Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I kinda do, it perpuptuate the idea that men are nothing but muscled idiots.

Well the issue is that for men, our stereotypes tend to be more positive. They're not all positive, but for the men don't seem to have a problem with most of them. The idiot husband I'm sure plenty of guys are tired of seeing on TV, but men don't generally complain about tropes like Men use Violence, Women use Communication or Guys Smash, Girls Shoot (though that one gets inverted... a lot). We like action... So that men regularly get to be the badass with sword killing every living thing in site doesn't really bother us the same way that a woman would be bothered by the token female character who's really just in there to be eye candy... Or to give the guys with swords something to kill each other over.

Some tropes though like Higher Education is for Women, Women are Wiser, Men are Generic (and even then think of Boba Fett, whose more bad ass because he's generic), Women are Special, reflect poorly on both sexes, but its the female side of the debate that gets nearly all the attention.

FYI: There's a whole monster list of them here: Gender Dynamics Index. This sentence here I think really identifies my problem with the gender debates: "Another way to look at it is this: female characters are defined by the passive value that others give them, male characters are defined by their actions, usually to protect or win that which they find valuable. Female characters have passive value but they don't create it while male characters don't have passive value so they must create active value. Female characters can be exploited for their passive value and male characters are expendable if they fail to create their own value by advancing the plot through their actions." There are two genders being stereotyped here, not one. But all I ever hear about is the one.

It's also not like the family's dad is the only man in these shows. Even if he's shown as not too bright, there will be other men in the show who aren't depicted as dumb. Women in Nintendo games, not so much.

Though again, none of this stuff has meaning in a vacuum. The world's a big place and context is all-important. Princess Peach being rescued by Mario over and over is only problematic if it's part of a wider culture. One thing on its own doesn't make a pattern.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
It's also not like the family's dad is the only man in these shows. Even if he's shown as not too bright, there will be other men in the show who aren't depicted as dumb. Women in Nintendo games, not so much.

Though again, none of this stuff has meaning in a vacuum. The world's a big place and context is all-important. Princess Peach being rescued by Mario over and over is only problematic if it's part of a wider culture. One thing on its own doesn't make a pattern.

Which it is a wider part of culture, from early on little girls and boys are fitted into gender stereotypes through society like watching the Disney princess movies where the princess characters are gentle, pretty and submissive and the men are tall, influential and make the major decisions in

the plot.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
It's also not like the family's dad is the only man in these shows. Even if he's shown as not too bright, there will be other men in the show who aren't depicted as dumb. Women in Nintendo games, not so much.

Honestly, in some shows the idiot husband's wife is the only person with any sense in sight. Look at the inhabitants of Springfield. Marge and Lissa are practically the only sensible people in the entire town (and maybe Smithers).

Flanders isn't a complete idiot, just a bit of a religious nut. (based on the last several seasons, I have not watched all of the Simpsons)



Some of these tropes are fairly accurate representations of American suburbia at least. Girls may not be smarter, but they certainly do, on average, get higher grades and generally work harder...at just about everything other than mindless vanity based weightlifting. If you want to coach or teach someone will actually listen to you, your best bet is a girl. Guys aren't dumber, but they tend to be lazier, more resistant to authority, and much more aggressive and assertive. These are both very broad generalizations and many individuals do not reflect them.

 Amaya wrote:
Some of these tropes are fairly accurate representations of American suburbia at least. Girls may not be smarter, but they certainly do, on average, get higher grades and generally work harder...

The same is true of most tropes about women. They're stereotypes. No one is saying they don't have some basis in fact. Stereotypes do come from somewhere. My problem is the overt focus given to one end of gender equality (EDIT: I mean in gender roles).

Largely the debate is focused on making women equal to men which entails the idea that women would take on traditional male roles. What it means to be feminine is being redefined. However, masculinity isn't being redefined at all, even though we really should be asking ourselves culturally if it should be. This is of course the result of the rights debates as men don't need their rights asserted or assured. But where the discussion really should be about the roles of men and women in media, instead its primarily about women in media and usually in some stupid direction that doesn't even warrant attention.

Ir swear to The Emperor Upon His Golden Throne that if this continues to devolve in to a men's rights movement thread I will puke.

How on earth can: "men don't need their rights asserted or assured" be construed as arguing for men's rights? It's not a rights discussion it's a gender roles discussion.

EDIT: Hold on that's my fault. I used equality without clarifying. Fixing.

/shrug

It's a Melissia moment, what can you do?

 Melissia wrote:
Ir swear to The Emperor Upon His Golden Throne that if this continues to devolve in to a men's rights movement thread I will puke.

Im not saying men Rights, what im saying is that there are numerous tropes that men should dislike aswell. And that we have a right to complain. I dont like my gender being portryed as bulging muscleheads as much as i bet you dont like your gender being portrayed as weak.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Ir swear to The Emperor Upon His Golden Throne that if this continues to devolve in to a men's rights movement thread I will puke.

