- Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.
But it's the "by men" part that gets me, as if men get together and decide to oppress women (and in so doing oppress themselves in certain ways). I know feminism doesn't literally consider patriarchy that kind of conspiracy, but that's almost always what it reads like to me. The thing is, men and women as individuals don't constitute how gender is assigned and valued in society; rather, those values, attitudes and beliefs are inherited. Feminism is correct in admitting that they are social constructs, but whenever I read "feminists" writing and they bring up what "men" do it's like they miss that point of social construction.
Women are not excluded from industrial work "by men"; they're excluded by a set of values that say women are not allowed to work there.
Yeah, they're not exactly unaware of this.
- Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.
This is a very charged issue so I feel I should be more eloquent, but I have a lot of trouble articulating myself on the topic.
Yes! This was exactly the item that bothered me, too. It's also weird because it seems to imply that if women were "allowed" to participate in these jobs that perhaps equal numbers of women would choose to do so. If there are women that want to do these grueling, dangerous jobs, then I'm fine with it, provided no unreasonable additional risk to the other workers in said job would result.
You're right, this is a charged issue, but I haven't had a smoke yet so . . . in light of your assertion about social constructs being inherited, does this not mean that unless men reject all inherited social constructs that they and women who have not recognized and rejected "patriarchy" are therefore parts of "patriarchy" and therefore to be hated by feminists?
If the idea behind this is to win hearts and minds, it's going about it shittily. Advocating hatred is advocating the casting aside of reason. Fuck that.
No Kool-Aid for me, thanks.
- Advocating hatred is advocating the casting aside of reason.
I'm still trying to articulate myself on this. Perhaps it could fruitfully be compared to racism. Racist people are themselves racist, which makes it seem like they're intentionally racist. But really they acquired their racist beliefs from the context in which they live - from their parents and their peers and all of the people around them who are racist. Go back to the times of the slaves - most people simply thought nothing of the fact that humans could be bought and sold...
That's it! Naturalisation of beliefs! The patriarchy doesn't come down to a matter of the actions of men against women as it does to naturalised beliefs and attitudes about both men and women. In this sense, the patriarchy is pre-action. So yeah, hearts and minds.
I feel like my brain isn't working properly today.
- It's also weird because it seems to imply that if women were "allowed" to participate in these jobs that perhaps equal numbers of women would choose to do so.
Many decades ago, women were snuffed down by the scientific community because they were believed not to be as intelligent as men. Now the most recent fight has been to remove roadblocks for women in the army. If the question is "are there gender roadblocks in certain careers," the answer is most certainly a "yes."
It's absolutely true that there are gender roadblocks, but the point is that it is not individual people who put those roadblocks there. It's not because the manager of the mine says that a women is not allowed to work there that she is not allowed to work there; it is because that manager lives within a community in which gender values prohibit women from working in mines.
In the same sense, if I try to purchase alcohol but I'm under 18, it's not because the shopowner refuses to sell me alcohol that I can't get it - it's because of a broader system governing behaviour - the law. (I'm just using this is an example, so as to avoid seguing into a discussion about the intersectionality of gender and law and so on...)
Is there de jure enforcement of no women in coal mines? I'd always assumed that it was a de facto thing...
(See my cousin comment for more chit-chat)
Huh. Well, actually, I didn't mean to imply that there was de jure enforcement - de facto works just the same.
It's undeniable that women face roadblocks, but they of course are not the only ones. The focus of the question I was responding to was specifically about dangerous industrial jobs, rather than roadblocks women face in general in terms of employment.
Since coal mining was used as the example, if women were suddenly eligible to work in coal mines in exactly the same capacity as men and if the men working in the coal mines were doing it purely out of preference, would equal numbers of women choose to become coal miners? Would as many men become coal miners if they were prior to hire at the mine, presented with "cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities" as a way of making a living?
I really don't know.
Well, that's the second front to the question: Should under-represented groups be encouraged to fill historically gender/racially-biased jobs?
I have a feeling that few will argue about it in the case of coal mining, but you definitely see it in the fields of science. I have yet to see any contention over those movements, though. Occasionally, hacker news has a discussion about women in computing fields, but usually they are about how to promote interest in the industry (As well as combat sexism within it), not whether to.
