Feminism and gender roles

[Keenly]

These are both erroneous statements, as they've bastardized the terms "feminists" and "equal" to mean things the words actually don't.

 

It's difficult to have a discussion if one - or another - keeps arbitrarily changing the meaning of words in an attempt to support a foregone conclusion.

 

I'm not changing anything

You can post the definition all you want, but when spades act like clubs and then say no we are spades, I sit here and go uh-huh...

 

Last night, in order to show the blatant hatred and hate speech I've seen come from feminists, I did some googling. What I found was a deep dark rabbit hole of hate, and people being really ignorant on both sides of the issue.

 

When you post the definition of the word feminism. Yet there are entire Facebook groups and forums dedicated to the hatred of men in the name of feminism, the definition doesn't really matter.

 

 

Your group has been hijacked by crazies, which seems to be the norm for any group these days.

 

If you go to a feminist forum, you can see conversations that are pretty blatantly sexist sexist, but it's okay sexism because it's not against women. That's what I don't understand. If it's really about equality, why aren't real feminists calling out the crazies who don't follow the heart of the movement?

[Rejected Rosebud]

These definitions are very helpful. It is a shame, however, that the militant, hateful, misandrist, neo-feminists are so loud that they drown out the women who just want plain old equality and respect.

This thread is very long and full of feminists, like me. Are there any of these "hateful misandrist neo-feminists" posting on it?

[truncated]

"Feminism" is what has allowed many men to not become fathers before their time.

 

"Feminism" is what has allowed many men to NOT be the soul wage-earners in a family.

 

"Feminism" is what has allowed many men to share equally in the raising of their children - if they so choose.

 

 

These are just a few examples of how "feminist group" have helped men...unless, of course, one doesn't see these things as benefits.

 

 

I can only speak for myself, but feminism ( the radical kind) has hurt me.

 

I am a married stay at home parent, and that has almost become almost a taboo word that leaves one needing to explain that they are well educated, they did work before they had kids, and no, they aren't collecting welfare.

 

In a truly equal world, I wouldn't have to do that, and neither would a father who wanted to stay home and raise his kids. Both would be supported in their choice.

 

Some of the radical feminists only seem interested in bringing about the world that best suits them and their life.

[Keenly]

This thread is very long and full of feminists, like me. Are there any of these "hateful misandrist neo-feminists" posting on it?

 

 

There's like 16 People in this thread, not even close to any actual Sample.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Keenly

[mrldii]

...If you go to a feminist forum, you can see conversations that are pretty blatantly sexist sexist, but it's okay sexism because it's not against women. That's what I don't understand. If it's really about equality, why aren't real feminists calling out the crazies who don't follow the heart of the movement?

 

I am, with every single post I've made in this thread and other threads on the topic or skirt around with the topic.

 

*Odd* that you haven't noticed.

 

I don't go to those "feminist forum" where "blatantly sexist sexist" discussions are had, where "sexism because it's not against women" is tolerated, as I don't believe in bastardizing terms nor do I share their philosophies. By not going to their sites, they don't get my support...whether it be with my words and participation OR by providing advertising *clicks* which financially support them.

[Rejected Rosebud]

There ya go guys, feminism in a nutshell. A guy does something nice for a woman, and feminist calls him a sexist for it.

 

Enigma32, you complain ALOT about how women "expect" you to pay or to buy an engagement ring. If you are going along with these expectations but then bitching about doing so, that is all on YOU.

 

Also women getting taken out to dinner and allowing a man to pay for it, or even accepting an engagement ring, are not contradictory to feminism or hypocritical; EXPECTING them and dissing men who don't do it are.

 

I do think it is hypocritical for a guy to continuously subject himself ON PURPOSE to these traditional "expectations" and then using the whole construct against feminism and women in general. I mean if a woman is going to call you "beta" or "cheap" because you don't, then what do you want with her anyway??

 

I want to reiterate one more time, though, that people can be 100% feminist and still be in relationships with the opposite sex where traditional gender roles are maintained by CHOICE of both people. CHOICE.

[Rejected Rosebud]

There's like 16 People in this thread, not even close to any actual Sample.

