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.

Casualty wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Idk who's selling you this stuff, but they're ripping you off.

They're doing what everyone with an agenda but no argument does, making things up.

I guarantee you that person has never read MacKinnon or Dworkin.

Casualty wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Idk who's selling you this stuff, but they're ripping you off.

Certainly a better bargain than your substance-free comment.

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Interesting catch. I had noticed this but not phrased it quite this way before.

The way I see it, the societal definition of success is based on male ambitions not female ones. Therefore for a woman to be successful she needs to act like a man. Women should instead define what makes a successful woman instead and strive for those goals rather than competing with men.
If men are to help in this is it not be self flagellation but by no longer imposing male success as societal success as a whole.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Casualty wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Idk who's selling you this stuff, but they're ripping you off.

They're doing what everyone with an agenda but no argument does, making things up.

I guarantee you that person has never read MacKinnon or Dworkin.

Funny that all of the responses to me so far have included exactly zero arguments. I'm very familiar with feminist theory, as well as the actual policies and outcomes that result from it and their effects. If you disagree with what I'm saying you might try to address it directly.

 daedalus wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Happens to me too. I have an English accent and am biologically male, people accept things that I tell them after they have rejected the exact same information from a Canadian/biological female.

Not sure how it's really all that relevant to toxic masculinity, though. Misogyny is a related, but different, thing

Midwestern male here with a deeper than average voice. I had similar experiences when I worked tech support on the helldesk. I was a point of escalation, not directly client-facing, so there was an inherent perception of authority presented as well when I got on the phone, but the ones who consistently needed me on the line to repeat what they just said most were usually the women there. We had a small clientbase that consisted of very regular people call in, which meant that it was pretty easy to identify that it was particular clients that were the problem. They frequently shared a common cultural background, but realistically you can't just blame that. donkey-caves are going to be donkey-caves, no matter where they come from.

Its entirely possible its a physiological thing vs casual discrimination. or a mix of both.

A higher pitch voice tends to be a thing associated with younger less mature children, as you age your voice tends to get deeper.

its possible a deep voice is associated with maturity and responsibility

edit woof a whole page few by should of refreshed first.

 Orlanth wrote:

The way I see it, the societal definition of success is based on male ambitions not female ones. Therefore for a woman to be successful she needs to act like a man. Women should instead define what makes a successful woman instead and strive for those goals rather than competing with men.
If men are to help in this is it not be self flagellation but by no longer imposing male success as societal success as a whole.

Exactly. When "feminine" goals and ambitions are seen as lacking value compared to "masculine" ones, the measure of success is masculine in nature.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Erm.

What?

Contemporary feminism completely devalues the "feminine". Things like domestic family life, child-bearing, and more socially focused or care-based career choices are anathema to feminism, the goal of which is to achieve perfect parity between men and women along lines that are almost entirely defined by the "masculine". Social constructionists like to pretend there's no biological or behavioral difference between men and women and that gender roles are entirely composed of socialization as opposed to having any kind of evolutionary or biological component, but their standards of parity are that women take on more traditionally "masculine" gender roles to the total exclusion of "feminine" ones. Since there is a shift even in feminism to devalue and denigrate feminine roles, I posit that femininity is in crisis, rather than masculinity.

Many feminists advocate for greater societal and economic valuation for childcare, teaching, nursing, and other traditionally feminine-coded occupations and activities, as well as advocating for maternity and paternity leave in countries like the US which don't have it. There's a lot of support for getting fathers more involved in childrearing, which thus far has been somewhat successful (although the economic realities of precarious work and rising rent means that many families can't afford to do much parenting). This is a point of contention, I'll admit, between the older second-wave liberal feminists who often fit the description you give here and the younger generation of third-wave feminists.
Some feminists involved in Black Lives Matter take it a step further, advocating for a renaissance in the role of the extended family in childrearing, which is a constructive reaction to the increasing prevalence of multi-generational homes due to economic constraints. If they were trying to devalue childrearing, they would not be trying to get everyone involved in it and proposing it as a solution to societal woes.

 Desubot wrote:

Its entirely possible its a physiological thing vs casual discrimination. or a mix of both.

