Okay, and I think they are more prevalent than Kimstu thinks. I think they are prevalent enough to do real damage to the feminist movement. And I think they are growing.
BTW, if anyone is reacting to the headline, I took it directly from the article, and authors of articles don’t write headlines anyway, editors do, and they have to write short, provocative ones.
It really should say “Some feminists treat men badly” or even “A few feminists treat men badly.” It’s not meant to imply all, or even many.
Some people think they aren’t heard unless they yell and shout. And, in the case of oppressed people, historically, they have a point. You need some yellers and shouters, because “speak softly and carry a big stick” only works if you have a big stick. And if you are female, or black, or trans - you don’t usually have a big stick.
To me, the important thing is that no side gets their panties too bunched up over stupid shit (god, I hate the idea of microaggressions) - understand that sometimes inappropriate humor is funny (both the stepsisters in Cinderella and the suitors in Brave are funny - the “Indians” in Peter Pan are just offensive to modern eyes). To listen - the original essay that brought mansplaining to the foreground was about a man explaining this important book to a woman - who was the author of the book. And he hadn’t even read it - even well intentioned people - men and women - sometimes are guilty of weighting a man’s opinion over a woman’s - its part of our conditioning, so just be aware.
Breaking the cycle means recognizing that it is never everyone. It is seldom black and white. It is often not intentional. And EVERYONE carries baggage. Acknowledge yours, and acknowledge that the person you are taking to has theirs.
By all means they should yell and shout. But this is about what they yell and shout. Yelling sexist attacks makes things even worse than if they didn’t yell at all. It undermines their message and makes them hypocrites.
I’m fine with that. But there’s too problems. First, there are some vicious, evil attacks that go far beyond humor or “stupid shit,” and second, as you note, many feminists have established the idea that the slightest “microagression” is unacceptable. That was their idea. They need to fix that amongst themselves before they expect everyone else to get over it.
How do you know the reason he was a jerk was because he’s a man? How do you know the reason he was a jerk was because he was talking to a woman? Maybe he’s just a jerk. To see a jerk talking and read gender into it is classic sexism.
Breaking the cycle means breaking the cycle. Just don’t do it. Don’t make excuses either.
Sure, sometimes there are gray areas. Sometimes there are unintentional slights. And everyone has baggage. But the point is to try to improve on those things.
Actually, microaggressions wasn’t feminists. That one came out of racial equality movements. I think its stupid - regardless of who is using the term.
Granted, sometimes people are “unintentionally offensive” - as the mom of an adopted Asian kid, I have a lifetime of correcting “unintentionally offensive” - but the idea is to let people know what “is he really YOUR kid” could be taken as offensive, not accuse them of being offensive.
At the same time, to break the cycle, all participants must agree that this isn’t an eye for an eye. Sure - some feminists are aggressive dipshits. And sure, some men are assholes - and for reasonable people who are men and women to roll their eyes and say “sometimes I wish those people weren’t on my side.”
I’m really sorry that this phenomenon exists. Honestly. I wish it didn’t. But your beef seems to be with the people who have observed, named, and discussed the phenomenon, rather than those who are actually engaging in it. It’s misplaced.
Again, you go astray. The phenomenon we are discussing is gendered. Naming it thusly is not sexist. It’s like arguing that calling the movement ‘feminism’ is sexist because it’s a gendered name.
Well, my point was not that we shouldn’t worry about them at all—as you noted, all negative stereotypes deserve to be called out as such and we should strive to have zero of them—but just that we need to take into account the “exaggeration factor” produced by the disproportionate perceptual impact of reverse sexism.
Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of the media male-bashing people are complaining about here is appearing in commercial advertising, which is a marketing phenomenon rather than a feminism one. Advertisers, as I noted above, are well aware that people notice and remember disparaging stereotypes of men, precisely because they’re perceived as anomalous in a culture that’s traditionally male-dominated.
Which is not an uncommon argument, actually. Good shape all around.
Who was all that surprised? I mean, having the goofy suitors was about as integral to the plot as the maliciousness of Cinderella’s stepsisters and stepmother.
I actually think the whole girl power aspect of *Brave *might have been pointed up even more had the suitors actually been attractive and competent; her rejection of them would have been less “I don’t want to play the proper role, AND I certainly don’t want to be betrothed to one of these buffoons”, and more of “I don’t want to play the role, no matter how good of a match these guys may be.”
I concur with the other posters who see the primary danger of the stereotyping of the average American male as some kind of barely functional man-child, as being that it sets the bar too low for BOTH sexes. I mean, it conditions boys to aim low, and it conditions girls to not expect much more out of them either. It’s like the opposite of all the heroic archetypes we’ve seen for hundreds of years- it’s unrealistic expectations in the opposite direction.
Well, apparently a number of commentators were quite concerned about it.
[QUOTE=bump]
I actually think the whole girl power aspect of *Brave *might have been pointed up even more had the suitors actually been attractive and competent; her rejection of them would have been less “I don’t want to play the proper role, AND I certainly don’t want to be betrothed to one of these buffoons”, and more of “I don’t want to play the role, no matter how good of a match these guys may be.”
[/quote]
Well, the author of the above-linked article addresses that too:
I think the suitors’ lack of appeal was a crucial part of propelling Merida’s (ultimately immature and ill-advised) reaction to her situation. She did what she did not because she was steadfastly determined to control her own destiny, but because she felt trapped and besieged in an intolerable situation and in desperation decided to cheat her way out of it by essentially roofying her mom.
