(CNN) -- Guess it's a cultural thing.

While a Barbie-themed restaurant opening was hailed with general delight and fanfare in Taipei earlier this year, the opening of the blonde doll's new European digs is being met with quite a different reception in Germany.

Left-wing feminists are protesting the Barbie Dreamhouse Experience -- a 27,000-square-foot lifesized pink estate -- opening in Berlin on May 16.

Located off the shopping district of Alexanderplatz, the Berlin Dreamhouse is meant to show off Barbie's Malibu lifestyle.

The pink mansion is full of rooms showcasing how her makeup, kitchen and wardrobe are put together.

In addition to viewing 350 Barbie dolls and other displays, visitors can strut a long runway, "bake" virtual cupcakes in a pink kitchen or eat real ones in the cafe. And, of course, shell out for dolls and products in the gift shop.

Protestors from the Left Party are up in arms over the sexism and shallow materialism that they argue Barbie symbolizes.

"They present an image of cooking, primping and singing, as if it were in some way life-fulfilling," Socialist Alternative editor Michael Koschitzki, 27, told German newspaper Der Spiegel.

"The Barbie Dreamhouse is the expression of a conventional role model that isn't OK," he said.

Barbie has long been a subject of controversy -- with criticisms ranging from sexism to racism to creating body image issues for girls.

The Berlin movement has led to an "Occupy Barbie Dreamhouse" page on Facebook, which displays a cover image of a dark-haired girl saying, "I can't stand pink!" in German. The page currently has 1,761 likes and is updated every few hours.

The group behind the Facebook page has also announced it's planning a peaceful protest for opening day.

The Berlin mansion is Barbie's first Dreamhouse in Europe and will be dismantled to tour other European cities after August 25.

A U.S. Dreamhouse opened last week in a Florida shopping mall, to mixed reviews.

from http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/travel/barbie-dreamhouse-berlin/index.html?hpt=hp_c4





my favorite snippet from this article

"They present an image of cooking, primping and singing, as if it were in some way life-fulfilling," Socialist Alternative editor Michael Koschitzki, 27, told German newspaper Der Spiegel.

because cooks, singers and fashion designers/models are all shallow, unfulfilled sexist professions by default right? why let the individuals have the agency to define how they individually promote their career's.

stay at home moms/dads are actually hugely important life-fulfilling roles, that also provide opportunities for fulfillment in their families.

The protest is sexist towards women.

Barbies creep me out man.

I dont get it, The only way Barbie could have gotten a nice house by herself is not from ken, but from her own fulfilling career.
They should like a smart bachelerette women who has no kids and doesnt need a man to buy all the nice stuff in life.

The real question is "Is this Dream House Wheelchair accessible?"

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Barbies creep me out man.

lol, thats what my sister said about lots of my 40k "man barbies"

TBH, Dolls freak me out,
I can shop for ny nieces because i think the doll isle will come alive and attack me.

The only real problem with Barbie is the potential body image issues.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
TBH, Dolls freak me out,
I can shop for ny nieces because i think the doll isle will come alive and attack me.

You are right to be afraid. One day they will.

I doupt that, kids are smarter thne you think and know barbie isnt real.
It is real people you have to worry about with body image.

I alwasy thought it was really freaky to go into a preschool and see all these naked dolls(GC's room too) until the wife informed me that it has to do with fine motor skills. Its actually much easier for the kids to get the clothing off then it is to manage to get them back on.

Pretty much the opposite of most gamers in high school.

Wouldn't that be social skills not motor skills

the whole body image thing is silly,

if you can't look at a toy/comic/tvshow/movie actor/actress without thinking you have to look like that, then that is your own doing, not the object or fantasy.


all the ken dolls, warhammer dolls, gi joes, actors have ripped abs and steroid esque muscles, and while there is a problem with men trying to look that way through steroid abuse, that is not the fault of the inanimate objects or the fantasies on tv.

so while people abusing steroids, or being bulimic or anorexic to attain a body type is obviously harmful to them, they are the one making the choice.

it is antithetical to a free society to blame these things for individual's actions as it denies the individual's agency in decisions.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Wouldn't that be social skills not motor skills

Yes, I would imagine that gamers have really deft hands

 easysauce wrote:
the whole body image thing is silly,

if you can't look at a toy/comic/tvshow/movie actor/actress without thinking you have to look like that, then that is your own doing, not the object or fantasy.


all the ken dolls, warhammer dolls, gi joes, actors have ripped abs and steroid esque muscles, and while there is a problem with men trying to look that way through steroid abuse, that is not the fault of the inanimate objects or the fantasies on tv.

so while people abusing steroids, or being bulimic or anorexic to attain a body type is obviously harmful to them, they are the one making the choice.

it is antithetical to a free society to blame these things for individual's actions as it denies the individual's agency in decisions.

The dolls would only exacerbate an already existing problem. if the problem didn't exist in the first place the dolls wouldn't be enough to create it.

The problem could be solved by having less media focus on the perfect body as well as good parenting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Wouldn't that be social skills not motor skills

Yes, I would imagine that gamers have really deft hands

That could be read multiple ways, all of them naughty and pertinent to this situation.

Oh man, nothing better than irrational feminists to make my day.

I do approve of the protests though. And no, that's not because of that one woman showing her boobs. Totally not. Really!

...okay, it is.

You should read an eye opening article called 'Bleeding Sweden the fall into ideological depravity' sure opened my eyes!

I just read about FEMEN (NSFW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMEN), the organiazion behind it, and I gotta say that I like the group. A lot! Their sense for drama is outstanding (Swinging a burning cross...while naked!).

We need more similar feminist groups.

Little girls want to be beautiful princesses how is it sexist if the company caters to their imagination?
"Sorry little girl, no Barbie for you because you need a realistic expectation that you will be fat, sad, and a single mother when you are 16."
Next stop, Lets sue Walt Disney because there are no plus sized women princesses,let alone transgender princesses.

The only female sexist (aka the most vocal part nowadays) acceptable Barbie is a barbie doll with her holding a leash and Ken being attached to it.

Women's image issues don't come from barbie. Thats a feminist bs. They come from all the magazines/pics/advertising that show concentration camp victims as models.

Yeah, its like the video game violence, kids know that barbie is fake.
Now if they show a real person as a model, they do think it is possible.

Wasn't Barbie the one who had the career and owned the car? Sounds like she showed girls that they didn't have to rely on their man for what they wanted.

Yep, that's pretty moronic.

This isn't a new thing, though. Some fool is always crying the blues about Barbie at least once a year.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I just read about FEMEN (NSFW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMEN), the organiazion behind it, and I gotta say that I like the group. A lot! Their sense for drama is outstanding (Swinging a burning cross...while naked!).

We need more similar feminist groups.

So its the PETA of feminism?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Wasn't Barbie the one who had the career and owned the car? Sounds like she showed girls that they didn't have to rely on their man for what they wanted.

Barbie doesn't have the correct career. She should do what the protestors think she should do, because they are objectively correct in their opinion.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I just read about FEMEN (NSFW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMEN), the organiazion behind it, and I gotta say that I like the group. A lot! Their sense for drama is outstanding (Swinging a burning cross...while naked!).

We need more similar feminist groups.

So its the PETA of feminism?

Are you kidding? FEMEN is the holy grail of feminist movements! Their main form of protest is having 18-20 year old students showing their boobies!

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Wasn't Barbie the one who had the career and owned the car? Sounds like she showed girls that they didn't have to rely on their man for what they wanted.

Barbie doesn't have the correct career. She should do what the protestors think she should do, because they are objectively correct in their opinion.

She has been a Vet, Lawyer and an astronaut all before 40, think about that schooling she needed.

Good thing there hasn't been a Jelly Wrestling Barbie

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
She has been a Vet, Lawyer and an astronaut all before 40, think about that schooling she needed.

So what would make her an acceptable role model? Or is she a target because she is being judged by feminists on her appearance?

In order to be acceptable, Barbie must be a fat, unattractive woman only wearing at least 3 layers of clothing. And glasses! Don't forget the glasses!

At work we just hired a new female conductor trainee, we can't even say "Hey guys, we have a new female employee."
I asked my boss if I should call her a male employee and he laughed, then firmly stated that we can't state genders...sigh...

Why does gender matter, you can say "Hey, guys, we have a new employee" gender has nothing to do with job performence.

because its retardedly rare that we hire female employees VERY rare, and deserves attention? The turn over rate for male employees is stupid high, we get a new male employee onc a week big deal.
after working at a place for so long you need things to talk about to break up the "same crap different day" .

Ok, so what if they are rare, male nurses are rare, but there is no need bring attention to it.
By bringing attention to it you are
1: Saying that because she is female she is inherantly different from hiring a male.
2: that because she is female she deserves attention.
3: That them lae employees should go look at her.
Now, if you hired a guy, would you say "Hey guys, we got a new male employee"

You got me.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Wouldn't that be social skills not motor skills

Yes, I would imagine that gamers have really deft hands

That could be read multiple ways, all of them naughty and pertinent to this situation.

Just as planned

 Frazzled wrote:
Women's image issues don't come from barbie. Thats a feminist bs. They come from all the magazines/pics/advertising that show concentration camp victims as models.

For the folks who put stock in it, Barbie's another example of the same kind of thing. Her proportions are even more unrealistic and idealized in an unhealthy way. The folks who complain about Barbie are worried that it's an early stage of building up an unrealistic and unreachable ideal in young girls, before they get older, start reading Seventeen, Vogue, etc.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Yep, that's pretty moronic.

This isn't a new thing, though. Some fool is always crying the blues about Barbie at least once a year.

People who care about something I consider trivial are always fools. I suspect the ladies who bother protesting Barbie might find my toy soldier hobby foolish.

The difference, Mannahnin, is when you take your foolishness to the point of annoying other people.

Particularly when the people being bothered are largely comprised of children who happen to like pink barbie houses.

Ah. I didn't realize that some fool was making a point to bother children about this issue every year.

I thought most of them just complained to other adults.

Did you read the article?

Given the target audience of Barbie, and the fact that they are protesting at the opening of the restaurant, my conclusion that they are to be bothering kids with this nonsense is defensible. The debate about whether or not Barbie is a problem is almost a separate issue at this point.

Did you? The article describes online complaints and material in Der Spiegel. It says that the group opposed to the Dream House were planning "a peaceful protest" at the opening, but as the article was written before the opening, of course no details of how the protest actually went down, or whether it did, or whether any children were bothered, were provided. Or details about protesters bothering children on other occasions, as apparently happens every year.

Oh dear...

We seem to have overlooked where I said that this case was goofier than every other time I've heard this hackneyed silliness "particularly", I used that word as I recall, due to the specific details in the article.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Women's image issues don't come from barbie. Thats a feminist bs. They come from all the magazines/pics/advertising that show concentration camp victims as models.

