AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I think "mansplaining" is a pretty terrible term, given that it's a condescending, sexist way to say "You're being sexist and condescending." The term ends up being a way to utterly reject and ignore another human being's contribution to a conversation, and that's almost never the right thing to do, and not the solution to gender speech imbalances.
Plus, what's a man to do when he honestly enjoys explaining things? I just like being helpful and sharing my understanding with others. I don't know that I've been accused of mansplaining necessarily, but I've seen other people put in that situation, and that has a chilling effect on me personally sometimes.
I think sometimes these conversations about gender politics end up with participants saying that their intention is to educate/convince or otherwise improve the state of things through discussion, when what they actually want to do is forcibly eject anyone who disagrees with them until they've made a public forum a "safe space" so that they can collectively just kinda complain and agree about how shitty everything is. Which may make them feel better, and all the power to them, but it certainly doesn't improve things. This is where you get people saying "ugh it's exhaustive to educate you," well, then what is the point of the conversation? To feel proud when your assertion about the causes of the world's problems are agreed with by everyone left?
I got into Scott Alexander's blog recently and, although I think he paints the movement with too broad a brush, I think he's right to call out a lot of internet feminism as using the righteousness of the cause as an excuse to bully and shame people along tribal lines. #notallfeminists but I do think it's a little bit more of a problem than was suggested by several people earlier in this thread--feminism seems to have more than the average group's share of jerks, either because they yell louder or (and I think this is partly the case) the ideology itself (or parts of it) lend themselves to dogma and witch hunts.* You might even call that form of feminism... toxic?
*Just as religion is ultimately more prone to "I'm right and you're wrong and the entire system agrees with me that neither I nor it should be questioned in our rightness" than science or other organized structures of discourse.
I got into Scott Alexander's blog recently and, although I think he paints the movement with too broad a brush, I think he's right to call out a lot of internet feminism as using the righteousness of the cause as an excuse to bully and shame people along tribal lines. #notallfeminists but I do think it's a little bit more of a problem than was suggested by several people earlier in this thread--feminism seems to have more than the average group's share of jerks, either because they yell louder or (and I think this is partly the case) the ideology itself (or parts of it) lend themselves to dogma and witch hunts.* You might even call that form of feminism... toxic?
*Just as religion is ultimately more prone to "I'm right and you're wrong and the entire system agrees with me that neither I nor it should be questioned in our rightness" than science or other organized structures of discourse.
It's the internet, the assholes get bigger voices on it - this applies to all political ideologies. No one is immune from it.
Yes, some branches of feminism are toxic - and sometimes there are just asshole feminist, because they're people. Feminism isn't perfect, there are bad actors. That doesn't mean the concept needs to be thrown out.
+8
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited June 2016
I'm not saying throw feminism out. I'm saying make it better by 1) policing those who misuse it (the neckbeard thing upthread was a great example of feminists trying to get other feminists to stop using gendered insults), 2) be less dogmatic about the ideology's assumptions, 3) try and make sure the language isn't excluding good-intentioned/informed disagreements.
I might have stated my position a little more optimistically than is truly honest.
Being cynical, I actually think a huge chunk of any group is the 'there by accident' portion. Meaning you can expect varying degrees of tribal stupidity from the average member of any group/label/whatever, no matter how righteous or benign that group's goals may be.
I don't think feminism's particularly more prone to it than other groups, though.
Maybe it stands out more when the group you're analyzing is on your side but not one you're too close to? I suspect that would lend the best 'angle' to pick up on that sort of nonsense. So you might perceive them as being more prone to it without them actually being so, simply as a matter of vantage point.
I think there's the additional element that you're more likely to be immediately, personally *annoyed* by the idiots on your side, because they're likely to do damage to the cause, and because you'd want to hold your side to a higher standard.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I eagerly wait the day, when a female pop/rock/whatever star can appear topless on a movie/record/poster/thing, and nobody gives a fuck.
I haven't heard anything about Selena Gomez risqué cover, but I'm sure she gets shit for embracing her sexuality as a singer now.
Part of it is the Virgin/Whore complex girls get put through. Especially in Showbiz and ESPECIALLY in Music.
Its practically become a rite of musical passage to ditch the girl next door persona they get foisted with by the music companies and going for the sexier look.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
+7
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Sky's response is pretty incoherent (this is why people need to stop using Twitter to post entire essays in stupid chunks).
I have problems with a few bits of the original essay but not the overall thrust of it. Like, are we all just supposed to ignore the image when talking about pop musicians?
Sky's response is pretty incoherent (this is why people need to stop using Twitter to post entire essays in stupid chunks).
I have problems with a few bits of the original essay but not the overall thrust of it. Like, are we all just supposed to ignore the image when talking about pop musicians?
What image?
0
Options
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
Sky's response is pretty incoherent (this is why people need to stop using Twitter to post entire essays in stupid chunks).