So what. If somebody is complaining about the BAD feminists on this thread that is full of self professed feminists, don't you think that might be worth taking a look at??:confused:

[elaine567]

 

Equality means we are all equal, Right? So why then are we not equal to so many feminists?

 

All are equal, but some are more equal than others. - George Orwell

 

It is fine saying we are all equal, but that doesn't tend to play out that way in real life, and that is why women need feminism to redress any imbalance.

[Rejected Rosebud]

Where does a man meet these women who don't judge men for not paying for them?

 

IDK maybe in the same places where the men don't judge women for their sexual behavior??

 

Maybe Oregon where I live? Or in intellectual or artistic communities? Among hippies?? In a liberal arts college or a philosophy class?? I am not kidding or exaggerating guys, in my social world there are NOTHING but guys and girls who do NOT "expect" traditional behaviors from the opposite sex. I know there are peeps different from us all around, even in my own extended family, but since I am this way I choose to be with others who are this way, but it's not "rare" or anything.

 

I wanted to add that sometimes a new person shows up in the circle of friends and if they exhibit sexist behaviors (like this one guy talking about how he needed "a 10 to his 6" they get ribbed mercilessly!!

Edited September 1, 2015 by Rejected Rosebud

[Rejected Rosebud]

Typical feminist mumbo jumbo. Thankfully, most level headed ladies do not believe this type of hogwash. I'd venture to guess that you are losing more support for feminism than you are gaining.

Can you point out why you have judged that post "mumbo jumbo"? Don't you think that by paying for dates you are "earning" something? I mean be honest.

 

If people refuse to even think outside of their own boxes and judge anybody else that does as spouting "mumbo jumbo" how can there even be a discussion??

[truncated]

Until I see the expectation of society that men have to pay for everything, especially something as archaic as an engagement ring, abolished - I won't believe that anyone is serious about equality.

 

You want equality, show it. Don't just talk about it while still welcoming the unequal things that benefit you. Till then it's all just hot air and meaningless sh*t talk.

 

I will be long underground till any of this even makes one millimetre of progress though I feel.

 

For what it's worth, I paid half the cost for my engagement ring, and before we had kids there were times when I worked while he went to school.

 

My mom worked while my dad finished getting his graduate degree and then his doctorate. They considered themselves to be equal partners, and taught us the same values.

[serial muse]

The only thing I'm arguing here is the repetition of shouting it's for equality of both sexes, equality equality equality, but they don't actually do anything for the other sex.

 

 

Just say what it is, a women's only empowerment movement, and stop saying things that don't actually take place.

 

Equality means we are all equal, Right? So why then are we not equal to so many feminists?

 

 

All are equal, but some are more equal than others. - George Orwell

 

What does the bolded even mean?

 

Answer: It is nonsense.

 

You are arguing with phantom man-haters, because it's more fun for you to do so than to engage with the real-live human beings on this thread who aren't saying any of the crap you're so angry about.

 

In other words, this thread is FULL of strawman arguments. It's just a waste of time for anyone who wants to have a discussion about actual society. All the anti-feminists here are ranting about are points of view that NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH. SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF SHOUTING ABOUT THEM?

 

Except if...gasp...people just enjoy getting angry for the sake of it?

 

(yes)

[elaine567]

I have encountered some of those "crazy" feminists on line and it can be a bit of shock to the system. Since then I avoid extreme feminism like the plague, anyone who calls women womyn is not someone I want to get into a debate with any more.

BUT feminism is definitely needed and to dismiss a whole movement dedicated to making life better for women, as mumbo jumbo, crazy, nutty, or to say that feminists are all men haters, witches or extremists is showing a distinct lack of awareness of how hard a life many women in the world have to endure and how unequal our society actually is.

 

I think the objectives of the newly formed Women's Equality Party in the UK sums it up fairly well.

 

WE are pushing for equal representation in politics, business, industry and throughout working life.

WE are pressing for equal pay and an equal opportunity to thrive.

WE are campaigning for equal parenting and care-giving and shared responsibilities at home to give everyone equal opportunities both in family life and in the work place.

WE urge an education system that creates opportunities for all children and an understanding of why this matters.