For the folks who put stock in it, Barbie's another example of the same kind of thing. Her proportions are even more unrealistic and idealized in an unhealthy way. The folks who complain about Barbie are worried that it's an early stage of building up an unrealistic and unreachable ideal in young girls, before they get older, start reading Seventeen, Vogue, etc.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Yep, that's pretty moronic.

This isn't a new thing, though. Some fool is always crying the blues about Barbie at least once a year.

People who care about something I consider trivial are always fools. I suspect the ladies who bother protesting Barbie might find my toy soldier hobby foolish.

My argument is based on watching these girls grow up. They seem fine right until they start reading the "girls" magazines then they go to gak.
On the positive we've found an excellent way to counteract that is put the little rugrats in sports. Active little wimminz don't got time to mess with that.

OT but am I the only to notice they seem to abbreviate all their words now. If they barked it they'd sound positively Klingon.

Angry feminists protest about something. In other news today a bear took a gak in the woods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Women's image issues don't come from barbie. Thats a feminist bs. They come from all the magazines/pics/advertising that show concentration camp victims as models.

Written by and for almost exclusively women, and perhaps some gay men. Still doesn’t stop them blaming (heterosexual) men.

Weirdly enough women love to attack the magazine the men read that contain female models even though the women contained in those pages are far more healthy looking than the ones in the fashion mages. Yes they may be beautiful and generally slim but they never look unhealthily skinny.

 Monster Rain wrote:
The difference, Mannahnin, is when you take your foolishness to the point of annoying other people.

Just try talking about 40k around people who have no idea what it is and/or are not gamers. It would take all of 10 seconds before you are annoying them. It is like when someone goes on about their fantasy football team for hours, but then when I try to talk about my characters in SW:TOR suddenly I'm the donkey-cave. I get to have hobbies to Phil!

But I digress. I am shocked to see people on a gaming website that is probably 95%+ male use 'feminism' as a pejorative, and in such broad strokes.

 LuciusAR wrote:
Angry feminists protest about something. In other news today a bear took a gak in the woods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Women's image issues don't come from barbie. Thats a feminist bs. They come from all the magazines/pics/advertising that show concentration camp victims as models.

Written by and for almost exclusively women, and perhaps some gay men. Still doesn’t stop them blaming (heterosexual) men.

Weirdly enough women love to attack the magazine the men read that contain female models even though the women contained in those pages are far more healthy looking than the ones in the fashion mages. Yes they may be beautiful and generally slim but they never look unhealthily skinny.

The magazines are written by women, but the models are chosen mostly by gay men. There I said it. Let the slamming begin, but if you google you'll see some flareups about it.
I think its because the designers don't want to show off the women, but want to show off the fashion. The women are just the hangers for the clothing. Its fed into a bad culture at this point. On the positive, you see a lot of the wimminz are in the post magazine era. Much like they don't listen to the radio much any more due to the Intranetz and their IPODPADGOOGLEGLASSESEARPHONEBRAIN implant devises, they don't read the magazines either.

I am unsure how a GI Joe house (bunker?) would play out in Germany. Perform military drills, make field rations, try out the "safe bullets!"tm gunnery range...

As long as we agree he is an "action figure" we can all play nice.

They are both products of a company trying to make money so I am not as hurt about the protesting: it is more their problem on how to deal with their marketing.

Agreed that something obviously for children it is unfortunate kids may see protesting but it would make a GREAT discussion for the parents to explain.

I do not like to think that a company making children's toys would preclude them from protest.

I will now go to play with my "table dolls"...

 Talizvar wrote:
I am unsure how a GI Joe house (bunker?) would play out in Germany. Perform military drills, make field rations, try out the "safe bullets!"tm gunnery range...

As long as we agree he is an "action figure" we can all play nice.

They are both products of a company trying to make money so I am not as hurt about the protesting: it is more their problem on how to deal with their marketing.

Agreed that something obviously for children it is unfortunate kids may see protesting but it would make a GREAT discussion for the parents to explain.

I do not like to think that a company making children's toys would preclude them from protest.

I will now go to play with my "table dolls"...

I don't think we want a GI Joe in Germany. Once those guys start marching, its hard to get them to stop....

 Mannahnin wrote:
I suspect the ladies who bother protesting Barbie might find my toy soldier hobby foolish.

They do, but they overlook that for my good looks!

 kronk wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I suspect the ladies who bother protesting Barbie might find my toy soldier hobby foolish.

They do, but they overlook that for my good looks!

You sure they aren't just hiding from the cowbell

And your cowbell. Because we all know the wimminz demand MORE COWBELL!

 easysauce wrote:
the whole body image thing is silly,

if you can't look at a toy/comic/tvshow/movie actor/actress without thinking you have to look like that, then that is your own doing, not the object or fantasy.


all the ken dolls, warhammer dolls, gi joes, actors have ripped abs and steroid esque muscles, and while there is a problem with men trying to look that way through steroid abuse, that is not the fault of the inanimate objects or the fantasies on tv.

so while people abusing steroids, or being bulimic or anorexic to attain a body type is obviously harmful to them, they are the one making the choice.

it is antithetical to a free society to blame these things for individual's actions as it denies the individual's agency in decisions.

That's true (in theory) for adults but children haven't developed the skills for critical thinking that would enable them discriminate between fantasy and reality.

Otherwise we would let them smoke, vote, and drive cars, etc.

One of the differences between the common forms of male and female objectification (yes, there is a lot of both) is that generally, the buffness of male heroes is there to telegraph to us how strong and capable they are. But male heroes are almost always more than just some muscles. The muscles are like a badge that the actual person wears to show their resolve etc etc. Male heroes are people first and muscle second.

With female characters, it is often the opposite. The looks are a tool they use to GET the life that doesn't suck. They have to get the looks SO THAT they can get the guy. They have to get the looks FIRST so that they can be a full person.

This is definitely not the case in ALL media by any means. There are some really fantastic works that break out of this and I'm sure everyone here has some they can point out. This is just the prevailing status quo for good looking role model character types.

 LuciusAR wrote:

Weirdly enough women love to attack the magazine the men read that contain female models even though the women contained in those pages are far more healthy looking than the ones in the fashion mages. Yes they may be beautiful and generally slim but they never look unhealthily skinny.

Ye, I don't realy get this.

Complaint "oh, men expect women to live up to an unhealthy stereotype. Look at fashion magazines"

Most men "WTF? Give me some T&A any time".

IMO womens magazines have far more unhealth images of both men and women than mens mags, but nither are healthy.

The women in men's magazines are STILL pretty skinny all things considered, but yes, they tend to be larger than the ones in fashion mags.

That said, skinny is a natural body type that is just as valid as any other.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The women in men's magazines are STILL pretty skinny all things considered, but yes, they tend to be larger than the ones in fashion mags.

That said, skinny is a natural body type that is just as valid as any other.

I think it depends on just how skinny you mean, and whether or not it is healthy

Thats just wrong.

Rusty the tank dog is like twice their weight.

Yup. Not a single one of those three ladies looks remotely healthy

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
The difference, Mannahnin, is when you take your foolishness to the point of annoying other people.

Just try talking about 40k around people who have no idea what it is and/or are not gamers. It would take all of 10 seconds before you are annoying them. It is like when someone goes on about their fantasy football team for hours, but then when I try to talk about my characters in SW:TOR suddenly I'm the donkey-cave. I get to have hobbies to Phil! .

Well, yeah. I think being uninterested in what other people are passionate about is pretty common.

 Ahtman wrote:
But I digress. I am shocked to see people on a gaming website that is probably 95%+ male use 'feminism' as a pejorative, and in such broad strokes.

I'm not doing that.

There is a growing "plus size models" movement to counteract the death camp victim look, of which TBH is a rather extreme example seen above.

I don't think most major models like Naomi Cambell or Kate Moss look anything like that skinny.

http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/galleries/TMG9333597/Top-10-highest-paid-models-of-2012.html

That said, most top models are skinnier than most normal women.

The basic test for health is whether a woman is maintaining the weight necessary to support normal menorrhea.

 Ahtman wrote:
But I digress. I am shocked to see people on a gaming website that is probably 95%+ male use 'feminism' as a pejorative, and in such broad strokes.

I see very little evidence that it is being used as a pejorative by most posters in this thread. Maybe you should take that up with the individual posters instead of inferring that its because this site is overwhelmingly male.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
the whole body image thing is silly,

if you can't look at a toy/comic/tvshow/movie actor/actress without thinking you have to look like that, then that is your own doing, not the object or fantasy.


all the ken dolls, warhammer dolls, gi joes, actors have ripped abs and steroid esque muscles, and while there is a problem with men trying to look that way through steroid abuse, that is not the fault of the inanimate objects or the fantasies on tv.

so while people abusing steroids, or being bulimic or anorexic to attain a body type is obviously harmful to them, they are the one making the choice.

it is antithetical to a free society to blame these things for individual's actions as it denies the individual's agency in decisions.

That's true (in theory) for adults but children haven't developed the skills for critical thinking that would enable them discriminate between fantasy and reality.

Otherwise we would let them smoke, vote, and drive cars, etc.

it is true for kids as well, they have not developed all the emotional baggage that makes adults see an issue where there is none.

they have not develop the severe jadedness and do not connect the fact that they are "supposed" to look a certain way until we adults start making a big deal about it.

They play with the toys because they are fun, and if anyone thinks that playing with a skinny doll is going to over power their little snowflakes individuality and coerce them into looking a certain way, then they still have options outside of changing how everyone else has to play with barbies.

Children have plenty of agency, they can figure stuff out, a doll is just a doll to them, not a role model, my he mans didnt make me want to do steroids any more then my sisters barbies made her want to be skinny.

Besides, they are going to have to get used to not looking like the <1% of super hot people who make up >99% of people in the media. They are still going to have to get used to dealing with peer pressure, which is by far the more powerful source of the impetus to be skinny.

heck if a plastic doll can convince a girl to be dangerously underweight, imagine what her peer group will get her to do?




even if there is a cause/effect between skinny dolls and kids with body image issues, then its as simple as not exposing your child to those particular dolls.

You can buy them a normal looking doll, even a chubby one like raggity anne or a cabbage patch doll. A normal doll will likely be obese/overweight since most people (in n america of course) are, is that a positive body image for children?

however getting shows closed down, or protesting them (which even peacefully really breaks through the 4th wall for kids)

*edit, and your examples, we let "kids" drive at 16, vote/smoke at 18, and drink at 21

which one of those ages is good for letting them play with barbies? would you say a 18 year old has no agency simply because we dont let them drink (in states)

it is a completely different thing to be trusted with your own imagination then to be trusted with a vehicle that can kill people, or to be tusted to moderate your intake of a deadly drug (smokes/booze)

 easysauce wrote:

it is antithetical to a free society to blame these things for individual's actions as it denies the individual's agency in decisions.

Individuals decided to create those things, and many other individuals have decided that they're appealing. Those are both choices grounded in agency. Well, maybe not the second one.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I think it depends on just how skinny you mean, and whether or not it is healthy

It also depends on what healthy means.