A higher pitch voice tends to be a thing associated with younger less mature children, as you age your voice tends to get deeper.

its possible a deep voice is associated with maturity and responsibility

edit woof a whole page few by should of refreshed first.

True. That's not something I can rule out.

 Luciferian wrote:

Funny that all of the responses to me so far have included exactly zero arguments. I'm very familiar with feminist theory, as well as the actual policies and outcomes that result from it and their effects. If you disagree with what I'm saying you might try to address it directly.

Personally, I've got better things to do today than pointlessly engaging in argument with a person who has already clearly demonstrated that they prefer their opinion over facts and who has clearly demonstrated they have little understanding of the subject matter.

It's no skin off my nose if you want to hold laughably ignorant opinions. Knock yourself out.

 daedalus wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
The saddest thing of all though is this, it cant even be talked about, being pro men means your anti woman to these people, case in point the mens rights marches in UK, US, Canada, Australia all being attacked by the ideologues, the ideologues backed by the media, people pretend or outright lie and say this is not true, that there is not a stranglehold and that its only the fringes that do this, it isnt, its mainstream, one need only check the news for the last month to see this is true, trying to call MRA's the usual buzzwords and making no attempt to understand that these individuals face all kinds of problems that are ignored or outright laughed at.

I find that people tend to project their own perceived flaws and motives onto other people. People prone to cheat on others in relationships are typically concerned the other person is cheating. People who routinely lie believe others are lying to them.

Don't judge a person by their actions. Judge a person by how they react to someone acting the same way.

Without a doubt that is true I agree, maybe not to the same extent as you possibly mean but people will always insert their bias into any discussion, the hard part is to try and push that bias to the side as much as possible, its a hard one.

Judging a person by how they react is judging their actions btw but get what you mean.

little annecdote, a friend of mine has been fighting for access to his child for the last 2 years, he finally got it, he ex wife was so angry that she was literally screaming in the court about how he will beat the child etc. a week later she takes his son over to his house and literally abandons him, she said she does not want anything to do with the child anymore, he puts in for custody and she signs it, again she flies off the handle when she finds out that she has to pay maintanance for the child.

Just recently the child states that she had been abusing him, we had all wondered if she had and now social services looking into it, she has now been denied contact with the child until the investigation is over.

as you say, projection.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Interesting catch. I had noticed this but not phrased it quite this way before.

The way I see it, the societal definition of success is based on male ambitions not female ones. Therefore for a woman to be successful she needs to act like a man. Women should instead define what makes a successful woman instead and strive for those goals rather than competing with men.
If men are to help in this is it not be self flagellation but by no longer imposing male success as societal success as a whole.

Yeah, I've noticed a pattern like this before. It's like the obsession of a lot of third wave feminists that there must be parity for both males and females in areas like STEM jobs, and despite it opening up a lot more opportunities towards females, women just don't seem as interested and the field is still dominated by men. Instead of seeing this as just not being a particularly female oriented area, feminists decry this as being symptomatic of the males in the field being the reason why women don't want to be in the field, claiming it to be toxic or otherwise. Which seems counterproductive, when women should be praised and allowed to make their own choices for career paths, not pressured into going for traditionally male dominated fields just because they are "empowered" to do so. It's a fundamental issue with the idea of equal opportunity leading to equal outcome, when its really one or the other.

Notably, I never see feminists wanting parity for less high profile or glorious, or even dangerous jobs that the are done by men, like any type of hard-labour work, such as mining,

I think I'm gonna bow out. I've said my piece, and if I stay in the gender debate here I'll start thinking of politics whenever one of you guys gives me helpful painting/gaming tips.

A very good friend of mine quit his job to become a stay at home father while his wife continues to be the breadwinner.

I continue to refer to it as the Swindle of the Century. He's never said he agrees, but I've never seen him happier.

I'm just going to put these two posts right next to each other for posterity:

Excommunicatus wrote:
They're doing what everyone with an agenda but no argument does, making things up.

I guarantee you that person has never read MacKinnon or Dworkin.

Excommunicatus wrote:
Personally, I've got better things to do today than pointlessly engaging in argument with a person who has already clearly demonstrated that they prefer their opinion over facts and who has clearly demonstrated they have little understanding of the subject matter.

