It’s not a cure for breast cancer that has been balkanized. It’s women’s issues in general. I believe the entire women’s movement has been balkanized in order to resolve issues pertaining to women. And that’s fine, as far as that goes. Everyone wants to see cancer cured. No one’s going to argue with that. That’s why women have taken up breast cancer funding so overwhelmingly so that the funding for it dwarfs funding for research against other cancers.
But why have women’s issues been balkanized? Why are they being divided into drives against breast cancer, domestic violence, rape laws, childcare, etc. etc.?
Partly, yes, it’s to focus on problems that need fixing. But it also diverts attention away from a larger issue which is unattended. That is the subject that began the women’s movement in the first place. That subject is women’s inequality in society. This is a controversial topic that women (and men) cannot seem to face without contention and rage.
I will ask a question I asked in the other thread. When is the last time you heard the word Chauvanist?
Perhaps it’s been replaced by the word sexist. But that’s a rare word in public discourse today as well.
Real oppression often doesn’t look like people expect it to, I don’t think. Most of the people in this country living in poverty are women and children. Minority women and children are particularly disproportionately poor. I think when you have large demographic trends in inequality, that is evidence of something wrong with the system. Based on our poverty statistics, institutional sexism is pretty much a given to me.
I see evidence that men are limited by their gender roles as well. I think part of the reason men fail to see the oppression of women is that they fail to see their own oppression as well. Just as women oppress other women, men oppress other men. We all end up limited in our understanding of the fullness of what it can mean to be a man or a woman. But I believe that limitation originates in institutional sexism against women. My response to any man who feels the standards for maleness aren’t ‘‘fair’’ is to question where those standards came from and why it’s so godawful bad to do something associated with being female. The denigration of femininity is the reason you are expected to exhibit masculinity. It doesn’t make your oppression less real or more fair. But because this kind of oppression is rooted in the devaluation of women, it only makes sense that the key to liberating yourself is to liberate women.
It’s hard for me to make sense of my own experience. In one sense, I never felt limited in terms of my abilities or interests because of my gender. In another sense, my entire childhood can easily be framed as the oppression, objectification and subjugation of women and even the reality of women in poverty. On the other hand, the domestic violence in my family has been split 50/50 – my mother, father, grandmother, and grandfather all being spousal abusers (in different contexts at different times.) Based upon my experience, I do believe spousal abuse against men goes largely unreported and women frequently get away with violent and aggressive behavior that would land a man’s ass in jail. This is not acceptable. However, this double standard exists because women are supposed to be docile, harmless, silly creatures and therefore should not be taken seriously as a threat. In order for domestic violence against men to be taken seriously, women must be taken seriously.
I also believe sexual abuse and rape happen to women at a much higher rate than our current statistics would indicate. I would estimate based on extensive anecdotal experience that at least half of incidents are not reported. The real perpetrators are friends, fathers, uncles, brothers and cousins, though – not random strangers off the street. Society is seriously dysfunctional when it comes to dealing honestly with child abuse. I am truly saddened that has resulted in discrimination against men.
The two poorest groups are women and children, which means men are better off than either one of them. Makes perfect sense to me, since most single parents are women and they tend to be low income.
No, you couldn’t, because most of those impoverished women are in single-headed households. The reason they are lumped together is because they are lumped together.
Exactly! EXACTLY! This also explains a great deal about homophobia. Why is it do you suppose that gay-bashing is so much worse against male homosexuals than it is against lesbians? Because it is perceived that a gay man is closer in character to a woman, particularly if he is flamboyant. He is lowering himself from manhood, and deserves ridicule and perhaps violence.
This is taken to the extreme in many Latin American countries with even more rigidly ascribed gender roles. I took a Spanish course on homosexuality in the Caribbean, and the overwhelming reality (at least in the 1980s) is that men having sex with other men was not the issue… if you were the top, you weren’t considered deviant, because you were assuming the dominant role. It was the bottom, the flamboyant dresser, the feminized man, who was ridiculed and denigrated and arrested and imprisoned.
Is this really a question? Of course men and women are equal in today’s society. Or rather, they’re as equal as they can be when you account for the inherent differences in men and women.
Look at this thread, most of the points in favor of “women are oppressed” are examples that decry society for not doing enough for women. Or for not having a unified “women’s rights” platform. Well why should their be? Women are not some monolithic block anymore. Wasn’t that the whole point of the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s?
And the fact that your entire OP seems to consist of “Don’t call women cunts” says more about you than it does about any inequality you perceive in the world. You’re looking for inequalities so hard that anything you think might qualify (such as the rape kit nonsense you tried to link to) is seen as the worst thing ever.
But couldn’t you argue that in some ways women are more free because they are less socially sanctioned for acting like a man? I’m not saying that’s necessarily the case. But I do think perhaps it’s a combination. Men who act like women are “sissies” while women who act like men are more accepted. But I’d go so far as to say that it’s also that there’s a more narrow role for how a man acts and deviation from that results in scorn. There’s definitely been a push for the attitude of “A woman can do anything a man can do” and less of that for men and boys.
What I am saying is that there is a deep and persistant contempt for the feminine side of humanity. So deep, so persistant that it cannot be spoken of without raising hackles.
Which is the other side of sexism. The sexism against men. This is also something to be opposed. But to suggest opposing it is to be for the wussifiying of America. In many ways, the fight against sexism is much worse for men. Because it comes from men themselves.
But think, why is wussifying such a horrible, horrible thing? A fate worse than death as far as macho men are concerned? It is because there is a deep-seated contempt for all things feminine.
Speaking about gender roles and of women hating women take a look at this. I posted this to a BBQ Pit thread recently. The lovely lady Dr. Alice von Hildebrand is one of the most respected religious “thinkers” of modern times.
I do think there is still some contempt for stuff considered feminine. At the same time I think a lot of people who ID as feminists go too far in the opposite direction, of seeing sexism when I don’t think it’s quite warranted.
I see people analyzing fashion pictures and saying that because there are poses where the models look dead or victimized, that this is deep seated sexism. I’ve seen people say that they felt unsafe from seeing billboards where a man is leering at a woman. Or that this Dolce & Gabbana ad glorifies rape culture. I guess I’m just not as interested in looking at facets of our culture and reading in some kind of inherent symbol of the patriarchy there.
I think you are misunderstanding what she means by balkanized. She is not saying that the push for breast cancer is a negative thing. She is suggesting that the push for global equal rights has been broken up into separate issues. It is easier to focus on cancer or sexual abuse than to try and tackle the issue of institutional sexism.
That said, I think it was unavoidable. This is a result of the success of the woman’s movement. As the more obvious issues with clear cut solutions and measurements are solved it becomes harder to hold together a general movement. As pay for women stalled out at 75% of male pay and the reasons for the discrepancy became more complex (career and life choices vs. discriminatory policies) it became harder to keep people focused. It is a lot easier to change government policy than to change social norms. But women still wanted to improve their lives and just shifted their focus to things that seemed more immediate.
You can disagree all you want. Just be civil about it. I think my point is more than “Don’t call women cunts”, and if that “says more about me”, so be it.
Go ahead and disagree. Why do you believe things about sexism the way you do?
That doesn’t make sense to me either. We as a society are addressing specific issues. I don’t see how that diverts attention from general issues of equality.
So what?
No it isn’t.
But are you contending that we are not addressing women’s issues because we don’t use the term “sexist” enough? How would htat help?