The lack of any discussion about a particular job, such as coal mining, probably reflects it being an unfavorable job that no one wants, but unfortunately a few find themselves doing for lack of a better option.
Yeah, people usually only talk about people getting into jobs and positions that are highly sought after, so everyone wants to see more women in science and everyone thought it was fantastic that a black man became US president but no one seems to say "hey, there should be more female garbage men."
They're making a barely distinguishable but critical mistake. The point is not that certain groups do get into certain places in society; the point is that the roadblocks preventing them from gaining access are removed. (This is sort of tied in to what humanodon said about balance.) Focusing on getting certain people into certain places is part of the illusion of the whole "glass ceiling" thing. It isn't about numbers. Attitudes toward black people, overall, are probably not going to change significantly just because Barack Obama was elected.
Although, in the long term, it probably does make a difference. And it does suggest that at least people are willing to elect a black president, but then that makes it a symptom of changing attitudes, and not a terrifically powerful causal factor. (And, of course, the fact that many would have voted for him because he was black is itself a problem.)
I feel like this kind of comes down to an interesting question about ignorance; if you're not aware that you're propagating the patriarchy then are you still guilty as an accessory of the patriarchy? In our legal system (US), not knowing you're committing a crime isn't an excuse. That has always been an interesting point for me because, well, I want to be a law-abiding citizen (most of the time anyway) but if I'm breaking a law I don't know about, I'm kind of boned, right?
I guess the counter to that is that most laws should be common sense (i.e., don't kill anyone) but knowing about patriarchy, etc, ... well, the 'patriarchy' is ingrained into our culture as a norm for the most part. So you can't really claim that it's common sense to know about it and act against it. So I don't think that you can say that people who don't know what they're propagating should be held guilty for their actions.
Except that seems like a really stickily moral thing to say, you know? Like, I'm afraid someone's going to come out with a comparision to Nazi Germany that completely proves me wrong here. I don't know. I don't condone normalizing killing people or whatever.
It's hard to hold people guilty for esoteric, not-obvious things that they don't know about. Which then raises the question of how obvious is feminism and how obvious should it be, really?
Sorry for the ramble, humanodon. btw, I'm really enjoying following you.
I don't think that was rambling at all. If anything, I think it's a good example of the thought process any number of people might have in negotiating this issue and that what you're saying makes a lot of sense.
- I want to be a law-abiding citizen (most of the time anyway) but if I'm breaking a law I don't know about, I'm kind of boned, right?
This is where I think the aggressive feminist point of view gets stuck. Most people want to be fair and equitable to people around them, but they can only be as fair as they know how to be. Let's take an extreme example of say, a tribesman somewhere who comes from an extreme patriarchal society, one in which women are actually treated as property and bought via dowry. What people forget, or don't want to acknowledge is, that is how that particular society has functioned and thrived (that term being relative of course) for untold generations. That is how their "world" works. This is not to say that it can't change, but from the tribesmen's view, why should it change?
This is what I mean about winning hearts and minds. You can't ask people to change without guiding them through the steps. What if instead of demanding that change happen overnight, without concern for societal consequences, much less the feelings and emotions attached to established societal norms, small changes were deliberately implemented with smaller, achievable goals in place along the way to the ultimate goal of a legally and societally defined, recognized and supported concept of human equality?
In many societies, people strive to teach children about fairness. This is a hard concept for children to grasp, but in time they begin to understand. Then, just as they begin to understand and wish to participate in a fair system we tend to tell them, "too bad, life's not fair." This is all kinds of confusing. Similarly, we tend to tell people to treat each other equally, while respecting their differences. All of this is introduced when people are still figuring out who they are. Small wonder then that people have a hard time negotiating how to treat others when many people aren't really sure how to treat themselves. To bring it back to the idea of a sticky situation, people have a hard time agreeing on exactly what the problems or barriers are to equality. I'm not saying that we need to wait to figure it all out before we begin, because by then things will have changed, but what I am saying is that I think people need to stop thinking of this problem like they think of math problems, or balancing an account.