I have problems with a few bits of the original essay but not the overall thrust of it. Like, are we all just supposed to ignore the image when talking about pop musicians?
What image?
Hey, heads up theres a topless lady in that LA Weekly article. @Harry Dresden maybe add a NSFW tag. Thanks.
Sky's response is pretty incoherent (this is why people need to stop using Twitter to post entire essays in stupid chunks).
I have problems with a few bits of the original essay but not the overall thrust of it. Like, are we all just supposed to ignore the image when talking about pop musicians?
What image?
It would be impossible to talk about a pop musician's work separated from the cultural soup the music comes from.
Like the aforementioned Madonna... how do you cover her music without covering the sex appeal she is clearly aiming at.
To point, the NSFW pic in that article, which is the cover of her album, is not an image of nudity divorced from sexuality. Its sexual as fuck. People are going to talk about it, and that was exactly the intended effect by whoever decided this pic best represented the contents within.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Sky's response is pretty incoherent (this is why people need to stop using Twitter to post entire essays in stupid chunks).
I have problems with a few bits of the original essay but not the overall thrust of it. Like, are we all just supposed to ignore the image when talking about pop musicians?
What image?
It would be impossible to talk about a pop musician's work separated from the cultural soup the music comes from.
Like the aforementioned Madonna... how do you cover her music without covering the sex appeal she is clearly aiming at.
To point, the NSFW pic in that article, which is the cover of her album, is not an image of nudity divorced from sexuality. Its sexual as fuck. People are going to talk about it, and that was exactly the intended effect by whoever decided this pic best represented the contents within.
Really?
All i saw was an angry woman in a shower looking like she was coming down from a drinking binge or something.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Sky's response is pretty incoherent (this is why people need to stop using Twitter to post entire essays in stupid chunks).
I have problems with a few bits of the original essay but not the overall thrust of it. Like, are we all just supposed to ignore the image when talking about pop musicians?
What image?
It would be impossible to talk about a pop musician's work separated from the cultural soup the music comes from.
Like the aforementioned Madonna... how do you cover her music without covering the sex appeal she is clearly aiming at.
To point, the NSFW pic in that article, which is the cover of her album, is not an image of nudity divorced from sexuality. Its sexual as fuck. People are going to talk about it, and that was exactly the intended effect by whoever decided this pic best represented the contents within.
Really?
All i saw was an angry woman in a shower looking like she was coming down from a drinking binge or something.
She is naked and vulnerable, giving what could easily be interpreted as a fuck me stare, and wearing a cross.
This picture is almost too on the nose for madonna/whore.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+3
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
and it is not my intention to shame or disparage it - I think this kind of art is fine and worth exploring. But call it what it is, and don't get too mad when others call it what it is.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Sky's response is pretty incoherent (this is why people need to stop using Twitter to post entire essays in stupid chunks).
I have problems with a few bits of the original essay but not the overall thrust of it. Like, are we all just supposed to ignore the image when talking about pop musicians?
What image?
It would be impossible to talk about a pop musician's work separated from the cultural soup the music comes from.
Like the aforementioned Madonna... how do you cover her music without covering the sex appeal she is clearly aiming at.
To point, the NSFW pic in that article, which is the cover of her album, is not an image of nudity divorced from sexuality. Its sexual as fuck. People are going to talk about it, and that was exactly the intended effect by whoever decided this pic best represented the contents within.
Indeed. She's allowed to be sexual with her image, and it's good to discuss it. What's bad is when that defines her entirely, which is bullshit. She's a singer, the dude knows what she does (I think she's pretty good too), instead he focuses on that like she's an object for him to leer at. He didn't try to think what she, or women reading, would think about what he wrote. It was never her intention for her looks to overshadow her actual work. It's possible to be respectable with her cover and her looks without being a horndog.
Sky's response is pretty incoherent (this is why people need to stop using Twitter to post entire essays in stupid chunks).
I have problems with a few bits of the original essay but not the overall thrust of it. Like, are we all just supposed to ignore the image when talking about pop musicians?
What image?
It would be impossible to talk about a pop musician's work separated from the cultural soup the music comes from.
Like the aforementioned Madonna... how do you cover her music without covering the sex appeal she is clearly aiming at.
To point, the NSFW pic in that article, which is the cover of her album, is not an image of nudity divorced from sexuality. Its sexual as fuck. People are going to talk about it, and that was exactly the intended effect by whoever decided this pic best represented the contents within.
Really?
All i saw was an angry woman in a shower looking like she was coming down from a drinking binge or something.
She is naked and vulnerable, giving what could easily be interpreted as a fuck me stare, and wearing a cross.
This picture is almost too on the nose for madonna/whore.
Everyone is vulnerable when naked (there's a reason we wear clothes), beyond that, i don't really get where you are coming from with your interpretation.
To me that stare does not say "fuck me" or even "fuck you", it looks like a "fuck off".
Had not noticed the cross, and don't really see why it would matter, people wear jewelry, and don't always take it off when bathing.