It's no skin off my nose if you want to hold laughably ignorant opinions. Knock yourself out.

And also a reminder that I've provided an argument and you haven't, just the assumption that your opinion is correct without any presentation of facts whatsoever.

I agree that feminism has lost its way massively in the modern age, and has devalued the work of its predecessors. However, let's try and stay away from men vs women at risk of becoming too politically focused.

I think it's clear that having positive male role models is vitally important to society. For example, children from happy families with a father present have been proven to do better in school, act up less in adolescence, less likely to end up in jail or with a criminal record, and less likely to end up obese. So in that context, do we have good male role models in society?

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
All part and parcel of the same thing.

I’m easily identified as a bloke, even when there’s no visual contact. I have an easier time of it as a result.

That a guy with a traditionally non-Male voice gets grief basically helps my argument.

I mean the fact that people respond better to a deep voice than a higher one.

There's all kinds of weird things at play when it comes to voices that can't be pinned on conscious thought. I'm from Leeds originally and I have a recognizable, though somewhat generic, 'Northern' accent which is targeted for employment U.K. call centres 'cause Northern/Scots/Irish accents are perceived to be more trustworthy and friendlier than Southern accents while people with Welsh accents are dismissed as 'dumb', per the research. Note I'm not saying that Southerners are less trustworthy or that the Welsh are 'dumb'.

People back home with my accent have a tendency to defer to people who sound like Rees-Mogg. Canadians and Americans have a tendency to defer to English accents, though they deny it vehemently.

IIRC, there's research that shows that new-born infants respond better to deep voices long before they have a chance to absorb any learned behaviours.

Oh on the point of dialect:
Generally it is consensus in Switzerland that Germans are arrogant, most of that has to do with 2 things:
A: Germans tend to switch to highgerman when they meet other germans in order to stop misunderstandings, in Switzerland Highgerman is generally only used by the State or in offical doccuments and only there. (Now every german speaks highgerman with a swiss german which inteprets this then by accident as an authoritarian form of order which annoys us then, basically the german tries to be polite, the swiss german allready bursts a vein so to speak)

B:Highgerman has very specific mannerisms which are regarded as highly impolite in swissgerman dialects: F.E. if you intend to order a beer in high german it is perfectly acceptable to say the following: Ich krieg noch ein Bier, bitte. (I get a beer. please) meanwhile in swiss german: Entschuldiged sie, chönnti ich bitte na es bier ha? (excuse me, could i please have a beer?)

In another word: Dialects are often regarded as more familial (friendly) whilest the offical language is often more authoritharian.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I agree that feminism has lost its way massively in the modern age, and has devalued the work of its predecessors. However, let's try and stay away from men vs women at risk of becoming too politically focused.

I think it's clear that having positive male role models is vitally important to society. For example, children from happy families with a father present have been proven to do better in school, act up less in adolescence, less likely to end up in jail or with a criminal record, and less likely to end up obese. So in that context, do we have good male role models in society?

I think we're short on positive role models in general. There are always good people out there doing good things and presenting an example, but once again, our culture values something totally different. Narcissism, self-promotion, material wealth and social status are endlessly promoted through mainstream culture and our age of social media stardom. There are plenty of great public figures who are doing amazing things in their fields and providing an example of what it means to be responsible, professional, respectful, civically-minded, or any number of other virtues, but they don't get anywhere near the attention. I think that applies pretty much equally to male and female role models.

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm just going to put these two posts right next to each other for posterity:

Excommunicatus wrote:
They're doing what everyone with an agenda but no argument does, making things up.

I guarantee you that person has never read MacKinnon or Dworkin.

Excommunicatus wrote:
Personally, I've got better things to do today than pointlessly engaging in argument with a person who has already clearly demonstrated that they prefer their opinion over facts and who has clearly demonstrated they have little understanding of the subject matter.

It's no skin off my nose if you want to hold laughably ignorant opinions. Knock yourself out.

And also a reminder that I've provided an argument and you haven't, just the assumption that your opinion is correct without any presentation of facts whatsoever.

Again, it's no skin off my nose if you want to sit around being laughably wrong and slapping yourself on the back for it. The responsibility to educate you is yours, not mine.