Because, lets be honest, when heterosexual men are commenting on the physical appearance of women it generally means "Yeah, I would tap that." not "She appears to be the sort that is not engaging in activities which risk her premature death."

 dogma wrote:
It also depends on what healthy means.

Because, lets be honest, when heterosexual men are commenting on the physical appearance of women it generally means "Yeah, I would tap that." not "She appears to be the sort that is not engaging in activities which risk her premature death."

Feel free to speak for yourself.
When I say "Not a single one of those three ladies looks remotely healthy" I actually mean that from their appearance alone it looks like they may be putting their health at risk.

From my totally amateur, not-a-doctor perspective, only the leftmost one scares me health-wise. The middle and right ones might just be skinny people. I have known girls that looked like the one on the right naturally.

I agree that the left most one looks the most unhealthy (as in "they do not look healthy", not "I wouldn't tap that" ), but the other two give me cause for concern also.

Is there a "Sandwich Maker Barbie"?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Feel free to speak for yourself.

I'm speaking from my experience as a heterosexual male who has dealt with numerous heterosexual males over the course of my 27 years being a heterosexual male.

Also, I wasn't countermanding anything you said, so I'm not sure why you decided to get defensive below.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

When I say "Not a single one of those three ladies looks remotely healthy" I actually mean that from their appearance alone it looks like they may be putting their health at risk.

So what would you argue that "health" is?

 Rented Tritium wrote:
From my totally amateur, not-a-doctor perspective, only the leftmost one scares me health-wise. The middle and right ones might just be skinny people. I have known girls that looked like the one on the right naturally.

It depends on height, weight, and circumstance.

The term "healthy" is a really vague one.

"Not Dead Looking" would be my definition.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
It also depends on what healthy means.

Because, lets be honest, when heterosexual men are commenting on the physical appearance of women it generally means "Yeah, I would tap that." not "She appears to be the sort that is not engaging in activities which risk her premature death."

Feel free to speak for yourself.
When I say "Not a single one of those three ladies looks remotely healthy" I actually mean that from their appearance alone it looks like they may be putting their health at risk.

Agreed. Having a daughter might put a different spin on this as well.

 dogma wrote:
I'm speaking from my experience as a heterosexual male who has dealt with numerous heterosexual males over the course of my 27 years being a heterosexual male.

Also, I wasn't countermanding anything you said, so I'm not sure why you decided to get defensive below.

When you make sweeping statements like that when quoting someone else, and not making it clear that you are basing your opinion of heterosexual males on anecdotal evidence please do not be surprised if people react contrary to your opinion

 dogma wrote:
So what would you argue that "health" is?

What health is, or what the appearance of health is?
For me health is generally being free from injury and disease (physical and/or mental) and not engaging in practices that are detrimental to your body.

Having a body more commonly seen in famine ravaged areas generally does not give the appearance of being in good health

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Is there a "Sandwich Maker Barbie"?

No but there is a set with a sink, a chain and no slippers.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

When you make sweeping statements like that when quoting someone else, and not making it clear that you are basing your opinion of heterosexual males on anecdotal evidence please do not be surprised if people react contrary to your opinion

I used the word "generally", and didn't make any comment to the effect that I was attempting to speak objectively regarding what heterosexual males tend to mean.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Having a body more commonly seen in famine ravaged areas generally does not give the appearance of being in good health

I see women that look like the last two in the picture you posted all the time, and Chicago is hardly a famine ravaged area.

 dogma wrote:

I used the word "generally", and didn't make any comment to the effect that I was attempting to speak objectively regarding what heterosexual males tend to mean.

If you're speaking in general terms there shouldn't be any reason to quote someone then Especially not when passing on your wealth of personal experinece

 dogma wrote:
I see women that look like the last two in the picture you posted all the time, and Chicago is hardly a famine ravaged area.

Really? I've seen if, if any like that in Chicago. We must not be visiting the same areas
Doesn't take away from the lady on the left of the picture though, which is the one that I believed the discussion had centered around, maybe next time I'll be clearer for you

Do men really care that much? I certainly don't have a defined "type". I think the extremes of weight are usually what repels people. There's a lot of wiggle room between anorexic and obese.

Personality and presentation count for more imho.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Do men really care that much? I certainly don't have a defined "type". I think the extremes of weight are usually what repels people. There's a lot of wiggle room between anorexic and obese.

Personality and presentation count for more imho.

This judgement shouldn't be determined by what men want anway.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

If you're speaking in general terms there shouldn't be any reason to quote someone then Especially not when passing on your wealth of personal experinece

Well, aside from creating discussion.

My initial statement was an addendum to the point you made, and an attempt to begin a civil discussion regarding the nature of health and the standards heterosexual males apply to women. I spoke generally regarding my experience with heterosexual men and how they use the word "healthy" regarding women.

I'm not sure why you seem to find it offensive that I quoted your post.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Do men really care that much? I certainly don't have a defined "type". I think the extremes of weight are usually what repels people. There's a lot of wiggle room between anorexic and obese.

Personality and presentation count for more imho.

This judgement shouldn't be determined by what men want anway.

I guess what I was trying to say, albeit in a pigheaded man way, was that I don't get why the ladies are so fussed about body image. Men are quite laid back beasts, to an extent.

 dogma wrote:
Well, aside from creating discussion.

My initial statement was an addendum to the point you made, and an attempt to begin a civil discussion regarding the nature of health and the standards heterosexual males apply to women. I spoke generally regarding my experience with heterosexual men and how they use the word "healthy" regarding women.

I'm not sure why you seem to find it offensive that I quoted your post.

My words did not need an addendum, nor did they need you to attempt to contradict my actual point concerning the health of the ladies by saying "lets be honest, when heterosexual men are commenting on the physical appearance of women it generally means "Yeah, I would tap that." not "She appears to be the sort that is not engaging in activities which risk her premature death."". Using my words as a peg to hang your own opinion on, especially when they seem to imply an improper motive for my concern about the health of the ladies (especially the one on the left) is what I object to. If you were solely interested in creating discussion there was no need to quote what I had said, thus giving the appearance of directing your sentiments towards me and appearing to cast aspersions on what I had plainly said.

Its not always what you say, but how you choose to say it. And in this instance you gave the very firm impression that I was saying would not bang, instead of she does not look healthy

You can take from that what you will and move on, or we can continue this distracting aside.

Actually you'll drop that now -- it's your bugbear here -- or not post here at all.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I guess what I was trying to say, albeit in a pigheaded man way, was that I don't get why the ladies are so fussed about body image. Men are quite laid back beasts, to an extent.

Only in your heads. Men judge women harshly on appearance all the time. People on this very forum judge women off of our appearances all the time. People in this very thread, including yourself, judge women off of our appearances. Yes, including the men. Or even especially the men...

And when a woman doesn't stand up to that judgement, they are treated harshly and cruelly for it, viciously mocked by men. Men seem to love mocking the physical appearance of women whose personalities or political beliefs that they don't agree with-- and it's almost inevitably the first way that they think of to attack a woman. Even when a woman is running/nominated for a position as high as a governor, presidential candidate, or supreme court justice, she is inevitably judged by her appearance where a man would not be-- and usually, this judging is done by men.

I'm sure this idea will piss some people off, but it's a phenomenon I've seen all too often, both online and off.

As for Barbie, I don't like it. Never did. I liked building things as a girl, from k'nex (working and powered) carousels to lego skyscraper cities-- even to this day that's reflected by my enjoyment in various games like Minecraft, Reus, or the RTS genre (such games as Supreme Commander where you build massive, interconnected bases, for example). Furthermore, there is no official feminist position on Barbies-- some see Barbie as being a vast improvement (she's often depicted as a highly trained professional, as people have mentioned several times in this thread) over most other lines, while others still believe that Barbie has a negative effect on little girls.

People who think that every feminist is exactly the same and all have the same concerns or ideas are the second most ignorant sort (the first most ignorant sort being the kind of... person... who calls people "Feminazi"). My own opinions on the topic are mixed. Barbie, as a product line, has its problems. But it also has good sides, as well. The situation is more complex than a single sentence can really do justice to, and it's not an issue that I feel comfortable going too deeply on, aside from what explanation I've offered in this post.



Edit: Furthermore, I'd like to note that feminism in Germany is a very, very different movement than feminism elsewhere, dealing with differing cultures and all that. I couldn't begin to explain their opinions when I don't entirely understand them myself, but from what I gather, they focus on different aspects of womens' rights than is usual in the USA. Someone more familiar with the movement would be better here...

Forget Barbie. Littleist Pet Shop is still da Bomb.

Technic was the best.

There's a problem in our culture(s) with women being treated as if nothing else we achieve counts unless we're sexually attractive to men. Does Barbie feed into that? Maybe. It doesn't seem like the main objection of the people in the OP - that seems to be that Barbie is just... vapid, in a word.

Whether that's true or not probably depends on which iteration of Barbie it is!

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Technic was the best.

There's a problem in our culture(s) with women being treated as if nothing else we achieve counts unless we're sexually attractive to men. Does Barbie feed into that? Maybe. It doesn't seem like the main objection of the people in the OP - that seems to be that Barbie is just... vapid, in a word.

Whether that's true or not probably depends on which iteration of Barbie it is!

I agree. Their thesis is... unclear.

Melessia, People judge everyone on appearence, including men and other men. No man is going to get elected if he has a neck beard and is 350 pounds.
PEople judge people with a glance.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Melessia, People judge everyone on appearence, including men and other men. No man is going to get elected if he has a neck beard and is 350 pounds.
PEople judge people with a glance.

Chris Christie got elected as governor of New Jersey and he's pretty fat (yes i know he doesn't have neck beard) that being said a lot of people have made fun of his weight which isn't very nice, that being said I think there is a higher expectation for women to be good looking than men.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Melessia, People judge everyone on appearence, including men and other men.

From the casual to the professional to even scientific fields, men are not judged as harshly on appearance as women.

A man is expected to look clean and professional. A woman is expected to look clean, professional, and attractive-- but not too attractive, because then she'll get fired for that, too, no matter how professionally she dresses and how clean she keeps herself. I wish I was joking. Women have been held back from promotions or even fired for being too attractive to their bosses, a problem that I have not seen men face. It's sad in more ways than one.

 Melissia wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Melessia, People judge everyone on appearence, including men and other men.

From the casual to the professional to even scientific fields, men are not judged as harshly on appearance as women.

A man is expected to look clean and professional. A woman is expected to look clean, professional, and attractive-- but not too attractive, because then she'll get fired for that, too, no matter how professionally she dresses and how clean she keeps herself. I wish I was joking. Women have been held back from promotions or even fired for being too attractive to their bosses, a problem that I have not seen men face. It's sad in more ways than one.

While all of this is true... I've seen it.

Why is it that the harshest critics of women's beauty is from other women?

At least that supports my anecdotal experience...

 whembly wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Melessia, People judge everyone on appearence, including men and other men.