[QUOTE=bump]
I concur with the other posters who see the primary danger of the stereotyping of the average American male as some kind of barely functional man-child, as being that it sets the bar too low for BOTH sexes.
[/quote]
Agreed; as I said at the outset, I think these stereotypes are offensive and irritating too. My caveat was just that
A) these stereotypes are not actually as prominent in the overall media depiction of men as we might think they are, and
B) these stereotypes are largely driven by advertisers seeking a profitable “shock factor” rather than by feminists.
If anyone can “observe, name and discuss” a phenomenon that involves assigning certain behavior to a certain gender, then feminism is dead.
Of course it’s sexist. It couldn’t be more sexist. It’s like you don’t know what sexism means.
Some men overexplain things to women. But some men don’t. And some men do it to other men. And some women do it too.
It’s not fun, or easy, refraining from sexism. But it’s your responsibility.
And one could do that too.
I’m confused. How does your second statement not contradict your first one?
Are you actually trying to say marketing isn’t a feminist issue? Feminists don’t care about it?
Still doesn’t make it right, just like with disparaging ads targeting women, which also might be noticed and remembered.
Is there some reason it’s excusable because it’s done in commercials? Advertisers care deeply about how their messages are received by the public. They run focus groups, target specific demographics, and measure the results carefully. Get it wrong and there are millions of dollars at stake. They are experts at what they do.
Here’s an interesting article about a certain commercial. A man is in the cough-syrup aisle of a drugstore, bewildered by the choices. An orangutan comes in, used the handy Robitussin app on his phone to analyze his symptoms and pick the right remedy. The man looks on, impressed. He is dumber than an ape.
The ad was redone when people complained. PETA was upset that they had used a real orangutan, so it was reshot using an actor dressed as a chimpanzee.
I don’t think those sorts of portrayals are anomalous at all. I think they go unnoticed and unremarked on because they have become so common.
If it only impacted men would it somehow be okay? But point out that it also impacts women and that will get people to pay attention.
Certainly not. I am happy to go on repeating the true statements “I think male-bashing stereotypes are irritating and offensive too” and “All negative stereotypes deserve to be called out as such and we should strive to have zero of them” as often as people ask for my opinions on those subjects.
The point about the commercials is just that putting male-bashing stereotypes in commercials because they tend to stick in people’s minds is a marketing ploy, not a feminist position.
[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
Advertisers care deeply about how their messages are received by the public. They run focus groups, target specific demographics, and measure the results carefully. Get it wrong and there are millions of dollars at stake. They are experts at what they do.
[/quote]
Absolutely, and one of the things they are expert at doing is raising public awareness of their product by associating it with memorable, provocative and even irritating images. It’s a tremendously effective technique. More than four decades later, I still remember that it’s Winston brand cigarettes that allegedly “taste good, like a cigarette should”, because of the widespread tut-tutting among grammar sticklers inspired by the advertiser’s deliberate use of “like” instead of “as”.
No, what I’m very clearly saying is that anti-male stereotypes used to sell products in commercial advertisements are a marketing ploy, not a feminist position. The “dumb dad” in an aspirin commercial isn’t there because of feminism, he’s there because the PR firm wants the viewer to remember the aspirin brand name.
Easily. The first statement says that all negative stereotypes are bad, and the second statement says that sometimes we incorrectly estimate the number or proportion of a certain kind of negative stereotypes because of their particular emotional impact. Those two statements are not only not contradictory, they’re about two separate (although related) issues.
Yep. Welcome to the advertising world. Feminists have been banging their heads against sexism in advertising for years. Welcome to the fight - its kind of trench warfare, very little progress has been made over fifty years, but we welcome allies. Perhaps we will reach some sort of critical mass where all people are treated with respect in advertising, regardless of gender or gender identity, race, age, marital status or how hot they look going through a meat grinder.
It may not be a feminist position to promote these stereotypes, but I don’t see them doing anything to stop them, either. I don’t see that most people even notice.
Yes, but some provocative and irritating images are off-limits and generate an outcry, and some don’t.
I think there’s another factor at work here, too. I’ve heard over the years that women make the majority of purchasing decisions (a quick search puts the number at 85%). That gives them power and influence in the marketplace. Advertisers’ are experts, and they know who to tailor their messages to. They must think that women won’t object to commercials with negative portrayals of men.
Feminists have been banging their heads against certain sexism in advertising for years, and I think they’ve made considerable progress.
We will have to disagree there. I’d say we’ve made some progress. Considerable?
We’ve still got a considerable way to go.
By the way, getting there does NOT include just turning around to objectify men. That men are being objectified in advertising is only good in that it might increase their awareness of women being objectified in advertising. But it isn’t good. Equal opportunity objectification is not what I’ve been working towards.
(Though I might make an exception for Marvel superhero movies. Just for aesthetic purposes, mind you).
What you ARE doing is making virtually every post about feminism you make on this board be a criticism of feminists. If every post I made about you was critical, you’d be forgiven for thinking I didn’t actually support you.
Of course. Same with anti-female ads. But so what? We already know that. They’re still wrong.
Okay.
I don’t care what you think about me. I have told you that I believe in feminism, strongly. You need to have the respect to take my word at face value. I don’t have to post a certain number of “pro-feminism” posts to prove anything to you. This isn’t about me anyway.
That said, my criticisms of feminism ARE pro-feminism. I want feminism to get better and be more effective. I find it dismaying when the people on my side make bad arguments or mistakes, or are hypocritical. That’s why I post critical posts of many movements I support. I make them better and stronger. Just saying “go feminism!” all the time is boring anyway. Other people can do that.