WE strive for equal treatment of women by and in the media.

WE seek an end to violence against women.

[carhill]

I'll offer this article for general reading:

 

Gender Role Identity and Attitudes towards Feminism (.pdf - University of Omaha, 2004)

 

 

"Many feminist theorists believe gender is not innate; rather gender is something we do (West & Zimmerman, 1987) and perform (Butler, 1990). Biological sex constrains gender performance, as Eckert and McConnel-Ginet (2003) noted “Gendered performances are available to everyone, but with them come constraints on who can perform which personae with impunity. And this is where gender and sex come together, as society tries to match up ways of behaving with biological sex assignments” (p. 10).

 

As such, highly masculine men and highly feminine women perform their gender role identity based on traditional notions of what constitutes masculinity and femininity. In the United States, a successful man’s performance of high masculinity requires that the man be tough, in control, and aggressive, sometimes even violent (Kimmel, 2000). At the other extreme, a successful woman’s performance of high femininity requires that the woman be nurturing, physically attractive, and passive (Wood, 1993)"

 

=======================

 

Since I was socialized in any environment which blended traditional and 'new' gender roles and my female role model was an early iteration of feminist ideals, probably outlier to peers of that time and location, I didn't receive strong traditional gender role messages or substantive ideology regarding feminism one way or another.

 

This came back to bite me in the ass later on in adult life competing with fellow males in the work world as well as for mates, since traditional gender roles and competition were alive and well in my demographic in the areas of mating and employment. Clearer messages and a stronger understanding of the politics from an early age would have been helpful socially, IMO.

 

Most poignantly, I ran into this area of interpersonal relationships while married when I became a caregiver, something traditionally a female gender role. That didn't work well in the milieu of gender role expectations in that relationship. With a better understanding of the dynamics, I might have made different choices, both in the selection of a wife and surrounding male caregiving.

 

Surprisingly, and somewhat shockingly, to me anyway, a male friend whom I thought was untouchable and with a beautiful family, also was a caregiver and took care of his mother who had Alzheimer's until she died. It now appears, last I interacted with him, that he's fine 'living in a trailer' and doesn't see the need for their gorgeous country property and his daughters are 'grown up' and, yup, I was getting an odd vibe from his wife at that event. All of the males there who knew him well concluded they are getting a divorce. Did his choice to take on a traditionally female gender role play a part? IDK. It was on my mind, probably because I got a lot of similar messages in my own marriage.

 

I'm out of the gender role in romance milieu so don't have any strong opinions on the subject. I do know the last time I visited something close to the subject, counseling a young lady who we've kept an eye on rising through the ranks at a particular company, my tone with her was 'would you like to buy this company someday?' Given her ability to work in, and manage men in a blue collar traditionally male environment, it wasn't a frivolous question. A woman can do anything she wants to do. All it takes is the will and a plan. That was the message I received from my feminist role model and was supported by the male role model in my life so I pay that forward as best I can.

[elaine567]

 

Surprisingly, and somewhat shockingly, to me anyway, a male friend whom I thought was untouchable and with a beautiful family, also was a caregiver and took care of his mother who had Alzheimer's until she died. It now appears, last I interacted with him, that he's fine 'living in a trailer' and doesn't see the need for their gorgeous country property and his daughters are 'grown up' and, yup, I was getting an odd vibe from his wife at that event. All of the males there who knew him well concluded they are getting a divorce. Did his choice to take on a traditionally female gender role play a part? IDK. It was on my mind, probably because I got a lot of similar messages in my own marriage.

 

 

 

Maybe it was the changed gender role, or maybe it was just the fact he "chose" to care for his mother's need, over that of his own family.

Some women can be uncomfortable with that, especially if she and the MIL had been rivals for his affection for years and year.

[Woggle]

I agree. However, the Jim David Adkissons, Eric Rudolphs, Scott Roeders, and Army of God followers don't make me write off all Christians as being radicals and militants; many people are able to separate the glory-mongering, attention-seeking, proselytizing ways of a few extremists and still get/stay on board with the Christian movement.

 

I suspect people can be equally-capable of doing the same with the feminist movement.