From the casual to the professional to even scientific fields, men are not judged as harshly on appearance as women.

A man is expected to look clean and professional. A woman is expected to look clean, professional, and attractive-- but not too attractive, because then she'll get fired for that, too, no matter how professionally she dresses and how clean she keeps herself. I wish I was joking. Women have been held back from promotions or even fired for being too attractive to their bosses, a problem that I have not seen men face. It's sad in more ways than one.

While all of this is true... I've seen it.

Why is it that the harshest critics of women's beauty is from other women?

At least that supports my anecdotal experience...

Yeah, aren't the majority of human resources people women? Like I seem to remember reading a cracked article (can't find it though) on arbitrary things that decrease your odds of getting hired (like being too short, attractive, etc) and I seem to remember there being some source on female

human resources are less likely to hire attractive women (I think the reason is they viewed that having a physically attractive women would increase competition with the other women or something) although this could be pure bs.

 whembly wrote:
Why is it that the harshest critics of women's beauty is from other women?

That doesn't support my anecdotal experience...

Men are fething vicious about the appearance of a woman they don't like.

Although I should note, the HR department IS one of the top ten paying jobs for women, at least according to Forbes (for what little that rag's word is worth), so that may very well explain it.

It's not just men who get the indoctrination. That's the point - we get it too, and we damage each other and ourselves with it.

I'm not sure I'd ever say "harshest", though. On the Internet in particular, I love men doing the whole "oh, a woman was mentioned somehow? I'm going to mention whether I want to have sex with her, because that's surely important, appropriate and relevant, wherever this conversation is taking place!"

 whembly wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Melessia, People judge everyone on appearence, including men and other men.

From the casual to the professional to even scientific fields, men are not judged as harshly on appearance as women.

A man is expected to look clean and professional. A woman is expected to look clean, professional, and attractive-- but not too attractive, because then she'll get fired for that, too, no matter how professionally she dresses and how clean she keeps herself. I wish I was joking. Women have been held back from promotions or even fired for being too attractive to their bosses, a problem that I have not seen men face. It's sad in more ways than one.

While all of this is true... I've seen it.

Why is it that the harshest critics of women's beauty is from other women?

At least that supports my anecdotal experience...

Women being harsh on other women is still something brought on by the patriarchy. We pit women against each other subtlely and these behaviors and reinforcements naturally arise.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Women being harsh on other women is still something brought on by the patriarchy. We pit women against each other subtlely and these behaviors and reinforcements naturally arise.

Interesting. Show your math.

Anyone who has worked in a big company knows that Human Resources are there to cover the bosses' arses, not to make decisions about hiring and firing.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Women being harsh on other women is still something brought on by the patriarchy. We pit women against each other subtlely and these behaviors and reinforcements naturally arise.

Interesting. Show your math.

I'm aware that terms like patriarchy trigger negative reactions in certain people, so I personally try to avoid it. But since you asked:

Here's an article explaining the concept. Maybe you'll actually be honestly interested in the idea, but given this forum's record, I doubt it.

I don't like Barbie, the articulation was always crap, the proportions are freaky (although not quite as creepy as The RAH Black Rock Shooter with its terrifyingly skinny limbs and generally Slenderman-esque body shape), they can never stand up, don't come with stands, and they have freaky faces. Ugh.

Always been a Transformers kid myself.

 Melissia wrote:

I'm aware that terms like patriarchy trigger negative reactions in certain people,

Ok, so this is kind of terrible, but I use the fact that I'm a man to push the term with people who won't dismiss me because I'm a man. It's great/sad how well it works.

I'm aware that terms like patriarchy trigger negative reactions in certain people

Probably because its a loaded term, gender-discriminative and against the true meaning of feminism.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

I'm aware that terms like patriarchy trigger negative reactions in certain people

Probably because its a loaded term, gender-discriminative and against the true meaning of feminism.

Only if you don't know what it means.

We're all hurt by it. If you've ever been called "whipped" or given crap for dating a girl who had had many partners before, you have been impacted by the patriarchy. It hurts everyone.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

I'm aware that terms like patriarchy trigger negative reactions in certain people

Probably because its a loaded term, gender-discriminative and against the true meaning of feminism.

Only if you don't know what it means.

Yes, an excuse to bring in positive discrimination instead of rebalancing.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

I'm aware that terms like patriarchy trigger negative reactions in certain people

Probably because its a loaded term, gender-discriminative and against the true meaning of feminism.

Only if you don't know what it means.

Yes, an excuse to bring in positive discrimination instead of rebalancing.

Like I said, only if you have no idea what it means.

So what does it mean.

The patriarchy is a system that says "males do this" and "females do that".

This system is abusive and agency-removing of both men and women.

Have you been called "whipped" before?

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The patriarchy is a system that says "males do this" and "females do that".

This system is abusive and agency-removing of both men and women.

Have you been called "whipped" before?

So why invoke a term that seeks to fix only one side of the equation?

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The patriarchy is a system that says "males do this" and "females do that".

This system is abusive and agency-removing of both men and women.

Have you been called "whipped" before?

So why invoke a term that seeks to fix only one side of the equation?

Nobody is doing that. Please explain how you arrived at this question.

Patriarchy implies what you said it does and seeks to rebalance things for the female-gender while neglecting imbalances which affect the male gender.

Ideally, should take a gender-neutral focus on fixing these imbalances.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Patriarchy implies what you said it does and seeks to rebalance things for the female-gender while neglecting imbalances which affect the male gender.

Ideally, should take a gender-neutral focus on fixing these imbalances.

Patriarchy is a term to describe the current system of gender roles. It doesn't "seek" anything. It is simply the way things are. It's like saying "the current metagame" when talking about 40k. The metagame doesn't "seek" anything. It simply is.

Patriarchy is negative for all of us because it locks us into roles we may not necessarily want. You use that word "rebalance" which is not relevant at all. If I want to keep doing things that are traditionally masculine, that is fine. If a woman wants to do things that are traditionally considered feminine, that is fine too. Otherwise it would just be another system imposed on people.

To seek to end patriarchy is to free people to be whatever they want in their households, their jobs, their lives. For instance, I am still very much the head of my household and my girlfriend actually prefers it this way. I have a dominant personality and she's fine with that. We've discussed it and we've decided that this structure works for us, but it was not imposed on us from the outside. That's what's important. We chose it.

I suspect, given your posts, that you are actually perfectly in line with modern feminist thinking, but you have had negative baggage attached to "feminism" and "patriarchy" as words. Do you know why? Because our social system has attached that baggage and you have seen people who use those terms attacked for it, despite your unknowing agreement. It's insidious that way.

I suspect, given your posts, that you are actually perfectly in line with modern feminist thinking, but you have had negative baggage attached to "feminism" and "patriarchy" as words. Do you know why? Because our social system has attached that baggage and you have seen people who use those terms attacked for it, despite your unknowing agreement. It's insidious that way.

I'm a firm believer in the removal of gender and sex as a whole both socially and biologically. It'll have to be philosophical for the moment, as the technology isn't quite there.

In the meantime, I'm an absolute equalist. I'd only support change, if equal change is done to improve discrimination against others.

Similar views sort of, to feminist movement in general. Different in the execution though.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

I suspect, given your posts, that you are actually perfectly in line with modern feminist thinking, but you have had negative baggage attached to "feminism" and "patriarchy" as words. Do you know why? Because our social system has attached that baggage and you have seen people who use those terms attacked for it, despite your unknowing agreement. It's insidious that way.

I'm a firm believer in the removal of gender and sex as a whole both socially and biologically. It'll have to be philosophical for the moment, as the technology isn't quite there.

In the meantime, I'm an absolute equalist. I'd only support change, if equal change is done to improve discrimination against others.

Right on. So you'd agree that people should be able to make their own place in the world and be however they want to be. In charge, submissive, sexy for other people, sexy for themselves, etc etc.

So long as anything is not forced for anyone.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
So long as anything is not forced for anyone.

Exactly.

That's what patriarchy is, the way it's forced on people. Not just women either. Every time you get some social pressure for not acting "manly" enough or whatever. That's all part of the patriarchy and it's all awful and coercive.

This more simplistic than I'd like, but here's a very brief explanation of patriarchy:

(based on Allan G. Johnson's The Gender Knot):

Patriarchal social structures are:

1. Male dominated--which doesn't mean that all men are powerful or all women are powerless--only that the most powerful roles in most sectors of society are held predominantly by men, and the least powerful roles are held predominantly by women

2. Organized around an obsession with control, with men elevated in the social structure because of their presumed ability to exert control (whether rationally or through violence or the threat of violence) and women devalued for their supposed lack of control--women are assumed to need men's supervision, protection, or control

3. Male identified: aspects of society and personal attributes that are highly valued are associated with men, while devalued attributes and social activities are associated with women. There is a sense of threat to the social structure of patriarchies when these gendered associations are destabilized--and the response in patriarchy is to increase the level of control, often by exerting control over women (as well as groups who are devalued by virtue of race, ethnicity, sexuality, or class).

4. Male centered: It is taken for granted that the center of attention is the natural place for men and boys, and that women should occupy the margins. Public attention is focused on men. (To test this, take a look at any daily newspaper; what do you find on the front page about men? about women?)

Although, for what it's worth, Tritium's got the right of it.

How does this take into consideration, the power structures in which females are favoured? Such as nursery teaching.

The male centered part is the hardest part to explain to people because it's subtle when you're not aware of it. It manifests in obvious ways like how we by default refer to a couple as Mr. and Mrs. hisname, even if they might not prefer that. But also in more subtle ways, like over in the topless new york thread where people automatically started talking about how unattractive women will be going topless, oh no, assuming that they're doing it for us and not just because they feel like it or because it's hot outside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
How does this take into consideration, the power structures in which females are favoured? Such as nursery teaching.

It's still a type of shoehorning. Anyone who wants to do that and is good at it should be able to do it, just like any other job.

More of that arrogant "equalist" bullgak I see.

Attempting to look down on the feminist movement by calling yourself an "equalist" or "humanist" is pathetic and completely misses the point of both the humanist/equalist and feminist movements.

As noted in the FAQ link above, there is nothing stopping someone from believing in both feminism and equalism. But we all have limited resources-- fiscal, temporal, physical, mental, emotional, etc, all are limited. It's up to each individual activist to choose who they wish to focus their resources.

Mr Hyena wrote:How does this take into consideration, the power structures in which females are favoured? Such as nursery teaching.

So you really don't see that women are favoured in a traditionally female-centered role as a result of the social construct of female domesticity, which in itself is a by-product of a patriarchal society?

Also, traditionally female-centric roles are underpaid and under-appreciated in society. Indeed, in roles where women are becoming more prevalent, the average pay for both men AND women becomes lower than before when it was male-dominated.

 Melissia wrote:
More of that arrogant "equalist" bullgak I see.

Attempting to look down on the feminist movement by calling yourself an "equalist" or "humanist" is pathetic and completely misses the point of both the humanist/equalist and feminist movements.

