Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!

[Salty]

Women/females wear makeup for a lot of reasons. When I'm actually feeling feminine, I wear it because I want to (and fuck feminists who decide doing anything stereotypically "feminine" is a sign of surrendering to the patriarchy). When I'm leaning toward the masculine (as I am right now) I wear it only if I'm going out for the evening in public because I feel really weird not doing so.

Exactly this. Showing signs of masculinity is much the same. It doesn't have to be a means or symbol of oppressing women, it just is by those who would do so by any method.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

Yeah, but when you're talking about patriarchy, you're talking about society, which means you have to view it under a broader umbrella than individual actions, and look at it from the perspective of social expectations/norms.

Oh, no argument at all.  I'm just saying that teaching kids moderation in emotional expression isn't necessarily a gender-based thing.

OK, but you keep talking about things from an individualistic perspective, which makes it really hard to discuss patriarchy from a societal perspective.

Sorry.

Like I said, I'm on unfamiliar ground, and I'm kind of talking myself through this.

S'ok, I'm just reminding you to take a step back and try to look at it from a less personal and more of a broad cultural perspective.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.

That's not what I was saying, Roger. Telling a four-year-old to "man up", in the very wording, is a specifically gendered statement.

Telling a kid that there's no reason to cry over something not worth crying over is a different ballpark, and even a whole different sport.

Um...

...


...


SILENCE!  I AM THINKING BIG THOUGHTS! 

S'cool, Roger, I completely get where you were coming from with that statement, and you are certainly not wrong about what you're saying. It's just one of those conversations where we're addressing different issues in the same sentence again. 

I guess my problem here is trying to distinguish between patriarchal conditioning and individual behaviors with other motivations.  After all, to fight something, you need to know where it is and where it isn't.

Or, as my dad once put it:

"Sometimes an ICBM is just an ICBM.  And sometimes it's a hundred megatons of phallic symbol jammed in a what we prefer to call a 'silo' rather than a 150 foot deep vagina."

My dad is kinda weird.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Women/females wear makeup for a lot of reasons. When I'm actually feeling feminine, I wear it because I want to (and fuck feminists who decide doing anything stereotypically "feminine" is a sign of surrendering to the patriarchy). When I'm leaning toward the masculine (as I am right now) I wear it only if I'm going out for the evening in public because I feel really weird not doing so.

Exactly this. Showing signs of masculinity is much the same. It doesn't have to be a means or symbol of oppressing women, it just is by those who would do so by any method.

Not only that, but "feminists" who say that using makeup when you WANT to use makeup is "surrendering" are just another group of people out to control your actions and beliefs.

It's Pinkboyism in its most insidious form.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So do we see a change?

I mean the past 100 years or so seem to have culminated in women having more freedom/control/power and men being more free of stereotypical constraints. Is this something real, or just superficial? Are Condie and Hillary harbingers of equality, or token women in power?

There has been definite, huge, extremely positive change! Our society has undeniably radically shifted towards egalitarianism. This is why there are so many "conservatives" (regressionists) screaming for a "return to traditional family values".

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So do we see a change?

I mean the past 100 years or so seem to have culminated in women having more freedom/control/power and men being more free of stereotypical constraints. Is this something real, or just superficial? Are Condie and Hillary harbingers of equality, or token women in power?

There has been definite, huge, extremely positive change! Our society has undeniably radically shifted towards egalitarianism. This is why there are so many "conservatives" (regressionists) screaming for a "return to traditional family values".

Oh, yes.  You can always tell when a movement is succeeding, because its opponents start talking about a lost golden age.

[Juana]

The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.

I really, really hate repeating myself, but, Vex, women and females are an oppressed group even still. We need a specific movement that denotes who it works for because the work feminism started out to do, way back when, is still not done. Its work won't be done until the kyriarchy has been dismantled because an injury to one oppressed group is ultimately an injury to us all.

Women/females wear makeup for a lot of reasons. When I'm actually feeling feminine, I wear it because I want to (and fuck feminists who decide doing anything stereotypically "feminine" is a sign of surrendering to the patriarchy). When I'm leaning toward the masculine (as I am right now) I wear it only if I'm going out for the evening in public because I feel really weird not doing so.