 

10 of the Worst Terror Attacks by Extreme Christians and Far-Right White Men | Alternet

 

There very much is a backlash against religion in general by many progressive people though. A lot of liberals have no use whatsoever for Christianity and the rise of the religious right is a big reason. The Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells did wonders for the cause of Atheism.

[carhill]

Maybe it was the changed gender role, or maybe it was just the fact he "chose" to care for his mother's need, over that of his own family.

Some women can be uncomfortable with that, especially if she and the MIL had been rivals for his affection for years and year.

In his case, being ethnic Armenian, historical cultural norms are strong, relevant to gender roles, as well as the man's role as head of household. IMO, a number of factors came into play, that being one. In any event, he's a friend and fellow caregiver so received my support and understanding. If such gender roles for men are outlier, then perhaps that's a dynamic society can address moving forward as men redefine their roles and responsibilities as we evolve. If feminism supports such evolution, that choice could pay tribute to those men who support women's gender role evolution as part of the feminist movement. Myself, I first watched the traditional female caregiver gender role when my father was dying and said to myself 'well, I can do that too', and did.

[BlueIris]

My problem with feminism is just like my issue with people fighting racism. These people hate to create their own structures. They beg people in power to make them equal but don't create their own businesses and other structures to help their group. I say this in reference to US. Government is a reactive entity and it takes a while to make things happen so if one created their own structures then put money into officials that help their cause and money to control images of their group. It's a capitalist country change only happens when you either become a group that brings capital or become a group that finds a way to take capital from power structure.

 

We already are. Women start, own, run businesses. I do. I know other women who do, including LS women. Women are earning more college and graduate degrees than ever before, and in some areas, more than even men are.

 

I agree that economic change is key and I do think we’re at the tipping point where our economic power and autonomy has and will continue to cause deep institutional changes. Will it change attitudes? Probably some, but not all.

 

I also think that this article makes great points that women should consider (bad title, good points):

https://hbr.org/2014/06/more-women-starting-businesses-isnt-necessarily-good-news

I know that I have limited myself with my own thinking and many of my friends have. I even see inklings of my daughters doing it.

 

No matter what complainers or critics think or say, excel, grab the brass ring, assert yourself, take leadership roles. There will always be gripers and critics. But the more successful you are, the less the gripers and critics matter to you.

[elaine567]

I did not think that a post full of such blatant misandry was worthy of discussion.

Misandry at it's finest.

 

...This post of yours shows a staggering display of hatred towards men. This is all an example of the radical feminism that you claim to deny.

 

*yawn*

<<<<<<

[mrldii]

I did not think that a post full of such blatant misandry was worthy of discussion. Since you have requested, I will break it down.

 

 

 

So paying for another person is not a kindness? I wonder what it is about then...

 

 

 

Impressive. Misandry at it's finest. So, men don't do things to be nice, we do them in order to control women, to be patronizing, to show off, and to stroke our ego? Your lack of understanding of men in general is absolute.

 

Today, I took my GF out to our favorite pizza place. I paid. Also, we just received some jewelry that I had ordered for her, because I knew she liked it. No control. I expected nothing.

 

 

 

The three main reasons men pay for dates are simple. One, because we enjoy it. Many men like myself have a natural desire to take care of women. We enjoy doing things for women. Two, because as men, it is expected of us. Men are given a gender role, just as women are. Our role is to pay for women. It is part of the courting phase for us to pay for the dates, and we just follow the tradition. We are told from an early age that this is how we show a woman we are interested. Three, because if a man does not pay for things, his dating life will most likely be shot. I'm sure you've seen the numerous threads on here where women condemn men for being "cheap" when they don't go out of their way to pay.

 

 

 

All wrong. Many men get upset when a woman pays mostly because many women only insist on paying when they aren't interested in the guy. Other men might be uncomfortable when a woman decides to pay because it is different. People are creatures of habit, and any change can throw people off. It has nothing to do with oppression, or men trying to hold women down.

 

This post of yours shows a staggering display of hatred towards men. This is all an example of the radical feminism that you claim to deny.