"Equalism" is an extremely marketable middle ground that still represents progress.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
More of that arrogant "equalist" bullgak I see.

Attempting to look down on the feminist movement by calling yourself an "equalist" or "humanist" is pathetic and completely misses the point of both the humanist/equalist and feminist movements.

"Equalism" is an extremely marketable middle ground that still represents progress.

In my experience on this forum, terms like "Equalism" or "Humanism" are rarely used except in context of insulting feminism and calling feminists sexist against men (another thing the FAQ I linked to has a discussion on ).

In no other context are they ever used. In no other discussions do the terms EVER come up. Thus, that's all the terms are to me-- either troll terms or terms which are basically an attempt to hide the user's misogyny. They are not serious terms and and I am not yet convinced taht any one who advocates them on this forum honestly believes them.

Funny how men in traditionally female fields like primary school teaching or nursing get paid more than the women in the same field.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The patriarchy is a system that says "males do this" and "females do that".

This system is abusive and agency-removing of both men and women.

Have you been called "whipped" before?

So why invoke a term that seeks to fix only one side of the equation?

The point of an equation is that one side equals the other. If you fix one side, you fix the other too.

Melissia wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
More of that arrogant "equalist" bullgak I see.

Attempting to look down on the feminist movement by calling yourself an "equalist" or "humanist" is pathetic and completely misses the point of both the humanist/equalist and feminist movements.

"Equalism" is an extremely marketable middle ground that still represents progress.

In my experience on this forum, terms like "Equalism" or "Humanism" are rarely used except in context of insulting feminism and calling feminists sexist against men (another thing the FAQ I linked to has a discussion on ).

In no other context are they ever used. In no other discussions do the terms EVER come up. Thus, that's all the terms are to me-- either troll terms or terms which are basically an attempt to hide the user's misogyny. They are not serious terms and and I am not yet convinced taht any one who advocates them on this forum honestly believes them.

1. Some so-called feminists are sexist against men. It is a not-uncommon belief for some, that the pendulum should swing the other way, rather than righting itself at center.
2. See underlined. By your own admission, then, the problem is partly you and your perceptions. I have no doubt you've experienced what you claim, however that is unfortunately not an excuse to dump your own baggage on everyone around you.
3. I honestly believe in equality (though I use the far-more-recognizable term of feminism -third wave specifically- because I am lazy and do not like having to explain the more uncommon term of equalism, which is ironicaly more aptly named yet less understood. And I challenge you to find an instance wherein I have demonstrated otherwise.

I think that sometimes you are not even aware of how your sweeping generalizations on this forum are detrimental to your case.

Kilkrazy wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The patriarchy is a system that says "males do this" and "females do that".

This system is abusive and agency-removing of both men and women.

Have you been called "whipped" before?

So why invoke a term that seeks to fix only one side of the equation?

The point of an equation is that one side equals the other. If you fix one side, you fix the other too.

That assumes the equation is already balanced.

Isn't humanism usually associated with atheism? Isn't about emphasizing the importance of humans over the divine and/or supernatural I don't see how that philosophy is at odds with feminism in fact I imagine they're often co-related as they are both concerned about human matters.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Funny how men in traditionally female fields like primary school teaching or nursing get paid more than the women in the same field.

And what about the bullying they face from their female colleagues and the stereotype of men working with young children?

More of that arrogant "equalist" bullgak I see.

Attempting to look down on the feminist movement by calling yourself an "equalist" or "humanist" is pathetic and completely misses the point of both the humanist/equalist and feminist movements.

As noted in the FAQ link above, there is nothing stopping someone from believing in both feminism and equalism. But we all have limited resources-- fiscal, temporal, physical, mental, emotional, etc, all are limited. It's up to each individual activist to choose who they wish to focus their resources.

So you admit, that be it of your own will or 'resources', that you choose to discriminate for and against certain groups?

bs. I don't look down on the feminist movement. The feminists I don't look down on take a progressive stance of "Look, we're not getting enough representation of women in politics. Lets put forth measures to try and improve that. While doing that, lets try and fix the stigma of male teachers in primary school/nursery teaching".

The feminists I DO look down on, are the ones who go with a "Lets do X, Y and Z" approach to fix womens issues, which will bring equality....until they realise men will then end up as the underprivileged gender due to issues not getting any focus.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Funny how men in traditionally female fields like primary school teaching or nursing get paid more than the women in the same field.

And what about the bullying they face from their female colleagues and the stereotype of men working with young children?

It doesn't seem to stop them from earning more than those female colleagues. Usually when you're discriminated against in a field I'd expect you to earn less, as your promotion opportunities would be limited, not earn more.

It could be that they are not bullied at all, but are actually privileged above the women.

Discrimination is more than just a matter of money. Its also psychological.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/glasgowandwestscotland/hi/people_and_places/arts_and_culture/newsid_8353000/8353589.stm

Its not great for men in childcare.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Discrimination is more than just a matter of money. Its also psychological.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/glasgowandwestscotland/hi/people_and_places/arts_and_culture/newsid_8353000/8353589.stm

Its not great for men in childcare at the moment.

Okay. So let's quote a few things from the article.

Most West of Scotland men still find the idea of working with children in nurseries beneath them.

Another factor preventing more men entering childcare is the low level of pay offered to staff which can be as little as just above the national minimum wage.

...findings from The Daycare Trust [say] that 84% of parents would be happy to leave their children with male carers.

Ross Adams, who has been a childcare worker for eight years and is now deputy manager of a Cheshire nursery, said he found the job challenging and enjoyable...

"I think the reason why more men aren't doing this kind of work is to do with social attitude and prejudice towards it...it's viewed as a female environment."

Oh hey, prejudice against a predominantly female job.

The only line in the article that suggests there's a problem with hostility against men in the field is an unsupported one from a politician, which goes against the entire rest of it.

And this:

A lack of information and advertising towards men has also kept nurseries a female dominated workplace despite the huge emotional rewards to be gained by helping children develop in their infant years.

Okay. So men almost universally don't want to do a job that's underpaid and underappreciated, and they aren't advertising towards them as a result. You know that's a feminist issue, right? If it was a job that was appreciated properly and childcare workers were treated properly (like, actually paid money) then more men would do it.

Meanwhile, in every female-dominated job other than that one, we know men are paid more on average than the women.

You know that's a feminist issue, right?

For some feminists yeah. The ones with goals that seek to help everyone.

Not the vindictive "But we have it worse!!!!" ones.

Okay. The fact is, women do get it worse. That's why there was a women's rights movement in the first place. Women still get it worse. I mean, I've just shown you how your own article points to men not doing a "women's job" because they'd rather do better paying jobs with better conditions. What do you think that means about the women doing it?

That doesn't mean the Patriarchy, or Kyriarchy, or whatever you want to call it doesn't screw over men, though. It does, and feminists realise that. Feminism is belief that men and women should be equal, not that women should be superior.

Feminism is belief that men and women should be equal, not that women should be superior.

Then it would get more support if it could get out actual proof of this in action and not just pseudo-intellectual blog posts.

To grab another explanation of it:
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2007-02-22_527

Women get so few chances in which to share our stories with each other, to find out that we aren’t alone in our experiences, and to have venues in which to publicly tell our stories. The fact that women are beginning to organize and bring these things to their communities is nothing short of amazing.

If women can do this in the face of all the pressure from institutionalized sexism, then what’s stopping men from doing the same? Why is it women’s responsibility to make sure that men feel included by a presentation that, by its very name, is supposed to be about women reaching out to women?

And that’s the first expression of privilege: Privilege is feeling entitled to always be included, no matter what.

Or, to put it bluntly, men attempting to bring up men's issues in a feminism thread when they could instead talk about it in their own thread (and they never start new threads to talk about it) are effectively doing nothing more than egocentric behavior.

It's like if an Iraqi talked about how they had it rough and then an American decided that they should hijack the thread to talk about how rough it is not to be able to afford a third car and having to skimp on how many times they eat out a month-- then got mad every time the Iraqi pointed out how their life was objectively worse.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
So you admit, that be it of your own will or 'resources', that you choose to discriminate for and against certain groups?

No, I'm just not stupid enough to think that I can afford help everyone everywhere all the time.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
I don't look down on the feminist movement.

Don't be dishonest. You've insulted the feminist movement every chance you've had. You jumped in to this thread insulting the feminist movement. Every single other thread about feminism in the past, you've insulted feminism. Every single time. No exception.

This thread certainly isn't one.

No, I'm just not stupid enough to think that I can afford help everyone everywhere all the time.

A movement with no idealism is a movement with no soul.

Or, to put it bluntly, men attempting to bring up men's issues in a feminism thread when they could instead talk about it in their own thread (and they never start new threads to talk about it) are effectively doing nothing more than egocentric behavior.

Isn't that against what your links say? That feminism includes both genders. Men's issues would be relevant then.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
A movement with no idealism is a movement with no soul.

if you think feminism "has no soul" because it focuses on the plight of women, I'm going to put you back on my ignore list-- you obviously have nothing of value to add to any discussion on the topic.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Isn't that against what your links say? That feminism includes both genders. Men's issues would be relevant then.

No. this is a quote from one of the links I provided.

Not that I'm surprised to see that you didn't actually bother to read up on the movement you are trying so hard to put down even when someone was doing your goddamned research for you.

if you think feminism "has no soul" because it focuses on the plight of women, I'm going to put you back on my ignore list-- you obviously have nothing of value to add to any discussion on the topic.

No, I meant about how you had pessimistic views about the ability to help everyone.

A human being should want to help everyone.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
A human being should want to help everyone.

That comes with the implication that I don't want to help everyone, which is dishonest of you to suggest (but then again, diehonesty is about all you've ever shown).

I want to help everyone. That does NOT preclude me from wanting to talk about feminism during a feminist thread and you are, as usual, dishonest in suggesting otherwise.

I want to help everyone. I'm just not stupid enough to believe that I acn.

And thats my point entirely. It doesn't matter if its never achieved, but trying to do so rather than saying it is impossible, is a very good aspect of character.

You should not be trying to alienate people who would support you without the constant anti-male rhetoric your posting. It IS possible to achieve feminism ideals without it.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
And thats my point entirely.

No, it's not.

Attempting to claim that feminists are bad for focusing on womens' issues is little more than trolling.

Do you have philosophical disagreements with the concept of triage?

 Melissia wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
A human being should want to help everyone.

That comes with the implication that I don't want to help everyone, which is dishonest of you to suggest (but then again, diehonesty is about all you've ever shown).

I want to help everyone. That does NOT preclude me from wanting to talk about feminism during a feminist thread and you are, as usual, dishonest in suggesting otherwise.

I don't even know if wanting to help everyone is that admirable there are some groups that are too horrible for me to want to help (like Islamist extremists, racists, etc) unless by helping you mean introducing more liberal-minded ideas.