Nie mój cyrk, nie moje malpy. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

Ok.

Again.

Huh?

I ‘posit’ you’re just using an argument courtesy of A.N.Other, that you yourself don’t actually understand?

 daedalus wrote:
A very good friend of mine quit his job to become a stay at home father while his wife continues to be the breadwinner.

I continue to refer to it as the Swindle of the Century. He's never said he agrees, but I've never seen him happier.

Honestly that sounds amazing. I would love to be the stay at home dad and be able to take care of my future kids, but I don't think that will happen, most likely it will probably be both of us working full time.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Honestly that sounds amazing. I would love to be the stay at home dad and be able to take care of my future kids, but I don't think that will happen, most likely it will probably be both of us working full time.

I know, right? I mean, it'd have it's ups and downs all over the place like everything does, but it really does look like he came out on the winning side of that deal.

Many feminists advocate for greater societal and economic valuation for childcare, teaching, nursing, and other traditionally feminine-coded occupations and activities, as well as advocating for maternity and paternity leave in countries like the US which don't have it. There's a lot of support for getting fathers more involved in childrearing, which thus far has been somewhat successful (although the economic realities of precarious work and rising rent means that many families can't afford to do much parenting). This is a point of contention, I'll admit, between the older second-wave liberal feminists who often fit the description you give here and the younger generation of third-wave feminists.
Some feminists involved in Black Lives Matter take it a step further, advocating for a renaissance in the role of the extended family in childrearing, which is a constructive reaction to the increasing prevalence of multi-generational homes due to economic constraints. If they were trying to devalue childrearing, they would not be trying to get everyone involved in it and proposing it as a solution to societal woes.

Agreed. Actual feminists or people who support rights are not wholly focused on womens rights, but minority rights and human rights.

Those youtube vids of crazy feminists are just that. Crazy people with extremeist views.

Not to be political but that is what we are seeing when someone brings up "Oh feminists have lost their way." Have they? Or are those just extreme versions that no one bats an eye at?

Extremist movements might seem large but they are rarely a large population of people. Assuming everyone that wears the feminist banner has the same ideological base or beliefs is wholly unrealistic.

As would anyone say the same about men's rights groups. AS there are extremists in those groups as well. (Milo for example)

Toxic Masculinity is the critique of traits that are negative from a male prespective, just as is there is a critique toxic feminity. They both exist, one is just more relevant today than yesteryears. Toxicity can be found in accepting it as "Boys will be boys" a saying greatly emphasized by the Brock Turner case where his father vehemently defended his son's extremely toxic behavior.

 daedalus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Honestly that sounds amazing. I would love to be the stay at home dad and be able to take care of my future kids, but I don't think that will happen, most likely it will probably be both of us working full time.

I know, right? I mean, it'd have it's ups and downs all over the place like everything does, but it really does look like he came out on the winning side of that deal.

I too have thought it would not be a bad setup. Though I think I would still feel an obligation to provide, plus a single income is difficult for a family nowadays unless it’s a very high paying job.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Casualty wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Idk who's selling you this stuff, but they're ripping you off.

They're doing what everyone with an agenda but no argument does, making things up.

I guarantee you that person has never read MacKinnon or Dworkin.

Funny that all of the responses to me so far have included exactly zero arguments. I'm very familiar with feminist theory, as well as the actual policies and outcomes that result from it and their effects. If you disagree with what I'm saying you might try to address it directly.

It's because the premise is grounded in notions so fundamentally, spectacularly off base, that addressing it would take more work than anybody has energy for anymore and probably wouldn't amount to much. It would be like trying to explain the merits of the offside rule to somebody who didn't realise soccer involves a ball and opens with an argument about how the players' horses should get more rest breaks.

For example, one of the most fundamental, core concepts feminism engages with is how - as a society - we devalue unpaid domestic work (and indeed any other labour considered "feminine") and how that could be addressed. Like, it's unmissable, it ties into everything else one way or the other. You can't talk about reproductive rights, workplace presence, political representation, parental rights, housing, wages, anything without that context.