Speaking of feminists that give the movement a bad name, i was just told that "females are the superior gender because male testosterone fluctuates daily leading to swings in aggression and 'oneupmanship' " and that the female reproductive organs have evolved in a way that makes them superior to males.
I'm baffled by this set of arguments.
+5
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited June 2016
Well, it's at least half right.
Male genitals are kludgey garbage - running the urethra back and forth and through the prostrate? Who designed this? Dali? And that's only one thing! There are dozens more.
Female genitals make a lot more sense and are engineered for heavy duty, but unfortunately also do heavy duty stuff.
Evolution giveth with one hand and noogies with the other
Speaking of feminists that give the movement a bad name, i was just told that "females are the superior gender because male testosterone fluctuates daily leading to swings in aggression and 'oneupmanship' " and that the female reproductive organs have evolved in a way that makes them superior to males.
I'm baffled by this set of arguments.
I suspect many men would agree, atleast for entertainment purposes.
But other than that it sounds pretty weird argument.
Speaking of feminists that give the movement a bad name, i was just told that "females are the superior gender because male testosterone fluctuates daily leading to swings in aggression and 'oneupmanship' " and that the female reproductive organs have evolved in a way that makes them superior to males.
I'm baffled by this set of arguments.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that that's a direct response to the old (and entirely serious) argument that males are the superior gender because females have hormonal cycles that cause them to go crazy once a month, and therefore the entire gender is fundamentally irrational and untrustworthy.
I think "mansplaining" is a pretty terrible term, given that it's a condescending, sexist way to say "You're being sexist and condescending." The term ends up being a way to utterly reject and ignore another human being's contribution to a conversation, and that's almost never the right thing to do, and not the solution to gender speech imbalances.
Plus, what's a man to do when he honestly enjoys explaining things? I just like being helpful and sharing my understanding with others. I don't know that I've been accused of mansplaining necessarily, but I've seen other people put in that situation, and that has a chilling effect on me personally sometimes.
I think sometimes these conversations about gender politics end up with participants saying that their intention is to educate/convince or otherwise improve the state of things through discussion, when what they actually want to do is forcibly eject anyone who disagrees with them until they've made a public forum a "safe space" so that they can collectively just kinda complain and agree about how shitty everything is. Which may make them feel better, and all the power to them, but it certainly doesn't improve things. This is where you get people saying "ugh it's exhaustive to educate you," well, then what is the point of the conversation? To feel proud when your assertion about the causes of the world's problems are agreed with by everyone left?
I got into Scott Alexander's blog recently and, although I think he paints the movement with too broad a brush, I think he's right to call out a lot of internet feminism as using the righteousness of the cause as an excuse to bully and shame people along tribal lines. #notallfeminists but I do think it's a little bit more of a problem than was suggested by several people earlier in this thread--feminism seems to have more than the average group's share of jerks, either because they yell louder or (and I think this is partly the case) the ideology itself (or parts of it) lend themselves to dogma and witch hunts.* You might even call that form of feminism... toxic?
*Just as religion is ultimately more prone to "I'm right and you're wrong and the entire system agrees with me that neither I nor it should be questioned in our rightness" than science or other organized structures of discourse.
"Mansplaining" refers more to when a man offers unsolicited advice to a woman despite obvious evidence that the woman knows the topic in question at least as well as he does.
Examples: a male programmer explains database functions to his female peer, or a male gamer offers gameplay tips to a competent woman on his team, or a man who isn't a medical professional explains female biology to a woman.
Speaking of feminists that give the movement a bad name, i was just told that "females are the superior gender because male testosterone fluctuates daily leading to swings in aggression and 'oneupmanship' " and that the female reproductive organs have evolved in a way that makes them superior to males.
I'm baffled by this set of arguments.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that that's a direct response to the old (and entirely serious) argument that males are the superior gender because females have hormonal cycles that cause them to go crazy once a month, and therefore the entire gender is fundamentally irrational and untrustworthy.
It's also a nearly identical quote used in an episode of Sliders where the earth they end out on has gender roles reversed.
Arturo finds himself in a mayoral race in a world where men are treated as "the weaker sex" and women hold the positions of power and influence. Hillary Clinton is shown as being the President of the United States.
Worth watching really. Was fairly ahead of its time as a show in the early seasons but got kind of junky later on.
Speaking of feminists that give the movement a bad name, i was just told that "females are the superior gender because male testosterone fluctuates daily leading to swings in aggression and 'oneupmanship' " and that the female reproductive organs have evolved in a way that makes them superior to males.
I'm baffled by this set of arguments.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that that's a direct response to the old (and entirely serious) argument that males are the superior gender because females have hormonal cycles that cause them to go crazy once a month, and therefore the entire gender is fundamentally irrational and untrustworthy.
So here's the kicker! I actually brought that up in the sense that i said "saying testosterone makes guys uncontrollable" is the same argument as "estrogen makes women emotionally unstable". Its nonsense.
