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

[Cain]

It's a terrible thing.  Phoxxy once the whole of Denver.  For real.

And Iron Waffles is Belgian. Enough said.

[Signora Pæsior]

In this context, then, does my wanting to approach you for the sole purpose of getting laid be indicative of rape culture? How does casual sex fit in....ack!

It's all situational. I don't know many people who would be appreciative of someone coming up to them when they're walking along the street and saying "I would really like to fuck you, how about it?" Then again, maybe some people are cool with that, I don't know.

In terms of approaching someone for casual sex, say in a bar or a similar setting... the way I see it, it's more in how you react if you're turned down. It's the difference between a non-sarcastic "Oh, okay, well thank you for your time and enjoy your evening" and "But I think you're hot and I'll rock your world, baby, come awwwwwwn!"

Best of luck with your research!

[Juana]

It's a terrible thing.  Phoxxy once the whole of Denver.  For real.

And Iron Waffles is Belgian. Enough said.

The few survivors have some real horror stories, Signora. Phoxxy, what she didn't do herself, called things out of the Rockies to do.

[Placid Dingo]

Yeah as far as 50 Shades goes, I'm pretty appalled by what I've heard but I don't want to tear it apart without yet having read it.

[Juana]

It is full of horrormirth, from what I've seen thus far.

[P3nT4gR4m]

So back to vex's point...when a man confronts these ideas, it seems like what is being asked of him is to act entirely counter to his nature.  To ask a man to change certain views that are deeply rooted is asking a lot...I guess you'd have to be a really strong man to be able to confront one's own fundamental assumptions. And it CAN be done, but I doubt in a mass amount.

With that in mind, it seems that the direct approach can only take a culture so far.  I think a real effectual change comes through slowly nipping away at the structure and tweaking this idea here and destroying that injustice there. Kind of like the parable The Camel's Nose In The Tent.  Now I agree that Feminism does do that, but it also tends to alienate men who matter by setting up an opposition.  The men who matter are ALL men, not just the few who think for themselves.

This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.

[Verbal Mike]

This thread is awesome in many ways and I'm glad I took the time to catch up on it just now.
Burns, you should keep up the questions when you get up, so far it's gotten us a hell of an interesting and enlightening response (and thanks for that, Signora!).

Just to try and contribute a perspective, even though I don't have much to add: I've definitely felt oppressed by the patriarchy, despite being male and having consistently identified as a heterosexual man. Because although I identify that way, and although I don't generally step too far outside the cis man box (thanks for making me look up that term, Garbo or whoever it was!), I've always been deeply averse to stereotypical macho cis man behavior, and have never been into physical activity enough to build up the muscle mass expected from me. And being different in these ways, since as long as I can remember myself, has always gotten me a fair amount of shit. At some point as a teenager I simply embraced being "weird", and have since been much likelier to do things that go clearly outside the cis man box (to a degree, because I'm also a coward and instinctively avoid confrontation) but I still have a bit of a thought pattern of being different from other guys and unable to fit in with them, even while wanting to.

At this point I probably don't need to mention that this is obviously less awful than fearing rape and other forms of physical violence every day, but patriarchy seems to me to put everyone other than the most stereotypical cis men under fear of physical violence – females just having rape to worry about on top of that. (I'm just not gonna bother trying to contextualize this with other forms of oppression of females, I think we've established that context here already, right?)

And to comment on some of the stuff that was going on here a couple of pages ago: I don't think it matters at all where words like "pussy" came from. If you use a word in such a way that some people belonging to an oppressed group (women, girls, LGBT, nice guys) might consider it a pejorative reference to an oppressed group, then your usage is not cool. If it's perceived as ironic or otherwise disarming of actual oppression, that's fine, but you have to pretty damn careful with that fine line, and as some have mentioned here that kind of thing has been known to backfire (which is an excellent example about how little language usage cares about original motivation and etymology.)
We can debate where words come from for ages, but (a) most speakers don't know about words' etymologies, and more importantly (b) if it's perceived by oppressed groups as a tool of oppression, that's a fact and it's pretty damn patronizing to try to correct their perception. Even if the perception of oppressive connotations is factually way off the mark, the perception itself deserves respect and attention, even though it's a pain in the ass to correct one's own vocabulary.

[Placid Dingo]

I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding there with where 'it comes from' being interpreted differently.

It doesn't come from a historically patriarchal tradition in that that's not the specific origin of the way in which the word is currently used.

But it does come from patriarchal tradition in that this is the culture that contextualises the current use.

At which point ones brain gets sore and we look for the more important and useful question; what is the impact it has on the way people think and feel, which Verbl covered nicely.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Shrek plays off on novelty, novelty always sells, and dont forget the CONTEXT of that movie, its a comedy, its entertainment

the princess knowing martial arts or whatever is supposed to be funny (temporary cognitive dissonance?), in the sense of "haha, no way a princess can do THAT"

It's cool I dont have beef with Shrek.

The article in question was a lot bigger. It spoke of more, and said it better.

I guess a great example is the comedian-i think Dave Chapelle or Eddie Murphy- used to have a routine about black people vs niggers. They stopped using it because it was becoming a part of standard white racist rhetoric.

Another; South Parks mocking of redheads was a joke about the stupidity of racism. Now through the redhead meme is big enough that kids in schools are unironically mocked with the terminology from that episode.

Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

I think the bolded part is especially relevant.

[Verbal Mike]

Another thought I had now on my way to work: Despite my opinion as described above, that people should be considerate of oppressed groups, this is more a statement of ideal than anything else. Most people don't really understand the concept of oppressed group, not to mention having any interest in being considerate of their feelings.