If there's one thing that I dislike about the Western idea of balance, it's the static nature of it. Often it seems very much to be, "one for you and one for me and now everything is fair and balanced." This is not balance. This is motionless. Balance without motion isn't motion at all; it's death. Consider the ying and yang. The very symbol evokes equality and motion while making clear that they are different. Opposite is too strong, but counterpart is I think, a better idea. Likewise, we need to start understanding people as counterparts, which is not to imply that man and women need to go together sexually. Humans are group animals that depend on others and the abilities of others to survive and if we look at group animals, we tend to see that they are constantly negotiating those group dynamics.
I am still figuring out how to negotiate this, but I do know that if people take "sides" and solidify their arguments into a static system of beliefs and deal in absolutes, then they create resistance and will influence people to reach for the other extreme, if only for the sake of perversity.
I guess I'm rambling too. My point is, ideas have to remain fluid for equality for all to be achieved. Too often people seek equality from the perspective, "where's my share of X?" and this is to me, is wrong. I also think that some of these problems exist for us because we're only equipped to understand groups up to a certain size and beyond that, people become abstracts. I think if real change is to be effected, people cannot be treated as abstracts. When dealing with problems of mass humanity, the humanity has to remain intact.
I enjoy following you too. You put up a whole bunch of interesting stuff!
The jezebel article that this is from actually isn't too bad. Sometimes they do write something worthwhile in the midst of feminist% bullshit and gossip.
%that over the top, annoying, preachy, hateful feminist stuff. There is a large range of hate that gets called feminism and it is a shame.
I like this line:
- Anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia—that's where we're at now. Catch up or own your prejudice.
This statement is so universal in the hate that goes on in the world today. Not just men hating "feminists" or feminists hating men but every one group or individual hating another group or individual.
Jon Stewart had a good line regarding Marco Rubio's comment saying "Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot." to which Stewart responded "Believing that the definition of marriage should be left to the states doesn't make you a bigot. But believing that those states should define that to be traditional marriage — that does actually make you a bigot."
Just own it. You don't like buttsex or whatever, you think it's gross, you don't think they make good parents, you say it will open the door to people wanting to marry animals, whatever. You just hate it. You have your reasons. Just realize that you are only adding to the hate and inequality and, yes, it makes you a bigot.
Your views are your views. My view is that your view is wrong. Don't deny that your views progress the undeniable hate. I admit that I hate you. Luckily my hate doesn't deny politicians the chance to succeed in life and get married and make money or do something whatever they want to do.
I agree with the idea of owning one's hate. It's too bad that hate is used to further political agendas, though it is an undeniably effective tool. That said, I don't actually know if a lot of politicians really do hate the things they profess to in public, or if for some it's simply a part of their public persona that they use to gain public approval or agreement to satisfy some kind of personal desire for status or power.
You'd think as beings capable of higher-level thinking we would be able to see past our own biology. Sure, it's difficult not to give into sometimes, but the asymptotic goal is to eliminate the use of instinct and promote purely critical thinking. Unreachable, yes, but still noble and worthwhile.
And you think that's a noble goal? I understand that the sentiment is positive in the context of feminism, but the implications of eliminating instinct in favor of purely critical thinking are chilling given a broader view. That's a theme in a good number of dystopian scifi works. And, unfortunately, it's hard to implement a mode of operation like that in select aspects of one's life. I sympathize with the feminist cause to an extent, but I think the movement would be best served if it focused on pragmatic, quantifiable issues. I don't think feminism fares well on anthropological and biological grounds, and the way to avoid that is to not make broad statements indicting human nature such as the one b_b referenced.
I think that the concept of patriarchy is almost purely sociological and is not necessarily relevant on biological grounds. We have the technology now to change nearly any 'superficial physical attribute', so it's not fair to classify something as simply biology when we actually have that degree of control over it. Take, for example, weight. Throughout history larger people were viewed as better because they clearly can afford to take care of themselves. Now, in many parts of the world, being thin is far more attractive.
What I'm trying to say is at this point in time, things that are attractive and unattractive are much more based in social norms than in instinct.
My last encounter with polarizing feminism was hearing the comment that men only see women as sex objects.
It's really nice to hear a more reasonable presentation of both feminism and men's rights that pokes at the actions, and not the gender identities of either group. I am not in the wrong for being a man. My actions would (And should) be hated if I was to treat a women as a lesser person.