Im not saying men Rights, what im saying is that there are numerous tropes that men should dislike aswell. And that we have a right to complain. I dont like my gender being portryed as bulging muscleheads as much as i bet you dont like your gender being portrayed as weak.

Well we really should also consider that's kind of more than a little bit on us. Women have been asking themselves "What is a woman? How do I determine my value as a person?" for like... 60 years now (more?)? Us guys, don't really ask ourselves this same question, and maybe we really should be. I heard more than a few women ask the question so really, why don't we talk about it?

Because it is a stupid question. Gender is irrelevant. Ask what makes you a person, not a man or woman.

I suppose because, maybe we might not like the definition we have now. Because right now being a man is often interspred with violence and agressiveness.

 LordofHats wrote:
How on earth can: "men don't need their rights asserted or assured" be construed as arguing for men's rights?

I wasn't talking about your posts specifically, but about the direction the thread was headed.

I would like you all to keep in mind that the feminist movement, as a general rule, has for a LONG time pushed that the double standards applied by society are harmful to both women AND men. Similarly, it is rather uncontroversial amongst feminist groups to say "people who subvert gender norms, male or female, shouldn't be ridiculed", or that, for example, men should be given paternity leave (to help ensure fathers will have time to spend with their children, and to reinforce the idea that mothers aren't assumed to be the only ones caring for the child).

A lot of people on this forum seem to have a large number of misconceptions about the movement, causing them to bring up things like "but men are affected too!", which is not only entirely missing the point but also little more than a distraction from the issue at hand. While I know that the term "patriarchy" will probably cause some eye-rolls from those with the most derision from the movement, I still feel the need to say it-- through deconstructing the patriarchy and making men and women treated more equal in all facets of media, life in general will become better for both genders.

Really? Alot of feminists in my classes(as in my Proff's) just seem to do nothing but complain about feminism and how it is portrayed and how women are portrayed. They sometimes act like Anti-feminist Feminist's.

 Amaya wrote:
Because it is a stupid question. Gender is irrelevant. Ask what makes you a person, not a man or woman.

Since we as men and women, identify aspects of our biology as part of ourselves, it kind of is. Being a man is part of who I am as a person. So I must ask, what is a man and what does being a man mean to me? While women have been pushing for decades and make slow progress in redefining what being a woman means, men have made no real progress themselves in redefining what being a man means.

We can reduce the gender divide, but I really don't think we should foster the illusion that it can be destroyed... Not anytime soon anyway. We've got about 5,000 years of culture behind us just dealing with the whole "men act, women are" thing. One step at a time XD

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Really? Alot of feminists in my classes(as in my Proff's) just seem to do nothing but complain about feminism and how it is portrayed and how women are portrayed. They sometimes act like Anti-feminist Feminist's.

Yes. Do you actually pay attention to the movement as a whole, or just a sparing few people in it? How many blogs have you read and what percentage of the blogs' posts have you read? What do you know of the movement's history? Etc etc etc.

There's always a vocal minority in the group. The "Difference Feminism" segment, for example, is a minority within the movement that I'm not entirely comfortable with.

Basically, the common perception of feminism on the internet is that this quote...

There are now women politicians, women soldiers, women scientists, women astronauts. But our mission is only half-done: we still haven't prevented men from doing those things!

... isn't a parody, it's what feminists actually think. And yeah, it pisses me off. Meh?

 Melissia wrote:
I wasn't talking about your posts specifically, but about the direction the thread was headed.

Ah, gotcha.

I would like you all to keep in mind that the feminist movement, as a general rule, has for a LONG time pushed that the double standards applied by society are harmful to both women AND men. Similarly, it is rather uncontroversial amongst feminist groups to say "people who subvert gender norms, male or female, shouldn't be ridiculed", or that, for example, men should be given paternity leave (to help ensure fathers will have time to spend with their children, and to reinforce the idea that mothers aren't assumed to be the only ones caring for the child).

I'm also not directing this only at feminists. I kind of expect that a feminist would be more concerned with the women side of things than men, while being aware of the male side, but I never hear anything about masculinists. So where are the men in this debate? Setting aside my distaste for Saarkasian, it does show that women are active in the gender discussion, and the issue of women is common in the public forum. Men meanwhile are largely reactionary to it. I mean, how many threads show up on Dakka about the stereotyping of men? I think the only time I've ever seen it brought up is in threads about the stereotyping of women XD

 LordofHats wrote:
So where are the men in this debate?

At the moment, the "men" in this debate (assuming one would want to label them as such) are acting in such a way as to get the Men's Rights Movement labeled as a hate group by most of the organizations that track hate groups because of their lies and attacks on women in general and the feminist movement in specific.

 Melissia wrote:
At the moment, the "men" in this debate (assuming one would want to label them as such) are acting in such a way as to get the Men's Rights Movement labeled as a hate group by most of the organizations that track hate groups because of their lies and attacks on women in general and the feminist movement in specific.