She responded with the accusation that i was un-educated and needed to do more research.
Anyway, carry on with the topic. I just needed to vent because I started the conversation (on Facebook, yes, my first mistake) in support of women getting more equal rights* (combat roles) and by and large she systematically pushed allies away in the argument with stuff like this. She even started an argument with a woman who asked where in the world she was getting this information. I know that the person in question can be civil. We've often agreed on many political threads on facebook. Fighting the good fight in my more conservative families discussions.
But, she isn't winning any arguments with this stuff, and in fact, making it worse. Its why I feel an aversion to calling myself a feminist.
Sky's response is pretty incoherent (this is why people need to stop using Twitter to post entire essays in stupid chunks).
I have problems with a few bits of the original essay but not the overall thrust of it. Like, are we all just supposed to ignore the image when talking about pop musicians?
What image?
It would be impossible to talk about a pop musician's work separated from the cultural soup the music comes from.
Like the aforementioned Madonna... how do you cover her music without covering the sex appeal she is clearly aiming at.
To point, the NSFW pic in that article, which is the cover of her album, is not an image of nudity divorced from sexuality. Its sexual as fuck. People are going to talk about it, and that was exactly the intended effect by whoever decided this pic best represented the contents within.
Indeed. She's allowed to be sexual with her image, and it's good to discuss it. What's bad is when that defines her entirely, which is bullshit. She's a singer, the dude knows what she does (I think she's pretty good too), instead he focuses on that like she's an object for him to leer at. He didn't try to think what she, or women reading, would think about what he wrote. It was never her intention for her looks to overshadow her actual work. It's possible to be respectable with her cover and her looks without being a horndog.
If it is okay for her to be sexual with her image, I don't see a reason an article/essay can't be exclusively about the sexualized images of pop stars including hers. Which is really much more of what I read the article to be about, given the multitude of comparisons to and asides about other female pop artists and their looks/personas. It is a huge part of pop media and the idea that people can't write about it without also including 10,000 words on 'the art' itself is dumb. For many artists their looks/image/persona is their key to the industry, the songs are written by groups of writers, the music made by a producer, and the singing has so much post production done on it, my tone deaf ass can come out sounding like Freddie Mercury.
This thing strikes me as very much just another occurrence of the well used celebrity trick of "Why aren't you talking about my art rather than side show I intentionally use to sell my art", be it risque photos or controversial comments or a diss at some other artist or some sort of minor legal scuffle either with another celebrity/production company/the law.
Speaking of feminists that give the movement a bad name, i was just told that "females are the superior gender because male testosterone fluctuates daily leading to swings in aggression and 'oneupmanship' " and that the female reproductive organs have evolved in a way that makes them superior to males.
I'm baffled by this set of arguments.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that that's a direct response to the old (and entirely serious) argument that males are the superior gender because females have hormonal cycles that cause them to go crazy once a month, and therefore the entire gender is fundamentally irrational and untrustworthy.
So here's the kicker! I actually brought that up in the sense that i said "saying testosterone makes guys uncontrollable" is the same argument as "estrogen makes women emotionally unstable". Its nonsense.
She responded with the accusation that i was un-educated and needed to do more research.
I bet she heard it out of context somewhere and didn't get the "joke".
Speaking of feminists that give the movement a bad name, i was just told that "females are the superior gender because male testosterone fluctuates daily leading to swings in aggression and 'oneupmanship' " and that the female reproductive organs have evolved in a way that makes them superior to males.
I'm baffled by this set of arguments.
In my experience, people who say things like this do not interact with many women, or if they do, they don't pay any attention to them. It's literally a reframing of old style paternalistic sexist gender essentialism.
Fact: women are quite as good as men when it comes to being moody assholes.
Speaking of feminists that give the movement a bad name, i was just told that "females are the superior gender because male testosterone fluctuates daily leading to swings in aggression and 'oneupmanship' " and that the female reproductive organs have evolved in a way that makes them superior to males.
I'm baffled by this set of arguments.
In my experience, people who say things like this do not interact with many women, or if they do, they don't pay any attention to them. It's literally a reframing of old style paternalistic sexist gender essentialism.
Fact: women are quite as good as men when it comes to being moody assholes.
Can someone give me an idea on how we can dismiss gender essentialism, and accept the innateness of transgenderism?
If transgenderism stems from genetic/epigenetic/in utero hormone effects or some other predeterminate thing-which seems likely given for example preschool children who identify as the opposite gender- dismissing one and accepting the other seem to be making explicitly opposed claims.
1) That there is no such thing as a 'male brain' or a 'female brain'
2) That some people are born with brains opposed to their biological sex.
e: It also seems to run directly contrary to the David Reimer story and the other examples of SRS on infants.
tinwhiskers on
+3
Options
Lord Palingtonhe.him.hisHistory-loving pal!Registered Userregular
Basically, you can't tell if someone is male or female from just looking at their brain on an individual level, but there are statistical patterns that are present in the brains of cisgender males and females, and different ones in transgender males and females. Normally, I wouldn't separate between cis- and transgender here, but the article I linked has data showing some differences between transgender males and cisgender males (and the same among females).
