Berlin Barbie bummer; feminists protest Dreamhouse opening

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.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

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!"

**Rented Tritium**

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.

**gunslingerpro**

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.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**Melissia**

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.

**Squigsquasher**

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.

**Rented Tritium**

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.

**Mr Hyena**

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.

**Rented Tritium**

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.

**Mr Hyena**

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.

**Rented Tritium**

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.

**Mr Hyena**

So what does it mean.

**Rented Tritium**

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?

**Mr Hyena**

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?

**Rented Tritium**

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.

**Mr Hyena**

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.

**Rented Tritium**

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.

**Mr Hyena**

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.

**Rented Tritium**

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.

**Mr Hyena**

So long as anything is not forced for anyone.

**Rented Tritium**

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.

**azazel the cat**

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.

**Mr Hyena**

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

**Rented Tritium**

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.

**Melissia**

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.

**azazel the cat**

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?

**Melissia**

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.

**Rented Tritium**

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.

**Melissia**

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.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

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