 Melissia wrote:
I'm aware that terms like patriarchy trigger negative reactions in certain people, so I personally try to avoid it. But since you asked:

Here's an article explaining the concept. Maybe you'll actually be honestly interested in the idea, but given this forum's record, I doubt it.

Thanks for the links Melissa. Just back from errands and a lot more yet to do, but I'll get a proper read at them later when there are fewer disturbances.

 Melissia wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
And thats my point entirely.

No, it's not.

Attempting to claim that feminists are bad for focusing on womens' issues is little more than trolling.

Feminism is a bit too complex to call it as a whole bad. Groups within it certainly could be called bad depending on their beliefs/philosophies. Its not trolling to disagree with a group.

Do you have philosophical disagreements with the concept of triage?

I have serious disagreements with any concept that inherently discriminates one individual over another. That is why I patiently await for the time of wide-scale applications of cybernetics, AI, trans-species/humanism and other technologies that will lead to a uniformity that lacks discrimination on any biological level.

I don't even know if wanting to help everyone is that admirable there are some groups that are too horrible for me to want to help (like Islamist extremists, racists, etc) unless by helping you mean introducing more liberal-minded ideas.

It would be difficult to be like that without being callous, no matter how evil the group.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
anti-male rhetoric

More dishonesty from Mr. Hyena.

Not that I'm surprised. You have long tried to claim that the feminist movement as a whole is sexist against men, because how DARE we have a discussion about problems that people other than men face.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
And thats my point entirely.

No, it's not.

Attempting to claim that feminists are bad for focusing on womens' issues is little more than trolling.

Feminism is a bit too complex to call it as a whole bad. Groups within it certainly could be called bad depending on their beliefs/philosophies. Its not trolling to disagree with a group.

Honestly if you break feminism to it's most basic form it's just wanting equal treatment among both genders/sexes, which is a fine goal imo. These stories about crazy feminists are just a small minority compared to the more moderate majority that makes up the movement just you don't

hear many stories about moderate feminists because they don't make for entertaining stories as the extremist minority. Just like there's stereotypes about liberals (pot smoking hippies) and conservatives (gun toting red-necks) but they only make a small fraction of their party's demographic

and won't be the main group influencing policy unlike the moderate majority.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
And thats my point entirely.

No, it's not.

Attempting to claim that feminists are bad for focusing on womens' issues is little more than trolling.

Feminism is a bit too complex to call it as a whole bad. Groups within it certainly could be called bad depending on their beliefs/philosophies. Its not trolling to disagree with a group.

Honestly if you break feminism to it's most basic form it's just wanting equal treatment among both genders/sexes, which is a fine goal imo. These stories about crazy feminists are just a small minority compared to the more moderate majority that makes up the movement just you don't

hear many stories about moderate feminists because they don't make for entertaining stories as the extremist minority. Just like there's stereotypes about liberals (pot smoking hippies) and conservatives (gun toting red-necks) but they only make a small fraction of their party's demographic

and won't be the main group influencing policy unlike the moderate majority.

This is how the movement should be advertised quite honestly. Compared to Melissia's explanations, this is much easier to get behind.

As noted in one of the articles I linked:

Simply put, the patriarchy is the system of power and privilege that puts rich, white, able-bodied, upper-class men at the top, and distributes crumbs of power, prestige, and privilege to other groups based on how well they uphold the goals and position of the dudes at the top.

That is what is being acted against-- there's no "anti-male rhetoric". Men are not being hated, rather, what's hated is the socio-economic power structure which puts limitations on political minorities.

The "anti-male rhetoric" is, to paraphrase an old saying, the hobgoblin of little minds.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
This is how the movement should be advertised quite honestly. Compared to Melissia's explanations, this is much easier to get behind.

You haven't read any of my explanations to begin with.

Men are not being hated, rather, what's hated is the socio-economic power structure which puts limitations on political minorities.

and thats honestly a worthy goal to move against, but it is the constant focus on the fact that they are male who are in charge, when noone of any gender, race, religion or sexuality; should have any control over anyone else.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
the constant focus on the fact that they are male who are in charge

Ahem:

 Melissia wrote:
The "anti-male rhetoric" is, to paraphrase an old saying, the hobgoblin of little minds.

That doesn't prove that its not anti-male rhetoric. It just makes a counter assertion, while also insulting anyone who holds the opposing viewpoint.

Well, what would demonstrate that it's not "anti-male rhetoric" is actually reading it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That doesn't prove that its not anti-male rhetoric. It just makes a counter assertion, while also insulting anyone who holds the opposing viewpoint.

I am not required to prove a negative. His assertions that there is some kind of anti-male rhetoric going on here is entirely baseless and without proof.

Indeed, and I got that from reading the article.

But it is true that there are sections, vocal sections, of the Feminist movement that are aggressively anti-male. Enough to where that is the general vibe I get when feminism comes around.

So if you are a feminist you would do well to always make clear you are not being anti-male if you desire to be taken seriously, while also making sure your rhetoric could not be taken as such.

 Melissia wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
the constant focus on the fact that they are male who are in charge

Ahem:

 Melissia wrote:
The "anti-male rhetoric" is, to paraphrase an old saying, the hobgoblin of little minds.

If you go by the feminist definition, sexism is predicated on having institutional power over a group, and since women do not have that power, they cannot be sexists, reverse or otherwise.

Claims like that, from one of your links, cannot be seriously be considered to be balanced. It claims one gender is entirely impossible to be sexist!.

So you're saying the feminist movement needs to take steps in particular to make sure we're not hurting the feelings of men?

You don't see anything, well, odd about that?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, and I got that from reading the article.

But it is true that there are sections, vocal sections, of the Feminist movement that are aggressively anti-male.

There are sections of the male population who are rapists. Do you consider it okay for me to treat all men as if they are rapists?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
It claims one gender is entirely impossible to be sexist!.

You didn't even read the section you quoted, never mind the entire thing.

 Melissia wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, and I got that from reading the article.

But it is true that there are sections, vocal sections, of the Feminist movement that are aggressively anti-male.

There are sections of the male population who are rapists. Do you consider it okay for me to treat all men as if they are rapists?

Only if a large portion of men were actually rapists.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, and I got that from reading the article.

But it is true that there are sections, vocal sections, of the Feminist movement that are aggressively anti-male.

There are sections of the male population who are rapists. Do you consider it okay for me to treat all men as if they are rapists?

Only if a large portion of men were actually rapists.

Define "a large portion".

You didn't even read the section you quoted, never mind the entire thing.

I don't care how many men (or women) are in power compared to the other. Noone can seriously claim that it is 'impossible to be sexist'.

So you're saying the feminist movement needs to take steps in particular to make sure we're not hurting the feelings of men?

Who said that? What I said is to focus on those in power. Gender/sexuality/race/whatever shouldn't be a part of it. Its power that is the problem.

What you are trying to counter is perception.

From my personal experience, most feminists I have met have been anti-male duchebags. A Chauvinists counterpart.

I know this isn't true of all feminists but its a conception based on my personal experience that anyone who calls themselves a feminist is going to need to work against.

I think a lot of people will have a similar amount of bad experiences with feminists.

So, as a commonly misunderstood group, Feminists need to be careful how they present themselves to avoid this. Its just smart PR strategy.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
I don't care

I'm aware that you don't really care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
From my personal experience, most feminists I have met have been anti-male duchebags. A Chauvinists counterpart.

If I said "From my personal experience, most conservatives I've met are loud-mouthed ignoramuses with a lower IQ than a pet rock that was dropped down a flight of stairs a few too many times, therefor I'm going to act like all conservatives are loud-mouthed ignorant mental defectives", I'd be rightly called out for it.

But apparently your bigotry against feminists is okay.

Bigotry?

It would be more appropriate to call it having a lot of skepticism around the issue.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bigotry?

It would be more appropriate to call it having a lot of skepticism around the issue.

And yet, it'd be less accurate.

That's simply not true. You yourself are sort of reinforcing it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That's simply not true. You yourself are sort of reinforcing it.

I'm not going to suck up to you or kiss your ass just so you can maybe, for a few minutes, think that not all feminists are extremists (and then immediately return to your original way of thinking, just like you have always done in the past).

Your experiences suffer from confirmation bias.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

So you're saying the feminist movement needs to take steps in particular to make sure we're not hurting the feelings of men?

Who said that? What I said is to focus on those in power. Gender/sexuality/race/whatever shouldn't be a part of it. Its power that is the problem.

Grey Templar said it. Apparently feminism has to be couched carefully in terms that are acceptable to men, where "men" is defined as all men everywhere.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

You didn't even read the section you quoted, never mind the entire thing.

I don't care how many men (or women) are in power compared to the other. Noone can seriously claim that it is 'impossible to be sexist'.

The problem is, you don't get rid of power imbalance by wishing it away. All refusing to examine it does is entrenches the existing power imbalance. The same thing comes up with racism.

 Grey Templar wrote:
From my personal experience, most feminists I have met have been anti-male duchebags.

How would you even know that? I don't know anyone who introduces themselves like, "Hi, I'm HiveFleetPlastic, a feminist." You probably run into zillions of feminists all the time. Given feminism is the belief that men and women should be equal, I'd expect almost everyone you meet is a feminist, even if they're not an activist.

Mr Hyena, regarding the "discrimination against men isn't sexism" thing: they're using a social justice definition of sexism, talking about institutionalised sexism. The same definitions apply to racism and any other ism you care to name.

Let's discuss it in terms of ableism, since feminists making race comparisons is overdone. In our society, people are discriminated against in a variety of ways for being disabled. This is called ableism. But what about reverse-ableism? What if a disabled person discriminates against me because I'm not disabled?

Well, the fact is, in this scenario I have the institutional power. Society in general will empathise with me, as someone who's not disabled. I can go literally anywhere else and enjoy my same privilege outside of that person's sphere of influence. Perhaps the original prejudice was the same, but because it doesn't have the institutional backing, it doesn't have the same impact. That's why the social justice definition doesn't put them on the same level.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

I'm aware that terms like patriarchy trigger negative reactions in certain people,

Ok, so this is kind of terrible, but I use the fact that I'm a man to push the term with people who won't dismiss me because I'm a man. It's great/sad how well it works.

I assure you there are people who will dismiss you despite the fact that you are male.

I assure you quite strongly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bigotry?

It would be more appropriate to call it having a lot of skepticism around the issue.

Anyone who disagrees even slightly with the orthodoxy some posters try to establish is a "bigot".

It's best not to try to reason with these people.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Grey Templar said it. Apparently feminism has to be couched carefully in terms that are acceptable to men, where "men" is defined as all men everywhere.

Which is probably why I tend to not use words such as "patriarchy" to begin with. Then again, people who say "all feminists I know are lesbians who hate men" (or some variation thereof) probably aren't very likely to be convinced no matter what you do. You can show them a hundred websites showing moderate feminism, but they'll still say "but most feminists are evil". It's very difficult to prove a negative, especially when you're arguing against hate.