To not know or understand that, indeed to assert something contrary to it, means you don't know the absolute basic building blocks of the thing and moreover, don't consider that an impediment to speaking with an air of authority. It means you've been sold some weird funhouse mirror caricature of feminism and bought it too eagerly to question any of the obvious discrepancies with it. Nothing about that suggests we're in a good faith situation and nobody here is at their first rodeo.

If you want to understand feminism ask a feminist, not Facebook or some youtuber dude who has A Lot Of Ideas About Where Feminism Went Wrong. Otherwise you might accidentally wind up repeating bizarre misconceptions that speak more loudly about where you get your ideas than you may realise.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ok.

Again.

Huh?

I ‘posit’ you’re just using an argument courtesy of A.N.Other, that you yourself don’t actually understand?

What exactly is so hard to understand about what I'm saying? In regards to policy in particular, the current drive is to put men and women in competition with each other, especially in the job market, and to measure the success of individuals and initiatives according to values that would traditionally be defined as "masculine" rather than "feminine". The impetus is on women to take on traditionally masculine roles rather than vice versa.

If you want to understand feminism ask a feminist, not Facebook or some youtuber dude who has A Lot Of Ideas About Where Feminism Went Wrong. Otherwise you might accidentally wind up repeating bizarre misconceptions that speak more loudly about where you get your ideas than you may realise.

Basically.

I didn't know anything about feminism for a long ass time and only watched youtubers for my info till I learned "Wait these people are full of it!"

Sometimes looking at the facts and reading from these thinkers and philosophers is far more valuable and enlightening.

I mean its like some random person walking up to a Ultiltarian Philisopher asking them "Oh what do you think of the net happiness effect? Nothing well course not!"

When that random person knows nothing on that subject matter. Having insight into how an ideology works is far more valuable than not.

Its like the idiom "Put yourself in someone else's shoes."

I think if men create their own image of toxicity. Every time there is an argument of 'what was she wearing?' or 'she didn't clearly say no' or 'oh guys are just like that' it reinforces the idea that men are sex-crazed thugs who can't control their own actions. And the vast majority of those arguments come from men themselves. The reality is that if you treat the people around you with respect you have nothing to be afraid of. I see those men who are afraid due to the #metoo movement as sniveling cowards afraid that they may be held accountable for treating other humans badly. I do not say that lightly or without a lot of thought behind it. And I would gladly say it in person given the chance.

As for feminism, it just means that women should be treated equally. Some individuals like to hold up extremeists claiming themselves to be feminist as examples because it sells much better than 'bu-but I LIKE being the favored gender!'

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think if men create their own image of toxicity. Every time there is an argument of 'what was she wearing?' or 'she didn't clearly say no' or 'oh guys are just like that' it reinforces the idea that men are sex-crazed thugs who can't control their own actions. And the vast majority of those arguments come from men themselves. The reality is that if you treat the people around you with respect you have nothing to be afraid of. I see those men who are afraid due to the #metoo movement as sniveling cowards afraid that they may be held accountable for treating other humans badly. I do not say that lightly or without a lot of thought behind it. And I would gladly say it in person given the chance.

As for feminism, it just means that women should be treated equally. Some individuals like to hold up extremeists claiming themselves to be feminist as examples because it sells much better than 'bu-but I LIKE being the favored gender!'

Idris Elba said something similar. "If your afraid you have something to hide." Which i find very true. People who are afraid of the mee to movement shouldn't be if their fear is unfounded, if it is. Well Maybe you should be or turn it over and admit your mistake.

Most people should be respectful to one another it ain't hard.

You made some good points there but then ended with an appeal to authority that was unnecessary.

But please let's stay away from feminism. I have plenty of views on many facets of feminism, but I don't want this thread to go there as it will get too political. Also please keep debates civil, that's how we move forward.

 Luciferian wrote:
the current drive is to put men and women in competition with each other, especially in the job market

Without judgement on anything else you have said, this in particular does seem to be an interesting short term side effect of the "Women in STEM" push, as advocated in particular by various tech companies. Long term of course this would balance out, but you'd still have a net positive change in supply of workers until it did.

Equally interesting is the venn diagram of those companies and the ones who have come under fire (for the most consequence-free definition of 'fire') in the last decade for colluding with one another via anti-poaching agreements to keep wages suppressed.