 

If all of this is true, and it's [most often] done out of kindness and a generosity of spirit,

 

 

why do so many men who hate "feminism" because it's filled with a bunch of militant misandrists get so upset - to the point that it's a constant complaint, an ever-ready excuse, AND a frequent topic of threads - over who pays / that men *have to* pay / that the man is expected to pay. If [the majority of] men enjoy paying for simply the joy of giving...

 

...why so much animosity while doing it?

 

 

 

 

For the record, contrary to popular belief and current colloquialisms, a "misdranist" = "a person who hates men"; the definition a "misandrist" is NOT "an intelligent woman who disagrees with a man, and states so publicly". Really no reason to start throwing around other meant-to-be derogatory labels, simply because one's in a disagreement with another poster.

[RedRobin]

Men doing "something nice" is usually not the driver. Men do not pay for dates to be "nice".

Paying for dates is often about control, it is often about setting up a dynamic where, "I paid for the date, so what are you going to do FOR ME in return."

It is about a display of wealth and power. "YOU are poor and weak, you earn less than me, so I will show you just how far above you I am."

It can be patronising, it is about a show of superiority - "I am richer than you, it will make ME feel good to do something good for you."

"It strokes my ego, I am such a nice man."

 

From the off, the first date, there is a flexing of muscles and a competition entered.

By taking centre stage, the person magnanimously paying, is usually the one who is showing dominance right away, the one who is trying to dictate how the relationship will play out.

If he steps back and allows her to pay, or she actively demands that he pays, then that dynamic can result in the woman having the perceived "upper hand" from the start, and to many men that is unacceptable.

Many men do not like feminism, as they do not want equality, they fear it, they want to be in charge and paying for dates is a way of saying, "I am the leader here."

 

It is why I guess "the man pays" is still practised widely, despite the complaints by some men.

Men in general start feeling uncomfortable when a woman "takes the lead" and pays for the date, or she splits the bill and pays her own way. She wants equality and to be seen as an equal and some men cannot deal with that. They see her as a threat.

She is then not beholden, she is then not in his control, she is not playing the game "right", and some men do not like that, as it is "emasculating."

 

 

I don't necessarily see it that way. Sometimes it is just a nice gesture. But there are still plenty of situations where what you are describing actually IS the situation.

 

 

A first date and subsequent dates early on are about getting to know someone. Unless I know what kind of person he is, I don't really know what kind of strings he may or may not attach to such a gesture.... so I don't even go there. Just like I don't go there with sex either with strangers. Unless I'm aware of the transaction I'm agreeing to (and that takes time), everything is going to be even-steven when it comes to who pays.

 

 

I get the impression from Enigma that he uses what he claims is his gender based 'obligation' to pay as an excuse to hold his double standards. So, at least in theory, it looks to me like it is something like "I'll pay for your burger and fries, so that if we have sex early on, or you turn out to be a promiscuous young lady, I have the right to treat you like trash".

 

 

That's not exactly expecting SOMETHING (ie dinner for sex), more of an end run around having a conscience or exercising any real integrity in his interactions.

 

 

If a guy I'm just getting to know insists on paying, despite my offer to pay my share, I will let him. It would be rude not to. But I don't consider it an act of kindness, nor do I consider it an act of power. I don't know him well enough to assume anything. It certainly has zero influence on my judgement of him. Absolutely zero. In other words, it is more or less a wasted gesture on his part. Has no bearing whatsoever on whether I would consider him for a relationship or not. If he agreed to letting me pay my share, same thing. It's just a transaction between strangers. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

There are other things I consider much more important. Like not being a hypocrite.

Edited September 1, 2015 by RedRobin

[RedRobin]

I guess those women who need to have a man pay should be ok with that man having double standards of his own. Including double standards they might find distasteful, like a guy who allows himself to be promiscuous insisting that the women he dates are more chaste.

 

 

As for me, I'm a woman who only dates men. I don't insist that men pay, I'm not a hypocrite in that respect, so I don't feel I should be subject to some men's anger or be a target for their sexism borne of pressure foisted on them by other women... other men... or whatever they've dreamed up in their head about female expectations.