 Melissia wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Grey Templar said it. Apparently feminism has to be couched carefully in terms that are acceptable to men, where "men" is defined as all men everywhere.

Which is probably why I tend to not use words such as "patriarchy" to begin with. Then again, people who say "all feminists I know are lesbians who hate men" (or some variation thereof) probably aren't very likely to be convinced no matter what you do. You can show them a hundred websites showing moderate feminism, but they'll still say "but most feminists are evil". It's very difficult to prove a negative, especially when you're arguing against hate.

 Melissia wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I guess what I was trying to say, albeit in a pigheaded man way, was that I don't get why the ladies are so fussed about body image. Men are quite laid back beasts, to an extent.

Only in your heads. Men judge women harshly on appearance all the time. People on this very forum judge women off of our appearances all the time. People in this very thread, including yourself, judge women off of our appearances. Yes, including the men. Or even especially the men...

And when a woman doesn't stand up to that judgement, they are treated harshly and cruelly for it, viciously mocked by men. Men seem to love mocking the physical appearance of women whose personalities or political beliefs that they don't agree with-- and it's almost inevitably the first way that they think of to attack a woman.

except you are making some pretty blanket, and sweeping statements about men there, I say its crossing the line when you say that most men are that cruel that they love to mock women, its not true, you seem upset that people would lay blanket stereotypes over feminists, yet dont hesitate to apply stereotypical labels to men.



despite being little helpless cavemen, we can dig the berries out their noses and disengage emotionally/sexually to work well with others.

Get ready for a counter-argument based in special pleading, easysauce.

They're the choice fallacies in this type of "debate".

 easysauce wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Grey Templar said it. Apparently feminism has to be couched carefully in terms that are acceptable to men, where "men" is defined as all men everywhere.

Which is probably why I tend to not use words such as "patriarchy" to begin with. Then again, people who say "all feminists I know are lesbians who hate men" (or some variation thereof) probably aren't very likely to be convinced no matter what you do. You can show them a hundred websites showing moderate feminism, but they'll still say "but most feminists are evil". It's very difficult to prove a negative, especially when you're arguing against hate.

Not a sweeping generalization about men.

 easysauce wrote:
I say its crossing the line when you say that most men are that cruel that they love to mock women, its not true,

I stand by that assertion, based off of both the posting record of men on this forum and my own personal experience watching the actions of various people, both on the internet and off.

Let's give the most obvious example-- a woman who is slightly overweight is full bodied when one likes her-- and fat when one hates her. I've seen this happen numerous times to celebrities who put on a few pounds, for example. And it was the men shouting it the hardest in most cases. Even to the point of calling someone who is kind of skinny... "morbidly obese"-- because they gained a few pounds. Or an ex-friend who is now a hideous witch. Or an ex-girlfriend who's now an ugly slut. Insulting the appearance of a woman you dislike is at the very least equal to using promiscuity (real, perceived, or wholly made up) as an insult against a woman, and both are very common insults directed towards women-- by men.

Men are just as obsessed with womens' appearances as women, if not moreso depending on the setting. Note that, however, I am not necessarily saying that men are somehow biologically more prone to this kind of behavior. I believe that it is socially enforced, resulting from humanity's very long and sordid history. It is similar to the same phenomenon that leads (mostly poor and non-influential) men to be treated as expendable grunts in war, for example.

Also? I never said "most men" in that post.

 Melissia wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I guess what I was trying to say, albeit in a pigheaded man way, was that I don't get why the ladies are so fussed about body image. Men are quite laid back beasts, to an extent.

Only in your heads. Men judge women harshly on appearance all the time. People on this very forum judge women off of our appearances all the time. People in this very thread, including yourself, judge women off of our appearances. Yes, including the men. Or even especially the men...

And when a woman doesn't stand up to that judgement, they are treated harshly and cruelly for it, viciously mocked by men. Men seem to love mocking the physical appearance of women whose personalities or political beliefs that they don't agree with-- and it's almost inevitably the first way that they think of to attack a woman.

actually that bit you cut out that I was referring to where you say "men seem to love mocking...women", thats the sweeping generalization, just because you edit it out, doesn't mean you didnt make it.

thats the untrue bit that, although you do say "men" instead of "most" men, so my apologies, you meant men are cruel people who enjoy this cruel behavior, not most men.



*edit lol really 8 times? tell me what you REALLY think!

 Melissia wrote:
Men are just as obsessed with womens' appearances as women, if not moreso depending on the setting. Note that, however, I am not necessarily saying that men are somehow biologically more prone to this kind of behavior. I believe that it is socially enforced, resulting from humanity's very long and sordid history. It is similar to the same phenomenon that leads (mostly poor and non-influential) men to be treated as expendable grunts in war, for example.

Also? I never said "most men" in that post.

While it's probably true that women are judged more harshly on appearance than men isn't physical appearance important to women as well when judging other males? I imagine most women want a good looking partner also.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Men are just as obsessed with womens' appearances as women, if not moreso depending on the setting. Note that, however, I am not necessarily saying that men are somehow biologically more prone to this kind of behavior. I believe that it is socially enforced, resulting from humanity's very long and sordid history. It is similar to the same phenomenon that leads (mostly poor and non-influential) men to be treated as expendable grunts in war, for example.

Also? I never said "most men" in that post.

While it's probably true that women are judged more harshly on appearance than men isn't physical appearance important to women as well when judging other males? I imagine most women want a good looking partner also.

The psychology of attraction is pretty wacky, and what we think is true often isn't in terms of ' a 10 will only date a 10' sort of thinking. In one person can look at someone and just be 'meh' while another thinks they are the most beautiful thing in the world. Spending time with a person tends to function differently then looking at a person. I know so-so looking guys that are very popular with the opposite sex and ones that are traditionally attractive but have little luck, all due to personality or shyness, ect ect.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Men are just as obsessed with womens' appearances as women, if not moreso depending on the setting. Note that, however, I am not necessarily saying that men are somehow biologically more prone to this kind of behavior. I believe that it is socially enforced, resulting from humanity's very long and sordid history. It is similar to the same phenomenon that leads (mostly poor and non-influential) men to be treated as expendable grunts in war, for example.

Also? I never said "most men" in that post.

While it's probably true that women are judged more harshly on appearance than men isn't physical appearance important to women as well when judging other males? I imagine most women want a good looking partner also.

The psychology of attraction is pretty wacky, and what we think is true often isn't in terms of ' a 10 will only date a 10' sort of thinking. In one person can look at someone and just be 'meh' while another thinks they are the most beautiful thing in the world. Spending time with a person tends to function differently then looking at a person. I know so-so looking guys that are very popular with the opposite sex and ones that are traditionally attractive but have little luck, all due to personality or shyness, ect ect.

Yeah, that is true but even when it comes to physical tastes men can be quite varied (I assume this is true for women too) like some guys are more into the ass, others like legs, some like big boobs, pretty faces, some don't like girls to be that thin and are more into chunkier women, etc, etc

I'm guessing that woman who's with that supposedly "so-so" looking guy genuinely thinks her partner is beautiful (or did at one point) unless the guy's loaded or has the most likeable personality or something.

I'm gonna cut through the crap here: the basic issue here is that certain people here are allowing the bad apples in a movement to sour their opinion of that movement. Everything else is just noise.

~Tim?

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
I'm gonna cut through the crap here: the basic issue here is that certain people here are allowing the bad apples in a movement to sour their opinion of that movement. Everything else is just noise.

~Tim?

Pretty much.

 easysauce wrote:
[snip]

Regardless of your desire to drag the topic off topic even more, I never said that all men are cruel, evil bastards. Or most. I was vague, intentionally so.

I will say, however, that men are people ,and people are frequently cruel when they think they can get away with it. My entire response was an objection against the assertion provided earlier in the thread that somehow women are more cruel than men. Which is the exact opposite of my personal experiences (And not indicated by scientific evidence).

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Do you know why? Because our social system has attached that baggage and you have seen people who use those terms attacked for it, despite your unknowing agreement. It's insidious that way.

Very important point here. The biggest problem of any movement is, be it feminism or religious movements etc., is that mass media mostly sticks to the most vocal representative as those are the easiest to perceive for the viewer / reader. Just have a look at the data on how often e.g. the Islam is mentioned in the news with a negative or positive context in German news...iirc it's 70-80% negative (need to dig that up again). Same goes for feminism - Germany has one very prominent woman who fulfills every clichée on feminists (unattractive, fanatic, irrational, righteous, overly dramatic, anti-male) and sticks to her whereas actual feminist movements get drowned out. The same applies to this very forum - when the term "feminism" is seen, the first user that comes to my mind is a sexist / female supremist claiming to be a feminist and therefore staining the actual feminists / humanists we have here on the board.

It's precisely the negative bias you mentioned, Tritium, that's been emphazied over and over in most areas and that stains the term itself, making it gain a negative connotation.

Our company's female rights consultant is a perfect counter-example. She is an actual feminist, she does a lot of equality work, but convinces people by showing up facts, not ye good ol' "I SHOUT THE LOUDEST THUS I AM RIGHT" rule. She even had a talk with me because all 3 of my employees are female, and we simply discussed the data and my reasoning on a very mature level (like it should be...hint, hint) and it was a non-issue. It's a different if you tackle an issue by jumping in and saying "LOLOLOL OMG SEXIST LOLOLOL" or "Hmm, this is how I see it, what is your view of the issue?". But alas, I don't think the internet is the right place as a lot of times, method 1 is preferred. It's easier.

@HiveFleetPlastic:

Funny how men in traditionally female fields like primary school teaching or nursing get paid more than the women in the same field.

Where did you get those numbers from? In Germany, all genders are paid equally.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Funny how men in traditionally female fields like primary school teaching or nursing get paid more than the women in the same field.

Where did you get those numbers from? In Germany, all genders are paid equally.

Germany has a pretty significant gender gap in pay as well. The biggest one in Europe in fact, at least according to this article.

Got access to the full study?

The problem of a lot of studies is the very poor presentation of results. Often, you simply compare the average men income to the average women income (full time) and then comment on the "gender gap". That's statistically wrong, you'd have to equal the average amount of working hours for each job, then calculate a mean and then compare the average to the other gender.

The amount of men working in high-payment, full-time jobs is considerably higher than the amount of women and thus merely comparing the average income of both genders is wrong and poor usuage of statistics; a similar mistake is not taking working hours into consideration. Women also tend to work more in part-time jobs and thus have a lower average income by default. and overall, the labor force participation rate is considerably higher for men thus also being responsible for a higher average income.

That's why I'm interested in the full study

...and here, some food of thought from actual reliable sources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192.html#

and

http://www.businessinsider.com/women-in-tech-make-more-money-and-land-better-jobs-than-men-2010-9

You don't consider Die Welt to be a reliable source?

The article did specifically mention women who were employed full-time, not part-time. And it was talking about Germany specifically, I was posting it in response to your statement that all genders are paid equally in Germany, which doesn't seem to be the case.