I believe gender essentialism says that if you're one gender, things will be a certain way, when biologically it's more that if you're one gender, things sometimes tend to be a certain way. There has to be room for exceptions, like lots and lots of room for exceptions. Like, enough room for exceptions that we don't assume much, if anything, about an individual based on their gender.
I could be wrong here though, so anyone can feel free to correct me!
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Speaking of feminists that give the movement a bad name, i was just told that "females are the superior gender because male testosterone fluctuates daily leading to swings in aggression and 'oneupmanship' " and that the female reproductive organs have evolved in a way that makes them superior to males.
I'm baffled by this set of arguments.
In my experience, people who say things like this do not interact with many women, or if they do, they don't pay any attention to them. It's literally a reframing of old style paternalistic sexist gender essentialism.
Fact: women are quite as good as men when it comes to being moody assholes.
Can someone give me an idea on how we can dismiss gender essentialism, and accept the innateness of transgenderism?
If transgenderism stems from genetic/epigenetic/in utero hormone effects or some other predeterminate thing-which seems likely given for example preschool children who identify as the opposite gender- dismissing one and accepting the other seem to be making explicitly opposed claims.
1) That there is no such thing as a 'male brain' or a 'female brain'
2) That some people are born with brains opposed to their biological sex.
e: It also seems to run directly contrary to the David Reimer story and the other examples of SRS on infants.
I'm at work so I can't really get into detail or anything, but the short version is:
- There are studies that suggest a neurologically-innate origin of one's self-identification along the male-female spectrum; important to note, it is a spectrum, not a binary.
- To steal a phrase from Shivahn, identity exists as kind of an electron cloud--things may or may not exist within that cloud at certain point in certain strengths, but it's still an electron.
- So there isn't really a "male" or "female" brain as much as there are consciousnesses that identify as that, or neither! There are agender and nonbinary and genderfluid people all over the goddamn place.
- Identity is tricky. I know a post-op trans man who still works as a belly-dancer and is very popular. He just performs without a shirt now.
- "Gender essentialism" doesn't argue that there aren't more polar ends of the gender identity spectrum, it argues that "X must do Y because of their gender." It's an absolutist ideology based on oppression and power dynamics.
I'll admit that gender identity is a topic that I have a lot of trouble understanding. Until fairly recently I believed that there were some differences between the brains of men and the brains of women that might account for some minor differences in behavior, but that for the most part conceptions of masculine and feminine behavior were socially constructed. If a man behaved in ways that were stereotypically feminine then that must mean that those behaviors aren't actually gendered at all.
Now I'm not really certain what to think. I identify as male because I have male "parts" and no other reason; I don't have an innate feeling of "maleness", so when trans people say they do have an innate sense of gender I have to take it on faith.
I don't even know what to make of concepts like agender and genderfluid. I just Googled agender to try and figure out what that means and I'm still not sure I know. Like, does the fact that I don't feel a distinct sense of maleness mean I'm actually agender or something?
+3
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I'll admit that gender identity is a topic that I have a lot of trouble understanding. Until fairly recently I believed that there were some differences between the brains of men and the brains of women that might account for some minor differences in behavior, but that for the most part conceptions of masculine and feminine behavior were socially constructed. If a man behaved in ways that were stereotypically feminine then that must mean that those behaviors aren't actually gendered at all.
Now I'm not really certain what to think. I identify as male because I have male "parts" and no other reason; I don't have an innate feeling of "maleness", so when trans people say they do have an innate sense of gender I have to take it on faith.
I don't even know what to make of concepts like agender and genderfluid. I just Googled agender to try and figure out what that means and I'm still not sure I know. Like, does the fact that I don't feel a distinct sense of maleness mean I'm actually agender or something?
Conceptions of masculine and feminine are socially constructed, for the most part. See colors we gender, clothing we wear, how we wear our hair (mostly). These are socially labeled. I think that's separate to most other things, though.
The normal rejoinder to "I don't feel <male/female>" is that it's hard to know if everything matches up. You can easily hit snags when transgender that you don't when cis, and that's where a lot of the pain is. While people often communicate the experience of being trans as "my body is wrong," a lot of people only experience (as far as I know) "my body isn't right," which is more subtle, and I think that might be where the issue lies. If everything's right, there's usually not something to feel. If someone says "hey dude," or compliments your hair for being pretty, there's nothing really to feel off if everything's as it should be. I suspect that a lot of people's "innate sense" of gender is actually more of a sense built by triangulating various things that feel off.
Speaking of feminists that give the movement a bad name, i was just told that "females are the superior gender because male testosterone fluctuates daily leading to swings in aggression and 'oneupmanship' " and that the female reproductive organs have evolved in a way that makes them superior to males.