I can definitely agree that when it comes to these issues, the men who actually bother to pettle their opinions are the ones I'd really wish weren't talking. Normal men (and by that I mean the non-crazy ones) just aren't involved. EDIT: And maybe those crazies and the negative perceptions of feminism are probably to blame for that... And laziness. Probably.

It's the same reason that similar movements for whites in racially charged debates are often labeled as white supremacist hate groups... because they act like white supremacist hate groups.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
At the moment, the "men" in this debate (assuming one would want to label them as such) are acting in such a way as to get the Men's Rights Movement labeled as a hate group by most of the organizations that track hate groups because of their lies and attacks on women in general and the feminist movement in specific.

I can definitely agree that when it comes to these issues, the men who actually bother to pettle their opinions are the ones I'd really wish weren't talking. Normal men (and by that I mean the non-crazy ones) just aren't involved. EDIT: And maybe those crazies and the negative perceptions of feminism are probably to blame for that... And laziness. Probably.

I don't like masculinists either. They remind me of those white power groups that came up after African Americans started being treated like humans.

It's also why you get things like this happening as well.

Those actually in power, whose social status is higher than everyone else (IE males vs females and transpeople, straights vs non-heteronormative sexualities, whites vs non-whites, etc) honestly have less to complain about and thus tend to try to belittle others when they complain instead. That isn't to say that there is nothing for any of them to complain about (indeed, there ARE many complaints about how societal machismo harms men in many ways, for example), it is, rather, an observation of those who actually are motivated enough to organize the movements in question.

 Melissia wrote:
It's the same reason that similar movements for whites in racially charged debates are often labeled as white supremacist hate groups... because they act like white supremacist hate groups.

Well, White's don't really have much to complain about. Men in the area of political rights don't have much to complain about either. The reexamining of gender roles I think hold's a different dynamic (at least in terms of how genders get portrayed in media and by society) Though such crazies are also indicative of my complaint. They aren't proactive in advancing the development of the idea of masculinity and how it should change to adapt to the expansion of femininity. They just cling to the old ideas like nothing is changing and react to stuff women talk about and usually they react with the ridiculous.

The Feminist Theory in and of itself is just a sort of Conflict Theory. And Conflict Theorists are cynical bastards who think that those with power want nothing more to keep it.

Honestly, talk to any man and he will say that women should be treated equal to men, but we ALL hate the feminists because of how they portray themselves. If the Feminists could open their eyes to that, we could get a whole lot more done.

Honestly, talk to any man and he will say that women should be treated equal to men

That is most assuredly not true in any way shape or form.

 Slarg232 wrote:
The Feminist Theory in and of itself is just a sort of Conflict Theory. And Conflict Theorists are cynical bastards who think that those with power want nothing more to keep it.

Honestly, talk to any man and he will say that women should be treated equal to men, but we ALL hate the feminists because of how they portray themselves. If the Feminists could open their eyes to that, we could get a whole lot more done.

IF you could bother opening your eyes to what the feminist movement actually is instead of your own biases based off of strawmen promulgated by "Men's Rights" hate groups, perhaps you could actually see the feminist movement for what it is?

TVTropes, of all places, has useful notes on the matter. Feminism is a very diverse movement, and no one organization speaks for all of it-- certainly not the rather minuscule extremist portions. There is a lot of willful, deliberate, and arguably malicious misinterpretation of the feminist movement by its opponents.

Well, Who says what the feminist movement is? the minority or the majority? Because much of the majority are men hating cynical women.

 Melissia wrote:

Honestly, talk to any man and he will say that women should be treated equal to men

That is most assuredly not true in any way shape or form.

 Slarg232 wrote:
The Feminist Theory in and of itself is just a sort of Conflict Theory. And Conflict Theorists are cynical bastards who think that those with power want nothing more to keep it.

Honestly, talk to any man and he will say that women should be treated equal to men, but we ALL hate the feminists because of how they portray themselves. If the Feminists could open their eyes to that, we could get a whole lot more done.

IF you could bother opening your eyes to what the feminist movement actually is instead of your own biases based off of strawmen promulgated by "Men's Rights" hate groups, perhaps you could actually see the feminist movement for what it is?

TVTropes, of all places, has useful notes on the matter. Feminism is a very diverse movement, and no one organization speaks for all of it-- certainly not the rather minuscule extremist portions. There is a lot of willful, deliberate, and arguably malicious misinterpretation of the feminist movement by its opponents.

So tell me how you are going to get ANYTHING done if your so divided? A movement is defined by those who move it. Right now you (feminism) is moving in twenty different directions. Get yourself a single, unified organization to speak for what the feminist movement is and suddenly people can finally decide if they like or hate feminists.

My eyes may be shut, but I can still hear fine, thank you. I don't think your eyes are open either, considering how hostile and defensive you ALWAYS are on this subject....

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because much of the majority are men hating cynical women.

That is a blatant and insulting misrepresentation of the movement, and is exactly what I was talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slarg232 wrote:
So tell me how you are going to get ANYTHING done if your so divided?

We HAVE gotten things done. Or perhaps you don't know the history of the womens' rights movement?