Exactly this. Showing signs of masculinity is much the same. It doesn't have to be a means or symbol of oppressing women, it just is by those who would do so by any method.

Not only that, but "feminists" who say that using makeup when you WANT to use makeup is "surrendering" are just another group of people out to control your actions and beliefs.

It's Pinkboyism in its most insidious form.

Bless these posts.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

Eh, to a point. It's men asserting certain qualities that place them in a perceived higher status bracket, not necessarily to put women down specifically. Sometimes it's used by men to raise their status above women in an oppressive way, or to ensure the status quo where that kind of oppression is rampant. But it is also used to raise in status in contest with other men because...well, that's what apes do. It can be more or less refined, and it can take very different shapes.

Certainly it can be obnoxious, out-dated, crude. But that has more to do with Those Kind of People than qualities inherent in promoting one's masculinity.

Much in the same vein: Women can put on make-up for a variety of reasons (many of which involve attracting a mate), but with varying degrees of need and intensity. Some women cannot live without make-up (sign of Patriarchy?) or wear only a little because it makes them feel nice (?).

Generally I prefer to wear makeup. In the summer I tend not to because I just end up sweating and looking like a raccoon.

I always notice that people are nicer to you when you wear a little makeup, for some reason. It's also one of the things women size each other up by, which is kind of strange. But I've been told a few times by women that when they met me, they had a good impression because I "had my makeup on right". I've been guilty of the same thing, but truth be told, women with disorders tend to paint their faces kind of crazy. A few people look great without makeup but a lot don't, and if they never wear it I tend to wonder what the reason is - if they're allergic or if they just don't care what they look like. Which is probably fucked up of me.

It's because women who are wearing makeup correctly are displaying that  they are culturally normative and therefore compliant to society's expectations, so they receive approval.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, just something interesting to be aware of. We all receive approval, including from strangers, when we demonstrate that we exemplify society's expectations for us.

[Phox]

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.

That's not what I was saying, Roger. Telling a four-year-old to "man up", in the very wording, is a specifically gendered statement.

Telling a kid that there's no reason to cry over something not worth crying over is a different ballpark, and even a whole different sport.

Um...

...


...


SILENCE!  I AM THINKING BIG THOUGHTS! 

S'cool, Roger, I completely get where you were coming from with that statement, and you are certainly not wrong about what you're saying. It's just one of those conversations where we're addressing different issues in the same sentence again. 

I guess my problem here is trying to distinguish between patriarchal conditioning and individual behaviors with other motivations.  After all, to fight something, you need to know where it is and where it isn't.

Or, as my dad once put it:

"Sometimes an ICBM is just an ICBM.  And sometimes it's a hundred megatons of phallic symbol jammed in a what we prefer to call a 'silo' rather than a 150 foot deep vagina."

My dad is kinda weird.

Yeah, I get it. It's not really easy to see where the patriarchal conditioning begins and where other influences begin, ESPECIALLY in areas like gender roles. The patriarchy isn't necessarily responsible for the advent of gender stereotypes, but if they fit into the patriarchy's agenda it is responsible for propagating them. At that point, the question becomes whether they are distinguishable at all in any meaningful way. I think at this point I'm just talking nonsense, so I'll leave it there. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.

I really, really hate repeating myself, but, Vex, women and females are an oppressed group even still. We need a specific movement that denotes who it works for because the work feminism started out to do, way back when, is still not done. Its work won't be done until the kyriarchy has been dismantled because an injury to one oppressed group is ultimately an injury to us all.

I don't disagree with you at all. I just question the usefulness of a movement that specifies females as its intended beneficiary. Even if that benefit is deserved, which it is of course, I'm asking if that goal might be better met by a truly and thoroughly gender-neutral movement at this point. "Feminism," which I agree with, is often written off by those who oppose it simply because it is "for women," and they're dumb enough to be "against women." That feminism is beneficial to both men and women is lost on the vast majority of simpletons who are too dumb to look at a word like "feminism" and see anything beyond the first 3 letters.

If the point is to continue the fight until the last breath of the last die-hard patriarch just so we can all show the world that "ha! women ARE strong!" then Feminism is great. But if the point is to completely eliminate gender as a consideration in the math of a person's value altogether, then why not switch to gender neutrality?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.