I'm baffled by this set of arguments.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that that's a direct response to the old (and entirely serious) argument that males are the superior gender because females have hormonal cycles that cause them to go crazy once a month, and therefore the entire gender is fundamentally irrational and untrustworthy.
It's also a nearly identical quote used in an episode of Sliders where the earth they end out on has gender roles reversed.
Arturo finds himself in a mayoral race in a world where men are treated as "the weaker sex" and women hold the positions of power and influence. Hillary Clinton is shown as being the President of the United States.
Worth watching really. Was fairly ahead of its time as a show in the early seasons but got kind of junky later on.
Except that Maximilian probably set gender equality back several years by ditching after winning the presidency.
Speaking of feminists that give the movement a bad name, i was just told that "females are the superior gender because male testosterone fluctuates daily leading to swings in aggression and 'oneupmanship' " and that the female reproductive organs have evolved in a way that makes them superior to males.
I'm baffled by this set of arguments.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that that's a direct response to the old (and entirely serious) argument that males are the superior gender because females have hormonal cycles that cause them to go crazy once a month, and therefore the entire gender is fundamentally irrational and untrustworthy.
It's also a nearly identical quote used in an episode of Sliders where the earth they end out on has gender roles reversed.
Arturo finds himself in a mayoral race in a world where men are treated as "the weaker sex" and women hold the positions of power and influence. Hillary Clinton is shown as being the President of the United States.
Worth watching really. Was fairly ahead of its time as a show in the early seasons but got kind of junky later on.
Except that Maximilian probably set gender equality back several years by ditching after winning the presidency.
I always assumed that was the dark lesson of the show. Similar things happened when they created the atomic bomb on an earth to stop a meteor. Where Einstein wasn't willing to be responsible for all those deaths and claimed it couldn't be done. The last shot is a globe spinning and "now nobody will mess with us!". I think it was why it was such an interesting theme for a show.
Speaking of feminists that give the movement a bad name, i was just told that "females are the superior gender because male testosterone fluctuates daily leading to swings in aggression and 'oneupmanship' " and that the female reproductive organs have evolved in a way that makes them superior to males.
I'm baffled by this set of arguments.
In my experience, people who say things like this do not interact with many women, or if they do, they don't pay any attention to them. It's literally a reframing of old style paternalistic sexist gender essentialism.
Fact: women are quite as good as men when it comes to being moody assholes.
Can someone give me an idea on how we can dismiss gender essentialism, and accept the innateness of transgenderism?
If transgenderism stems from genetic/epigenetic/in utero hormone effects or some other predeterminate thing-which seems likely given for example preschool children who identify as the opposite gender- dismissing one and accepting the other seem to be making explicitly opposed claims.
1) That there is no such thing as a 'male brain' or a 'female brain'
2) That some people are born with brains opposed to their biological sex.
e: It also seems to run directly contrary to the David Reimer story and the other examples of SRS on infants.
I don't know enough to say that there's no such thing as genuine biological/neurological gender essentialism. I definitely do know that there is such thing as sexist bullshit gender essentialism.
Posts
Plus, what's a man to do when he honestly enjoys explaining things? I just like being helpful and sharing my understanding with others. I don't know that I've been accused of mansplaining necessarily, but I've seen other people put in that situation, and that has a chilling effect on me personally sometimes.
I think sometimes these conversations about gender politics end up with participants saying that their intention is to educate/convince or otherwise improve the state of things through discussion, when what they actually want to do is forcibly eject anyone who disagrees with them until they've made a public forum a "safe space" so that they can collectively just kinda complain and agree about how shitty everything is. Which may make them feel better, and all the power to them, but it certainly doesn't improve things. This is where you get people saying "ugh it's exhaustive to educate you," well, then what is the point of the conversation? To feel proud when your assertion about the causes of the world's problems are agreed with by everyone left?
I got into Scott Alexander's blog recently and, although I think he paints the movement with too broad a brush, I think he's right to call out a lot of internet feminism as using the righteousness of the cause as an excuse to bully and shame people along tribal lines. #notallfeminists but I do think it's a little bit more of a problem than was suggested by several people earlier in this thread--feminism seems to have more than the average group's share of jerks, either because they yell louder or (and I think this is partly the case) the ideology itself (or parts of it) lend themselves to dogma and witch hunts.* You might even call that form of feminism... toxic?
*Just as religion is ultimately more prone to "I'm right and you're wrong and the entire system agrees with me that neither I nor it should be questioned in our rightness" than science or other organized structures of discourse.
It's the internet, the assholes get bigger voices on it - this applies to all political ideologies. No one is immune from it.
Yes, some branches of feminism are toxic - and sometimes there are just asshole feminist, because they're people. Feminism isn't perfect, there are bad actors. That doesn't mean the concept needs to be thrown out.