So ultimately what I wrote above about words is mainly relevant as an intellectual argument: That the criterion for some usage being uncool should be that – taken in context – it's potentially inconsiderate, not any question of etymology or denotation, and certainly not some question of motivation/intention.

[Juana]

VERBL, yep, cis stuff was me. Glad you find it useful.

Going back to Pixie's OP, good, interesting points about how patriarchy hurts men, too!

So back to vex's point...when a man confronts these ideas, it seems like what is being asked of him is to act entirely counter to his nature.  To ask a man to change certain views that are deeply rooted is asking a lot...I guess you'd have to be a really strong man to be able to confront one's own fundamental assumptions. And it CAN be done, but I doubt in a mass amount.

With that in mind, it seems that the direct approach can only take a culture so far.  I think a real effectual change comes through slowly nipping away at the structure and tweaking this idea here and destroying that injustice there. Kind of like the parable The Camel's Nose In The Tent.  Now I agree that Feminism does do that, but it also tends to alienate men who matter by setting up an opposition.  The men who matter are ALL men, not just the few who think for themselves.

This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.

First and second wave feminism might hold that men are incapable of change. Third wave does not. Third wave does not degrade men into unchangeable cavemen. We believe you can change and want you to.
No, you can't experience what its like to be a woman/female, any more than I can experience what its like to be a PoC. I'm hella white, end of story, and will never experience all the micro aggressions that are part if their lives. You're a cis man, end of story, and will never experience the micro aggressions we live with every day. It doesn't make either of us evil. It's just a fact.

I have trouble being concerned about men who dig in their heels because they feel attacked by the mere existence of feminism as a word and what it means. What are we supposed to do? Give up a term that literally means "belief in women" because men feel uncomfortable with it? No. That's not fair to us and its an awfully lot like saying that PoC should give up names and organizations that advance their cause because it makes white people sad. Stop your white crying (not you, necessarily, Pent). You, specifically, need to stop your cis man tears.
"what about us and our feelings?" is male privilege and invalidates our experiences and our very valid anger in favor of your poor precious fee-fees.

Women live in a culture dictated by men. Any discussion of how to change that requires your help and input because you perpetuate patriarchy without these discussions (in fact, cis man tears are part of the problem). Without them, you don't know how you are doing so and how to stop, or how to be an ally.

I am very aware of how men respond to this sort of thing. Discussions about feminism amply demonstrate that. Even though I'm generally a non-confrontational person, even basic and polite discussion results in monkey ass being bared on my direction. It results in men trying to intimidate me into shutting up. I'm still not sure why women have to change the name of the movement because of that. It's reminiscencent of gender roles that expect us to be submissive and to put male comfort above our own. Which we are not actually obligated to do.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I have trouble being concerned about men who dig in their heels because they feel attacked by the mere existence of feminism as a word and what it means. What are we supposed to do? Give up a term that literally means "belief in women" because men feel uncomfortable with it? No. That's not fair to us and its an awfully lot like saying that PoC should give up names and organizations that advance their cause because it makes white people sad. Stop your white crying (not you, necessarily, Pent). You, specifically, need to stop your cis man tears.
"what about us and our feelings?" is male privilege and invalidates our experiences and our very valid anger in favor of your poor precious fee-fees.

You should be concerned, not because of the poor men's delicate feelings. That's bullshit anyway, real men don't have delicate feelings You should be concerned because you're alienating potential comrades in arms. If you try to sell me something by calling me a useless dick who doesn't get it you wont get far but if there's another way you can sell it that makes me feel that there's something I can do to help and feel good about myself into the bargain then I'm more inclined to support you.

(again for the record I'm not talking "me" and "you" here, more people in general.

[The Johnny]

HERE HERE, MADONNA SHOWS US WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A 2ND WAVE FEMINIST:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYwgG2oyUbA

[Placid Dingo]

Pent said what I was about to.

I got into Feminism when I understood that men could genuinely play a meaningful role. I didn't want to watch someone else's party.

As far as what anyone is supposed to do, exactly what you and many others ARE doing; a quality job of correcting misconceptions about who can be a part of feminism, and what feminism means.

I don't think anyone's genuinely suggesting the name is bad, just that it comes with some baggage and misconceptions than anyone with a vested interest in feminism need to be proactive about addressing.

[Juana]

If they're refusing to understand why the term "feminism" is important, I don't know if I want them as an ally. I don't know that they can be an ally, because they're denying that we experience discrimination and say "what about me?"instead. *cue cis man tears*
Again, at no time is feminism making out that men are useless dicks. In fact, as I have pointed out, you are necessary. We're often not taken seriously and accused of over reacting. A man who is a feminist gets kudos (while we get "are you a lesbian?" and such) and can communicate with other men in ways we can't.
We're just saying that you can't experience what we live with. You don't spend you entire life trying to avoid being raped, etc. That doesn't mean you're useless. It just means you need listen.

I figured you were talking people in general, haha.

Pent said what I was about to.

I got into Feminism when I understood that men could genuinely play a meaningful role. I didn't want to watch someone else's party.

As far as what anyone is supposed to do, exactly what you and many others ARE doing; a quality job of correcting misconceptions about who can be a part of feminism, and what feminism means.

I don't think anyone's genuinely suggesting the name is bad, just that it comes with some baggage and misconceptions than anyone with a vested interest in feminism need to be proactive about addressing.

I try, haha.

It's been suggested, like, twice that the term be shed. Or someone got their underwear in a knot over implications of it.