Bill & Ted had it right. Be excellent to each other (dudes). It's the only way to go.
― ailsa (ailsa), Friday, 5 December 2003 13:06 (twenty years ago) link
Other sides to that "double burden:"
-men are expected to work to take care of a family, but are denied the family caretaker role themselves if they want it. Their higher pay is a sacrifice to the family and they don't get to enjoy any of it. Especially when higher pay often means sacrificing health and happiness to the job, while the traditional women's roles could be said to provide the "psychic income" of family time. This goes for divorce cases too when men are most often denied child custody.
-There's hardly very many men who live at home supported by working wives. Working men who do more average hours than working women don't get family time.
-Men don't have access to other social support for families- alimony and child support, maternity leave benefits, or equal access to welfare. Homelessness might be good to bring up because it's much worse for men than women. So if women are treated like property in the home, at least they get taken care of while men are disposable.
Do women around the world have the shorter end of the stick? I disagree: 50 million women didn't die in war in the 20th century. As for trying to raise these issues alongside female discrimination, fair enough, when they aren't being actively made invisible.
― sucka (sucka), Friday, 5 December 2003 13:47 (twenty years ago) link
What sort of feminism are we talking about? The ILX approved kind where women can talk about shagging but men cannot because any and all straight male libidosm are inherently obscene and evil and must be censored? The sort of feminism that removes threads about Christina Aguilera and how shaggable she looks in her video? The sort of feminism that brands all pornography evil?
Or the sort of the feminism that doesn't waste time with such utter cock and instead spends its days trying to obtain equal wages and equal managerial standing for women?
Is it's the latter then I'm all for it.
If it's the sort of feminism that says women should be permitted to take 6 months off to raise kids but still be entitled to lead large businesses then I'm skeptical. It's one or the other if you ask me (and I know that might sound sexist, but I think if men want to play house-husband, and there are many, then it's the same thing. Capitalism sucks, I agree, but as long as that's society and feminism appears to have become OF society rather than working to CHANGE it, then I see no alternative).
― C-Man (C-Man), Friday, 5 December 2003 13:53 (twenty years ago) link
This is a VERY good point: society consists of females and males.
― mei (mei), Friday, 5 December 2003 14:11 (twenty years ago) link
as a consequence the issue of violence against men is now on the political agenda as a serious topic in itself: sucka's argument having weight is a consequence of mainstream feminism, not a counter to it
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 5 December 2003 14:20 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 5 December 2003 14:31 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 5 December 2003 14:34 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 5 December 2003 14:45 (twenty years ago) link
the work done in the politics of violence against women, and the politics of violence against non-conformist sexuality, has changed the sustance of shame and shaming, and rewritten the maps of belief
the more forms of power and resistance to power that exist in the world, the more varied opportunities there are for manipulative bullying, i suspect (hmm that sounds a bit gloomy, do i really think that?)
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 5 December 2003 14:47 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 5 December 2003 14:52 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 5 December 2003 14:54 (twenty years ago) link
As for "slavery, c or d," it would be more like "owned slaves (women)vs. wage slaves (men): which is better"?
― sucka (sucka), Friday, 5 December 2003 14:56 (twenty years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 5 December 2003 14:57 (twenty years ago) link
― C-Man (C-Man), Friday, 5 December 2003 14:57 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 5 December 2003 14:57 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 5 December 2003 14:59 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:00 (twenty years ago) link
― THAT Kate (kate), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:01 (twenty years ago) link
Yes I'm snotty, sorry.
― sucka (sucka), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:02 (twenty years ago) link
― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:04 (twenty years ago) link
(i.e. maybe it has less to do with "society" than it does mens' actual physiology?)
God, I swore I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, I swore, I swore, I swore...
― THAT Kate (kate), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:05 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:06 (twenty years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:07 (twenty years ago) link
Yeah, as arguments those types of comparisons are an A1 time-waster and mostly the best response is to treat them with ignore.
― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:08 (twenty years ago) link
― sucka (sucka), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:10 (twenty years ago) link
Because so many of Feminism's more sensible ideals *have* been absorbed into mainstream society, it ironically becomes easier to write off Feminism as a whole, or else concentrate on the more "extreme" issues.
― THAT Kate (kate), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:11 (twenty years ago) link
― sucka (sucka), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:11 (twenty years ago) link
― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:12 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:12 (twenty years ago) link
― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:17 (twenty years ago) link
Is this true? I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know if it's true.
Women don't have to accept their "place".
I don't think someone should get paid to look after their own kids. Similarly, people shouldn't get paid to clean their own houses, polish they're own cars or do their own dishes.Also
― mei (mei), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:20 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:21 (twenty years ago) link
Where can we get figures for male and female deaths by war?
― mei (mei), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:22 (twenty years ago) link
― Jonathan Z., Friday, 5 December 2003 15:24 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:25 (twenty years ago) link
― THAT Kate (kate), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:25 (twenty years ago) link
― Jonathan Z., Friday, 5 December 2003 15:27 (twenty years ago) link
― C-Man (C-Man), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:27 (twenty years ago) link
Military casualties are a fraction of total casualties, though.
In WW2 you have
a) area bombing of Germany, Japan, UKb) the Holocaustc) pretty indiscriminate slaughter in China, Russia, and Eastern Europed) this is irrelevant cos it's so fucking stupid to talk about 'more men dying in wars'.
― N-Ri-K (Enrique), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:28 (twenty years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:33 (twenty years ago) link
which i think sucka and blount are oddly both buying into.
anyway if you wanna do the demographic parsing poor women have it worse than poor men and women in general.
there is a problem with the whole argument about "family time" being denied men though -- sure it's the necc. counterpart of "workplace/social time" being denied women but it also relies on a certain valorization of "family time" which was one of the contradictory kernels in feminism to begin with -- arguing for the revision of valuation of social role to give more props to extant and historic gender roles of women.
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:34 (twenty years ago) link
Like I said.
Sigh.
― THAT Kate (kate), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:35 (twenty years ago) link
You mean this?
This is a VERY good point: society consists of females and males. -- mei (meirion.lewi...), December 5th, 2003.
I was responding to this:
Yes. Describing "male behavior" as a problem, neglects that society places men in a position of competition, and a role of disposability. Violence is a natural outcome of being deprived of security and safety. Sure it's not exactly women oppressing men but it is society oppressing men, a bi-sexist society.
I actually disagree with the sentiment of the bit about "Violence is a natural outcome": saying something is "natural" is a very weak excuse.
I think I might have misread "bi-sexist" as meaning "society is composed of people of both sexes".
What I'm trying to get across is that society is made up of EVERYONE, men and women.
If society discriminates against anyone then it's all our faults.
If someone says "women are unfairly paid less", then 'women' are just as much to blame for this state of affairs as 'men' are.
― mei (mei), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:37 (twenty years ago) link
― C-Man (C-Man), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:37 (twenty years ago) link
― THAT Kate (kate), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:38 (twenty years ago) link
― teeny (teeny), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:39 (twenty years ago) link
Stephanie Coontz to thread.
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:40 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:40 (twenty years ago) link
it also relies on a certain valorization of "family time" which was one of the contradictory kernels in feminism to begin with -- arguing for the revision of valuation of social role to give more props to extant and historic gender roles of women.
was that due to 'big tent'ism so as to not repulse the fha 'i have a job, i'm a homemaker' crowd or to make sure feminism didn't (re?)define women as 'just' victims?
― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 5 December 2003 15:42 (twenty years ago) link