Being cynical, I actually think a huge chunk of any group is the 'there by accident' portion. Meaning you can expect varying degrees of tribal stupidity from the average member of any group/label/whatever, no matter how righteous or benign that group's goals may be.
I don't think feminism's particularly more prone to it than other groups, though.
Maybe it stands out more when the group you're analyzing is on your side but not one you're too close to? I suspect that would lend the best 'angle' to pick up on that sort of nonsense. So you might perceive them as being more prone to it without them actually being so, simply as a matter of vantage point.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/7415477/sky-ferreira-response-la-weekly-sexist-article-madonna
This is the article in question.
NSFW
http://www.laweekly.com/music/sky-ferreiras-sex-appeal-is-what-pop-music-needs-right-now-7027759
I haven't heard anything about Selena Gomez risqué cover, but I'm sure she gets shit for embracing her sexuality as a singer now.
Part of it is the Virgin/Whore complex girls get put through. Especially in Showbiz and ESPECIALLY in Music.
Its practically become a rite of musical passage to ditch the girl next door persona they get foisted with by the music companies and going for the sexier look.
Sky's response is pretty incoherent (this is why people need to stop using Twitter to post entire essays in stupid chunks).
I have problems with a few bits of the original essay but not the overall thrust of it. Like, are we all just supposed to ignore the image when talking about pop musicians?
What image?
Hey, heads up theres a topless lady in that LA Weekly article. @Harry Dresden maybe add a NSFW tag. Thanks.
FYI - the LA Weekly article has a hugely NSFW image right at the top.
You should probably mention that in your post, @Harry Dresden
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Got it, thanks for telling me.
It would be impossible to talk about a pop musician's work separated from the cultural soup the music comes from.
Like the aforementioned Madonna... how do you cover her music without covering the sex appeal she is clearly aiming at.
To point, the NSFW pic in that article, which is the cover of her album, is not an image of nudity divorced from sexuality. Its sexual as fuck. People are going to talk about it, and that was exactly the intended effect by whoever decided this pic best represented the contents within.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
All i saw was an angry woman in a shower looking like she was coming down from a drinking binge or something.
She is naked and vulnerable, giving what could easily be interpreted as a fuck me stare, and wearing a cross.
This picture is almost too on the nose for madonna/whore.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Indeed. She's allowed to be sexual with her image, and it's good to discuss it. What's bad is when that defines her entirely, which is bullshit. She's a singer, the dude knows what she does (I think she's pretty good too), instead he focuses on that like she's an object for him to leer at. He didn't try to think what she, or women reading, would think about what he wrote. It was never her intention for her looks to overshadow her actual work. It's possible to be respectable with her cover and her looks without being a horndog.
Everyone is vulnerable when naked (there's a reason we wear clothes), beyond that, i don't really get where you are coming from with your interpretation.
To me that stare does not say "fuck me" or even "fuck you", it looks like a "fuck off".
Had not noticed the cross, and don't really see why it would matter, people wear jewelry, and don't always take it off when bathing.
Speaking of feminists that give the movement a bad name, i was just told that "females are the superior gender because male testosterone fluctuates daily leading to swings in aggression and 'oneupmanship' " and that the female reproductive organs have evolved in a way that makes them superior to males.
I'm baffled by this set of arguments.
Male genitals are kludgey garbage - running the urethra back and forth and through the prostrate? Who designed this? Dali? And that's only one thing! There are dozens more.
Female genitals make a lot more sense and are engineered for heavy duty, but unfortunately also do heavy duty stuff.
Evolution giveth with one hand and noogies with the other
But other than that it sounds pretty weird argument.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that that's a direct response to the old (and entirely serious) argument that males are the superior gender because females have hormonal cycles that cause them to go crazy once a month, and therefore the entire gender is fundamentally irrational and untrustworthy.
"Mansplaining" refers more to when a man offers unsolicited advice to a woman despite obvious evidence that the woman knows the topic in question at least as well as he does.
Examples: a male programmer explains database functions to his female peer, or a male gamer offers gameplay tips to a competent woman on his team, or a man who isn't a medical professional explains female biology to a woman.
It's also a nearly identical quote used in an episode of Sliders where the earth they end out on has gender roles reversed.
Season 1 Episode 8 - The Weaker Sex Worth watching really. Was fairly ahead of its time as a show in the early seasons but got kind of junky later on.
So here's the kicker! I actually brought that up in the sense that i said "saying testosterone makes guys uncontrollable" is the same argument as "estrogen makes women emotionally unstable". Its nonsense.
She responded with the accusation that i was un-educated and needed to do more research.
Anyway, carry on with the topic. I just needed to vent because I started the conversation (on Facebook, yes, my first mistake) in support of women getting more equal rights* (combat roles) and by and large she systematically pushed allies away in the argument with stuff like this. She even started an argument with a woman who asked where in the world she was getting this information. I know that the person in question can be civil. We've often agreed on many political threads on facebook. Fighting the good fight in my more conservative families discussions.
