-bearing perpetuates humanity (so maybe we should work around that?) then it's incompatible with what human beings need. It's not better or worse to be female, just different than being male. It's when an overwhelming representation of males in power and leadership positions fail to understand other perspectives, that society flounders. You can't knock feminists for trying to expand that base of perspective. If men were inherently "meant" to make everyone's rules, then they would have the reference of dual male/female perspectives, which they don't. Maybe the answer is only voting for inter-sex leaders.
Dear Andrew, when I was 13 I wrote a blogpost where I said I was a feminist. That comes up when you google me even though I am now 18. I am a feminist in the sense that I believe men and women should have equal rights and I'm sure most men would agree, however I'm worried that by saying I'm a feminist online I'm a turn off to guys because they get the wrong impression that I think women are better than men, that I don't believe in femininity and so on and in my case that's not true at all. I just believed and still do that men and women should have equal rights. Are feminists unattractive to men? These days I believe in gender roles and have very traditional views. I was only 13 when I wrote this, if that makes any difference. Do guys even google girls they want to date anyway? What advice would you give to someone in my stiuation who called themself a feminist because they believe men and women have equal value but believes in traditional gender roles?
ReplyDeleteI do Google girls sometimes, but it is almost always just to see if there are any pictures to remind me what she looks like, not to dig up history on her. In fact, I don't think I have ever did a web search for a girl's name.
Deletewhy men don't do that search thing like women ? not important for men ?
DeleteI think some men do though? On some pages like Linkedin, you can see "people who viewed this page also viewed" and I've seen exes of guys I've been out with here, the guy being my only link to her. So guys have obviously looked my name up and clicked on results. I've also experienced guys saying things on dates which made me realize they've gone through my Facebook profile.
DeleteOwww I thought men don't care with social media stuff of women in their life. Not stalker like women.
DeleteI think they "stalk" just as much. Otherwise why would they be so eager to add you on facebook? Or notice right away when you've deleted them. Of course it varies from man to man and woman to woman but I've never considering "stalking" to a be primarily female thing.
DeleteMen stalk. My brothers stalk every girl they have any interest in. And just last weekend I was visiting my brother and his friend met a girl at a bar. The next day the first thing he did was to borrow a laptop to see if her pictures were as cute as he remembered her being.
DeleteSo it's just about the pictures, not about if the girl is seeing/talking to other guys, etc.?
DeleteI think the maximum a guy would so is to check a girl's relationship status on Facebook. The important thing is the photos. If he notices she is in a relationship or seeing another guy in the process, then it's tough luck.
DeleteWhat if some of your Facebook pictures aren't great/you look better in real life than you do on the internet?
DeleteCould you do a post on how a girl can make herself more feminine please?
ReplyDeleteI don't advocate women trying to "make themselves" more feminine, I advocate trying to be authentically feminine.
DeleteThis is one of the most biased, sexist post I think I've ever seen- feminists aren't about androgyny or favouring masculine women over more traditionally feminine women,or suppressing femininity. It's about promoting equality for ALL women with men- as Turtle said, "Some women are good at baking, some women are good at being CEOs. We should have space for both." And suggesting that women should use
ReplyDelete"Ultimately, the point is this: Option 2 attracts men, Option 1 does not. So you can either support feminism in the hope of bettering the state of affairs in the future, or better your life now by finding love. Call me selfish, but it seems like an obvious choice to me..."
Oh my god. So the only way a woman could possible better her life is by manipulating her femininity for the sole goal of attracting a man? The only significance of feminism is how it relates to attracting male attention? I find this pretty disgusting.
By the way, it's interesting how few pro-feminism comments there are on this. Are you just deleting them? How about a bit of balance?
No, I haven't deleted any comments. I don't think there are many feminist readers - at least not ones that would be upset by what I've said.
Delete"So the only way a woman could possible better her life is by manipulating her femininity for the sole goal of attracting a man?"
I didn't say that; I just said "better your life BY finding love." There are other ways to better your life, of course. Love happens to be one of the more important ones for most people though.
"In early feminism Virginia Woolf championed androgyny as a strategy to combat the unequal status of men and women. Later feminists have questioned the use of androgyny as a solution to male and female difference, believing that it does not take into account the way in which gender differences are imposed upon people. Some feminists argue that the figure of the androgyne in cinema (for example, Marlene Dietrich or Greta Garbo) is the transgression of masculine and feminine dress and mannerism codes.
DeleteContemporary feminists, such as Catherine Clement, have claimed that the androgynous figures of myth and religion are a means by which the dominant masculine order can use femininity on its own patriarchal terms. Androgyny often appears in contemporary feminist theory within work on cross-dressing, masquerade and film."
http://www.encyclopedia69.com/eng/d/androgyny/androgyny.htm
Anyway, never mind that if the aim is to shame feminists. If you want to see true sexism, take a look at THIS:
"WIE: Which brings us to another question I wanted to ask you. Sally Miller Gearhart, in her article "The Future—If There Is One—Is Female" writes: "At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world. 1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future. 2) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race." What do you think about this statement?
MD: I think it's not a bad idea at all. If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.
WIE: Yes. I find myself now thinking that's a bit shocking.
MD: Well, it's shocking that it would be shocking."
http://tinyurl.com/bhs45rf
Andrew, I consider myself a feminist because I believe in equal rights. But people call me feminine all the time -I don't really think there's a contradiction in being feminine and believing women should be able to go to school, be protected under law, etc (human rights). It wasn't until I saw this post that I ever became exposed to the idea that feminism wants androgyny, I don't really think this is the universal goal of feminism even though some feminists might want it to be..I certainly don't! As such you can't really 'stereotype' feminism if you know what I mean, it sort of has no universal goal anymore.
ReplyDeletei felt like I wrote this post myself and in fact I have written things like this. It is amazing that someone else thinks so much like I do. AMAZING! And the idea of having children outside the womb is also interesting, they are developing it. Formula, birth control and artificial wombs will be the tools that feminism needs to succeed. Formula turns a man into a woman and birth-control and artificial wombs will make women into men. Making the sexes interchangeable and we will VERY VERY VERY slowly evolve to be more gender neutral.
ReplyDeleteWithout these three tools though; it is all impossible.
I wrote this post in response to this article.. i think lol
ReplyDeletehttp://homesweetrijswijk.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/feminism-without-science-fails/