 

 

If a man wants to avoid women who are hypocrites when it comes to who pays, they certainly are free to do that. I'd encourage them to do that, in fact. Sure, its going to limit their dating pool. I've certainly limited my dating pool by eliminating men who have sexual double standards... and I'm not even promiscuous. I just hate that they give themselves license while they pass judgements on other people. But that's ok. That's how much I hate hypocrites. I consider it a character flaw. Don't wanna date 'em. Probably don't wanna know them either.... I'm certainly not going to become one myself just because other people have questionable character.

 

Rather than crab about some women's need to have men pay for them, just stop doing it, guys. Or at least stop using it to defend your own sexism. This isn't about 'feminism' at all. It's just a bunch of nonsense some people use to defend their belief in gender-based double standards. Men and women.

 

 

Enigma, please point out where any so-called feminists on this thread or elsewhere have insisted that men need to pay. I don't see it.

 

 

If you are talking about women in general, then that is a different story. Not all women who benefit from 'feminism' identify as feminists. But I agree with you that there are plenty of female hypocrites, just like there are plenty of male hypocrites. Still doesn't justify being one.

Edited September 2, 2015 by RedRobin

[mrldii]

...When someone says they are in favor of equality, and fight for the rights of one group only, I am not convinced they care about equality. Especially when one considers the anti-male speech being posted here...

 

...My whole point in engaging in conversations like this is to basically call shenanigans on the feminists here. On one hand, they say they are in favor of equality between genders, but when they give an individual list of issues they are fighting against, it's all women's issues. It is not equality when you are trying to fight against all perceived injustices against one gender, but do not take issue with any advantages that come with it. Basically, feminists are here saying they want equal pay (which is pretty much already a reality) and telling men that if they don't want to pay for women, that's their problem. They should not be surprised then when men do not support the feminist agenda.

 

*AHEM* I am one of those "feminists here" upon whom you are purported calling "shenanigans on".

 

Where, in any of my posts in this thread or any other, have I listed the things I fight for that only benefit one gender...presumably mine.

 

When I fight for equal pay, does the man in my life not benefit from my increased income coming into the home?

 

When I fight for "family leave", as opposed to "maternity leave", does the father of my child not benefit from bonding time with the paternal side of his creation?

 

When I fight in my home by insisting that this time HE should take Junior to the doctor, as I've missed enough time at work and missed none...does he NOT derive a benefit with my continued employment and paycheck?

 

 

Coulda sworn this type of "feminist BS" was mentioned earlier in this thread, when asked how feminism has benefited one man; when mentioned earlier, I encouraged someone to come forth and indicate that none of these did provide a benefit to a man. Not one person indicated it was NOT a benefit.

 

 

Perhaps the reason some of you are not familiar with what "a feminist" truly is, is because you - yourselves - indicate you won't date one 'cuz ya don't like "those misandrists"...but would rather incessantly b*tch about the women you will date who pretend to be "feminists" but then gladly let you pay for dinner, the engagement ring, wait for you to text/call first, and/or never initiate sex.

 

 

The irony remains constantly astounding...not to mention never-ending fodder for the fora.

[carhill]

Heh, I think I better re-examine my gender roles

[PrettyEmily77]

Like the majority of modern-day women in those countries that can allow or afford it, I am extremely grateful to those before me who have made it possible for me to live the life I have, I am aware that still now, not everyone has the opportunities I have been given thanks to those ppl, men and women, who have pushed for gender equality, yet I don't really define myself as a feminist, purely down to the fact that I don't like labels - I prefer to live and breathe gender equity in my daily life.

 

I work very long hours in a job that only recently has been made fairly and justly accessible to me. Not many around me care that at 39, I've never married or had kids. I own my car, pay a mortgage on my flat (raised the deposit myself), and have initiated most of my LTRs (present one included).

 

 

But to reduce gender roles and undermine the impact the feminist movement has had to who's paying on the first date is short-sighted to say the least. At least nowadays men do not have to pay for dinner; plenty of men are taking full advantage of this newly-found equity (as is their prerogative), and none that I have met / dated / have been in a R with see themselves as the poor victims of feminism; their attitude / behaviour are more likely to have an effect on any future dates than all the feminist advances put together.