That's not what I was saying, Roger. Telling a four-year-old to "man up", in the very wording, is a specifically gendered statement.

Telling a kid that there's no reason to cry over something not worth crying over is a different ballpark, and even a whole different sport.

To enter the parenting philosophy fray for a moment, I take a bit of a different approach; I believe that it's not up to me to decide whether something's worth crying about, so I only distinguish between "crying to express pain or emotions" and "crying to manipulate others". If they're crying to express emotions, I try to help them name it, because it's possible that they're crying because they're frustrated at being stumped on how to express something else. If they're crying to manipulate someone, I ignore them. If they're  crying because something hurts, I ask them to look at it and identify whether it is going to be OK, or not. Usually they stop crying as soon as they evaluate it as being minor; their brain kicks out of "HEEEEEELP, I'm INJURED!" mode and shifts into rational mode.

And of course, teenagers sometimes just cry because they're teenagers.

[Juana]

The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.

I really, really hate repeating myself, but, Vex, women and females are an oppressed group even still. We need a specific movement that denotes who it works for because the work feminism started out to do, way back when, is still not done. Its work won't be done until the kyriarchy has been dismantled because an injury to one oppressed group is ultimately an injury to us all.

I don't disagree with you at all. I just question the usefulness of a movement that specifies females as its intended beneficiary. Even if that benefit is deserved, which it is of course, I'm asking if that goal might be better met by a truly and thoroughly gender-neutral movement at this point. "Feminism," which I agree with, is often written off by those who oppose it simply because it is "for women," and they're dumb enough to be "against women." That feminism is beneficial to both men and women is lost on the vast majority of simpletons who are too dumb to look at a word like "feminism" and see anything beyond the first 3 letters.

If the point is to continue the fight until the last breath of the last die-hard patriarch just so we can all show the world that "ha! women ARE strong!" then Feminism is great. But if the point is to completely eliminate gender as a consideration in the math of a person's value altogether, then why not switch to gender neutrality?

Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

An excellent point...But one possible tool to do that is gender neutrality.  I don't mean scrapping the word "feminist", as Vex seems to be suggesting, because it works just fine.

I mean, for example, the change from "steward" and "stewardess" to "flight attendant".  Or changing existing words.  These days, when I hear "Doctor" I make no assumptions, while in the late 70s I would have automatically assumed a male, and the converse for the word "nurse".

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

An excellent point...But one possible tool to do that is gender neutrality.  I don't mean scrapping the word "feminist", as Vex seems to be suggesting, because it works just fine.

I mean, for example, the change from "steward" and "stewardess" to "flight attendant".  Or changing existing words.  These days, when I hear "Doctor" I make no assumptions, while in the late 70s I would have automatically assumed a male, and the converse for the word "nurse".

This. And I don't mean to completely get rid of "feminism," but to focus the activist, society-changing efforts toward gender neutrality, not toward "women's rights" per se.

[Salty]

The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.

I really, really hate repeating myself, but, Vex, women and females are an oppressed group even still. We need a specific movement that denotes who it works for because the work feminism started out to do, way back when, is still not done. Its work won't be done until the kyriarchy has been dismantled because an injury to one oppressed group is ultimately an injury to us all.

I don't disagree with you at all. I just question the usefulness of a movement that specifies females as its intended beneficiary. Even if that benefit is deserved, which it is of course, I'm asking if that goal might be better met by a truly and thoroughly gender-neutral movement at this point. "Feminism," which I agree with, is often written off by those who oppose it simply because it is "for women," and they're dumb enough to be "against women." That feminism is beneficial to both men and women is lost on the vast majority of simpletons who are too dumb to look at a word like "feminism" and see anything beyond the first 3 letters.

If the point is to continue the fight until the last breath of the last die-hard patriarch just so we can all show the world that "ha! women ARE strong!" then Feminism is great. But if the point is to completely eliminate gender as a consideration in the math of a person's value altogether, then why not switch to gender neutrality?

Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

My opposition to the word itself has more to do with the way people react to sounds.

On reflection, I LOVE shoving things people don't like into their stupid, sweaty faces. So I will use the word like a finely honed club, for which to beat sense into the unwary.