 Melissia wrote:

It's like if an Iraqi talked about how they had it rough and then an American decided that they should hijack the thread to talk about how rough it is not to be able to afford a third car and having to skimp on how many times they eat out a month-- then got mad every time the Iraqi pointed out how their life was objectively worse.

Sorry, but when people are bashing on modern Feminism, I am going to mention that men will benefit too. It's too good a point not to use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

if you think feminism "has no soul" because it focuses on the plight of women, I'm going to put you back on my ignore list-- you obviously have nothing of value to add to any discussion on the topic.

No, I meant about how you had pessimistic views about the ability to help everyone.

A human being should want to help everyone.

Was the civil rights movement racist? While it was talking about all races, it really did focus nearly all of its time and money on blacks. Does that make it "soulless"?

Of course not. You're allowed to focus narrowly on particular types of discrimination. You're not actively working against the others, you are just focusing more on your pet area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
except you are making some pretty blanket, and sweeping statements about men there, I say its crossing the line when you say that most men are that cruel that they love to mock women, its not true, you seem upset that people would lay blanket stereotypes over feminists, yet dont hesitate to apply stereotypical labels to men.

Two things, starting with where you are right.

1. It's DEFINITELY more appropriate to discuss sexism as coming from "people" and not blanket "men", since the system promotes judgement of women in general and not just by men. Saying "people", even though a blanket statement, allows for the acknowledgement of people who do not do that.

2. Misogyny is absolutely Dakka's blindspot. I actually would say that "most" dakkas, where most means 51% of registered users, have weird judgey ideas about women and have expressed them on the forum. A lot of this comes from the average age being pretty low. Teenage boys really love to use misogyny to sound edgy.

 Hordini wrote:
You don't consider Die Welt to be a reliable source?

The article did specifically mention women who were employed full-time, not part-time. And it was talking about Germany specifically, I was posting it in response to your statement that all genders are paid equally in Germany, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Oh, I wasn't referring to your example, I was referring to e.g. Melissia using a FEMINIST blog to prove her point. Extremely biased sources are trash.

Die Welt certainly is a reliable newspaper, but we're talking about statistics here and sadly, more often than not, newspapers rely on the "key points" of studies without having read the entire study themselves, therefore overlooking important details

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Sorry, but when people are bashing on modern Feminism, I am going to mention that men will benefit too. It's too good a point not to use.

Yes, feminist efforts can and do help men. But it should not be the focus in a topic about feminism. If you want to focus on how to improve the lives of men, that should be an entirely separate topic.

As a collective group, men are used to getting a lot of attention and focus on themselves, without even realizing they're doing it-- most films are about the male protagonist; so are most video games, anime, comic books, etc. Being masculine is even the default in the English language-- with feminine as the "other" that it is compared to. As a result, when a woman comes up and talks about womens' problems-- she is immediately shouted down* and the topic invariably turns in to "how can women and feminists serve me, a man?"

Which is frankly one of the most sexist attitudes you can ever have, yet it's displayed here on Dakka openly by numerous people. Feminism is unashamedly about women. Men can benefit from it, but that isn't where a discussion on feminism should go.

A bit of helpful reading from a familiar website might help explain it a bit better...
... and another one here.

*Before the inevitable ignorant whining, no, I am not saying "all the time" or "every time".

Yep, there it is.

A textbook example, too.

 Melissia wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I guess what I was trying to say, albeit in a pigheaded man way, was that I don't get why the ladies are so fussed about body image. Men are quite laid back beasts, to an extent.

Only in your heads. Men judge women harshly on appearance all the time. People on this very forum judge women off of our appearances all the time. People in this very thread, including yourself, judge women off of our appearances. Yes, including the men. Or even especially the men...

And when a woman doesn't stand up to that judgement, they are treated harshly and cruelly for it, viciously mocked by men. Men seem to love mocking the physical appearance of women whose personalities or political beliefs that they don't agree with-- and it's almost inevitably the first way that they think of to attack a woman.

 Melissia wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Sorry, but when people are bashing on modern Feminism, I am going to mention that men will benefit too. It's too good a point not to use.

Yes, feminist efforts can and do help men. But it should not be the focus in a topic about feminism. If you want to focus on how to improve the lives of men, that should be an entirely separate topic.

As a collective group, men are used to getting a lot of attention and focus on themselves, without even realizing they're doing it-- most films are about the male protagonist; so are most video games, anime, comic books, etc. Being masculine is even the default in the English language-- with feminine as the "other" that it is compared to. As a result, when a woman comes up and talks about womens' problems-- she is immediately shouted down* and the topic invariably turns in to "how can women and feminists serve me, a man?"

Which is frankly one of the most sexist attitudes you can ever have, yet it's displayed here on Dakka openly by numerous people. Feminism is unashamedly about women. Men can benefit from it, but that isn't where a discussion on feminism should go.

A bit of helpful reading from a familiar website might help explain it a bit better...
... and another one here.

*Before the inevitable ignorant whining, no, I am not saying "all the time" or "every time".

your words speak for them selves ,

As a collective group, men are used to getting a lot of attention and focus on themselves, without even realizing they're doing it

 Melissia wrote:


Men are fething vicious about the appearance of a woman they don't like.

 Melissia wrote:
As noted in one of the articles I linked:

That is what is being acted against-- there's no "anti-male rhetoric". Men are not being hated, rather, what's hated is the socio-economic power structure which puts limitations on political minorities.

The "anti-male rhetoric" is, to paraphrase an old saying, the hobgoblin of little minds..

really? you call out "men", as all the above and its not anti male?

not only is that completely untrue, it is sexists and a double standard/hypocritical. I could easily make that stereotype about women, and would be (rightly) lynched for it, because sexism against women is wrong, but you seem to think against men it is OK/non existent.

you keep going on and on about people bashing feminism when all they are doing is saying that men are not these "neanderthals" you keep describing them as.

obviously you think you are surrounded both on and off the net by men who act as cruelly as you describe, and feel justified talking like this kind of thinking is the norm in men.

 Melissia wrote:

As a collective group, men are used to getting a lot of attention and focus on themselves, without even realizing they're doing it

While male privilege exists, it is reinforced and accepted by all kinds of people. Focusing the fire on men as a group is just going to pick fights. You want to go after male privilege? Rock on, I will be there. But don't go after the men themselves for having it. The blame for male privilege's existence lies with the larger system. Men themselves didn't get together and decide to have privilege (at least not any that are alive now). it was a multi-thousand year process.

If you want to change the minds of people who were raised and indoctrinated with male privilege, don't attack the people themselves. They didn't come up with this and impose it on themselves. Think about how Louis CK jokes about how great it is to be a white guy. See how he doesn't attack people for being white guys, while still pointing out successfully how privilege works? That's a fantastic approach IMO.

In these last few comments, you've gotten kind of second wavey.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Focusing the fire on men as a group is just going to pick fights.

So you're telling me that having a discussion specifically about womens' issues and concerns without deviating to discuss mens' concerns... is the same as opening fire on men?

Because I would disagree there. Tell me, if you're honestly concerned about the plight of men in regards to the patriarchal social structure, why does every single feminism thread have to be hijacked to talk about it, with hostility being directed at anyone who wishes to focus on womens' issues? Aren't mens' issues important enough to talk about in their own discussion threads?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
[...]

Either you can accept my previous clarification of what I said and we can move on, or you can't accept it, and I will ignore you.

Which one is it?

 Melissia wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Focusing the fire on men as a group is just going to pick fights.

So you're telling me that having a discussion specifically about womens' issues and concerns without deviating to discuss mens' concerns... is the same as opening fire on men?

Because I would disagree there.

You want to have a conversation and tell half of the people affected by it that we're not going to talk about that?

Just so you can keep ideological purity?

Feminism is unashamedly about women. Men can benefit from it, but that isn't where a discussion on feminism should go.

Do you want to fix things or not? You're turning down perfectly good talking points that are GOING to win people over and fix the negative baggage that the term feminism has so that you can keep a female centric ideology? Women unquestionably have it worse. Saying that men will benefit from fixing these things and will not be particularly hurt by the elimination of privilege is absolutely something that needs to happen.

When you tell people that they have a special privilege they are not aware of, and that you want to take it away, you HAVE to include some reassurance that the end result is quite nice and they will be happy with it. If you do not, you are absolutely sending an oppositional message.

Are men used to it being about them? Sure. But "I want to take something away from you that you didn't even know you had" would be a bitter pill for even someone WITHOUT privilege. It's not "making it about men" to reassure people that what you want will improve everyone's lives, since just about anyone would want to hear that.

Again, you're acting like any particular man you might be talking to set out to create his own privilege. They don't know they have it, they are unwitting pawns in the system. Treat them like people with valid concerns or you will NEVER win them to your side.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You want to have a conversation and tell half of the people affected by it that we're not going to talk about that?

No. I want to have a feminist conversation which doesn't devolve in to a discussion about men's issues. Womens' issues get ignored all the time. Pushed aside to pay attention to what men want to hear instead. Wanting to talk about womens' issues in a thread about womens' issues is not some kind of a sin.

You're actually being part of the problem despite the fact that you're trying to help-- because again, you refuse to give space to a minority group to have their issues aired.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or to give an analogy:

Imagine if a group of people went in to every single Space Wolves thread and started talking about Grey Knights instead. Then, whenever someone tries to steer the topic back on to Space Wolves, this Grey Knights fangroup attacks them and tells them to shut up because Grey Knights are marines, too so it's okay to talk about them here and completely ignore or mock the Space Wolf stuff.

Every single thread. No one can ever talk about Space Wolves lore any more because this happens every single time it's brought up, no exception.

This is what it is like watching every single feminism thread devolve in to "let's talk about how feminists can serve men".

 Melissia wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You want to have a conversation and tell half of the people affected by it that we're not going to talk about that?

No. I want to have a feminist conversation which doesn't devolve in to a discussion about men. Womens' issues get ignored all the time. Pushed aside to pay attention to what men want to hear instead. Wanting to talk about womens' issues in a thread about womens' issues is not some kind of a sin.

Activism is showmanship. You are selling a concept and trying to win hearts and minds. Knowing your audience is part of that. If you don't at least try to paint a picture of a bright future free of male privilege that EVERYONE will like, you're going to lose a lot of ears.

I agree that you don't want to get rabbit holed into talking only about how it matters to men, and the blog you posted got into that a bit, but you've made it sound like you don't want to talk about the impact on men at all and you've seemed hostile to the idea that some men might want that reassurance.

Men are people and they are 50% of the audience for your activism. If you are not aiming 50% of your conversation in their direction, then you're not going to win 50% of the hearts and minds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A pretty major component of the civil rights movement was a subtle reassurance that white men had nothing to fear and would not have anything taken from them. Is it sad that it had to be said? Yes. Was it mandatory for the movement to succeed? Without a doubt.

 Melissia wrote:
snip

wow! debating is much easier when I completely edit out the pertinent information!

The constructive element of the discussion seems to have reached its terminus.