So people are criticizing feminists for being aggressive and deliberately offensive (aka not acting like demure, submissive women)?
What was the definition of “sexist” again?
Are these the only 2 behavioral options that you think are available?
Either there’s an excluded middle or feminists have become just as jerkish as they’ve always said men can be (which I’m not sure is something to celebrate).
There’s two things going on here. First, a bunch of people observed that there was this phenomenon going on wherein a bunch of people of a certain gender felt the need to condescendingly overexplain certain ideas, but only to an audience of a certain gender. They wanted to discuss this phenomenon, and one thing that discussing it easier is naming it. That’s one. Two is that they chose a name which contains a reference to the gender doing the condescending overexplaining, and is clearly designed to help someone encountering the word for the first time to understand it easily. So which aspect of this sexist?
I understand those terms, it’s your point which continues to elude me, and presumably, others.
Uh, thanks?
Probably the implication that women don’t condescend to men.
Let’s say someone is offended because I hold hands with a person of the same gender in public. According to your theory I should refrain from doing so again in their presence to avoid hurting their feelings, right?
I can think of a very large number of extremely good reasons to keep the same course of action despite someone being offended by it.
Feeling wronged is purely subjective. Being wronged requires some level of objective assessment, for instance based on generally accepted social norms, or on logic.
For instance : I feel wronged because you talked to another woman, I feel wronged because I dreamt you were cheating on me with another woman, I feel wronged because you actually cheated on me with another woman. These three statements are equally true, but would you argue that the person is indeed wronged in all three cases just because she feels so?
I have to echo **clairobscur **on this one: This kind of “If-someone-is-offended-then-their-sensibilities-must-be-catered-to” philosophy can inadvertently feed all kinds of tyranny. What if someone is offended at the sight of African-American and white children going to school together? Should the school undergo racial segregation to placate the offended person?
I wholeheartedly agree with this. This is the reason that *“Scold or mock someone until they improve!” *rarely works - rather than making someone improve, it often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Shaming someone is rarely an effective approach. If men are depicted as being stupid, then men may believe that being stupid is all that society expects of them, or that the bar is set that low for them and that they don’t have to aim high for anything. Incidentally, I think that certain scenes from Pixar’s *Brave *were vicious in the way that they ridiculed men and boys.
I never said all (of any) of their wishes had to be catered to. I just think it’s dishonest and often hypocritical to acknowledge the feelings of some people and not others. If someone doesn’t want to see African-American and white children going to school together, I’d tell him “too bad, those kids’ access to a fair education, to meet and make friends with kids from different backgrounds, is important. You’ll have to find some way to deal with it, because it’s not going to change.”
Besides which, a lot of these unpopular opinions aren’t asking for any action at all. As far as I know, the guy objecting to the Ghostbusters reboot isn’t asking other people not to go, he’s just stating why he won’t, and still people disagree with him. If you want to keep using the word “mansplaining”, I can’t stop you. But use it knowing that some people find it objectionable, don’t just say “no it isn’t.”
:dubious: While I agree that commercials showing men as clueless doofuses are irritating and offensive, I have to wonder if they’re really that significant a factor in the overall “depiction” of men. The vast majority of authoritative, powerful, prestigious, competent, etc. people depicted in media, both factual and fictional, are still men, after all.
[QUOTE=Velocity]
Incidentally, I think that certain scenes from Pixar’s *Brave *were vicious in the way that they ridiculed men and boys.
[/QUOTE]
You mean, similar to the depiction of the nurse Maudie ridiculing women as dumb, timid and screamy? :dubious:
I think one major reason that negative stereotypes of men loom large as an upsetting element in the public consciousness is that they’re literally so untraditional as to be shocking, so they tend to stick in the mind (which of course is why marketing companies put them in advertisements). Negative stereotypes of women, on the other hand, tend to just blend into the scenery.
For example, when Cinderella’s stepmother and stepsisters are nasty and bitchy, it’s just accepted as part of the plot. But when Merida’s suitors are unattractive klutzes instead of charming princes, it startles people so much that it gets called “vicious” ridicule of “men and boys” in general.
#NotAllFeminists
This one came up on my facebook feed and what pretty much everyone but the guy who posted agreed was, the article does the same thing it accuses feminists of - paints them all with the same brush.
I will say that I’m not fond of the current oppressed person stance of “if you are my ally, you have to sit there and listen to me and support what I say.” And yes #SomeFeminists do that, so do some BLM activists, and some trans activists, and pretty much anyone else. Civil rights is a dialog, and rights mean everyone is entitled to an opinion…the way to piss off your allies is to turn it into a lecture full of accusations against your allies’ group.
But if I can advise guys, from my position as a feminist for - well, now thirty plus years - don’t emulate those people - even other feminists find them problematic. Or the ones that assume if you aren’t one of them, you are inherently not on their side. Enter into a dialog.
I would think that the vast majority of women that consider themselves Femists mean it in the sense of simply being for equal rights.
How many of them are actual activists?
As mentioned, the loudest people get most attention, although the minority, they are not ignored. They are the ones actually pushing change, making campaigns, getting laws and policies enacted.
Brushing them off as ‘just a fringe’ neglects their influence on our society.
Sure. But reality isn’t the only factor in politics. (Sad but true). To explain Trump is not necessarily to excuse him. Noting that some feminists give him and his supporters ammunition to use politically is a legitimate strategic criticism. Don’t let them get away with their bullshit by giving them material to work with.
And there we have it.
Feminists complained that women should not be painted with the same brush.
Then a few of them did the same thing to men.
Then men complained, and some painted all feminists with the same brush.
Now the feminists are complaining.
And round and round it goes.
Perhaps, but that’s not an excuse. It’s not a numbers game. Even if portrayals of women as (insert negative stereotype) is rare, it’s still wrong. We should strive for zero.
That’s absurd. And, ironically, it is sexist.
Could you simplify that please? Maybe with examples? I don’t get what you’re saying, and it’s better that you explain than I try, and fail, to figure it out. You seem determined to complicate things that aren’t that complicated.
Okay.
I don’t think that matters much. If they aren’t very prevalent, that’s great, but they’re still wrong. One could say “they aren’t very prevalent so we shouldn’t worry so much about them,” but that’s different.
Yes. That’s the first sexist part.
Both.
Generalizing based on sex is sexist. Giving it a gendered name is sexist.
It’s really not rocket science.
No.
They are criticizing PEOPLE for being JERKS.
There was no attack on feminists, or women. Just people who act like jerks, in this case, jerks who happen to be talking about gender in a sexist, and therefore also hypocritical, way.
And there was no mention whatsoever of asking them to be “demure.” That was bullshit you threw in.
Did you even read the article?
“They aren’t very prevalent so we shouldn’t worry so much about them” is how I read many of the responses, such as Kimstu’s.