But, she isn't winning any arguments with this stuff, and in fact, making it worse. Its why I feel an aversion to calling myself a feminist.
If it is okay for her to be sexual with her image, I don't see a reason an article/essay can't be exclusively about the sexualized images of pop stars including hers. Which is really much more of what I read the article to be about, given the multitude of comparisons to and asides about other female pop artists and their looks/personas. It is a huge part of pop media and the idea that people can't write about it without also including 10,000 words on 'the art' itself is dumb. For many artists their looks/image/persona is their key to the industry, the songs are written by groups of writers, the music made by a producer, and the singing has so much post production done on it, my tone deaf ass can come out sounding like Freddie Mercury.
This thing strikes me as very much just another occurrence of the well used celebrity trick of "Why aren't you talking about my art rather than side show I intentionally use to sell my art", be it risque photos or controversial comments or a diss at some other artist or some sort of minor legal scuffle either with another celebrity/production company/the law.
In my experience, people who say things like this do not interact with many women, or if they do, they don't pay any attention to them. It's literally a reframing of old style paternalistic sexist gender essentialism.
Fact: women are quite as good as men when it comes to being moody assholes.
Can someone give me an idea on how we can dismiss gender essentialism, and accept the innateness of transgenderism?
If transgenderism stems from genetic/epigenetic/in utero hormone effects or some other predeterminate thing-which seems likely given for example preschool children who identify as the opposite gender- dismissing one and accepting the other seem to be making explicitly opposed claims.
1) That there is no such thing as a 'male brain' or a 'female brain'
2) That some people are born with brains opposed to their biological sex.
e: It also seems to run directly contrary to the David Reimer story and the other examples of SRS on infants.
Basically, you can't tell if someone is male or female from just looking at their brain on an individual level, but there are statistical patterns that are present in the brains of cisgender males and females, and different ones in transgender males and females. Normally, I wouldn't separate between cis- and transgender here, but the article I linked has data showing some differences between transgender males and cisgender males (and the same among females).
I believe gender essentialism says that if you're one gender, things will be a certain way, when biologically it's more that if you're one gender, things sometimes tend to be a certain way. There has to be room for exceptions, like lots and lots of room for exceptions. Like, enough room for exceptions that we don't assume much, if anything, about an individual based on their gender.
I could be wrong here though, so anyone can feel free to correct me!
I'm at work so I can't really get into detail or anything, but the short version is:
- There are studies that suggest a neurologically-innate origin of one's self-identification along the male-female spectrum; important to note, it is a spectrum, not a binary.
- To steal a phrase from Shivahn, identity exists as kind of an electron cloud--things may or may not exist within that cloud at certain point in certain strengths, but it's still an electron.
- So there isn't really a "male" or "female" brain as much as there are consciousnesses that identify as that, or neither! There are agender and nonbinary and genderfluid people all over the goddamn place.
- Identity is tricky. I know a post-op trans man who still works as a belly-dancer and is very popular. He just performs without a shirt now.
- "Gender essentialism" doesn't argue that there aren't more polar ends of the gender identity spectrum, it argues that "X must do Y because of their gender." It's an absolutist ideology based on oppression and power dynamics.
Now I'm not really certain what to think. I identify as male because I have male "parts" and no other reason; I don't have an innate feeling of "maleness", so when trans people say they do have an innate sense of gender I have to take it on faith.
I don't even know what to make of concepts like agender and genderfluid. I just Googled agender to try and figure out what that means and I'm still not sure I know. Like, does the fact that I don't feel a distinct sense of maleness mean I'm actually agender or something?
Conceptions of masculine and feminine are socially constructed, for the most part. See colors we gender, clothing we wear, how we wear our hair (mostly). These are socially labeled. I think that's separate to most other things, though.
The normal rejoinder to "I don't feel <male/female>" is that it's hard to know if everything matches up. You can easily hit snags when transgender that you don't when cis, and that's where a lot of the pain is. While people often communicate the experience of being trans as "my body is wrong," a lot of people only experience (as far as I know) "my body isn't right," which is more subtle, and I think that might be where the issue lies. If everything's right, there's usually not something to feel. If someone says "hey dude," or compliments your hair for being pretty, there's nothing really to feel off if everything's as it should be. I suspect that a lot of people's "innate sense" of gender is actually more of a sense built by triangulating various things that feel off.
Except that Maximilian probably set gender equality back several years by ditching after winning the presidency.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I always assumed that was the dark lesson of the show. Similar things happened when they created the atomic bomb on an earth to stop a meteor. Where Einstein wasn't willing to be responsible for all those deaths and claimed it couldn't be done. The last shot is a globe spinning and "now nobody will mess with us!". I think it was why it was such an interesting theme for a show.
I don't know enough to say that there's no such thing as genuine biological/neurological gender essentialism. I definitely do know that there is such thing as sexist bullshit gender essentialism.