# The "feminization" of America: is Howard Stern on to something? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 26, 2001, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-feminization-of-america-is-howard-stern-on-to-something/83846 "2001-09-26T02:25:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-feminization-of-america-is-howard-stern-on-to-something/83846/61 "2001-09-27T20:12:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dale The Bold \* > \*\* . . . if there is a guy like that who thinks he’s all big and bad and can’t wait to pummel anything that moves, I’d have no trouble sending him to the front lines (this was the point of my original post). The guy who has this attitude is neither valid nor masculine, but if he has such strong desire to fight, we can certainly accommodate him. \*\* Have you ever been in the military? I have not, but I have spent my entire life around people who have been or currently are. I can assure you that this is the **last** kind of person that most people in command of troops want on the front lines. There is a reason that basic training teaches things like discipline and orderliness. Besides, most guys who think they’re all big and bad really aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-feminization-of-america-is-howard-stern-on-to-something/83846/62 "2001-09-27T20:37:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HairyPotter \* > \*\* > > To anyone who suggests that “feminization” is “soft” I suggest (only rhetorically) that you try to harm a child in the presence of their Mother. \*\* Are you trying to tell me that all those men who abuse their children do so without the knowledge of the mother? > [@](#): > > \*\* > The belief that feminism inhibits the ability of our society to “win the war against terrorism” is a very misguided prejudice. Feminism equates only to people wanting equal opportunities, regardless of gender. I don’t believe that “feminization” impacts the desire to protect oneself or one’s society. It may, however, impact one’s desire to come out shooting first and ask questions later. \*\* You’re going to have to make up your mind here. If it only applies to people wanting equal opportunities what does that have to do with not wanting to come out shooting first? Nothing. So if feminism does impact those kind of decisions then it is more then gender equality isn’t it? > [@](#): > > \*\* > I believe that the “fighting violence with exposure to violence” amounts to pouring gasoline on a fire; it will have a dramatic effect on the problem, but not the desired effect. Encouraging individuals to avoid violence, when possible, discourages terrorism. \*\* We’ve tried avoiding violence and now we no longer have the World Trade Towers. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I beleive that de-feminizing America may actually increase the likelihood of terrorism from within our society. Patriarchal, “manly” traits promote the suppression of people, which fits nicely with the goals of terrorists. \*\* Patriarchal, “manly” traits promoted the Bill of Rights and recognized that individuals did have rights. I won’t make claims as to the perfection of attitudes or the documents written in the 1700’s. However without the manly concept thta all men were created equal there would never have been feminism, would there? > [@](#): > > \*\* > We can promote feminism in our society without letting our guard down against terrorism. Feminism does not affect anyone’s willingness to defend themselves or their society. \*\* That’s now what you said above. So feminism is more then just wanting gender equality? Marc ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-feminization-of-america-is-howard-stern-on-to-something/83846/63 "2001-09-28T00:01:51Z")
**MGibson:** \*You’re going to have to make up your mind here. If it [feminism] only applies to people wanting equal opportunities what does that have to do with not wanting to come out shooting first? Nothing. So if feminism does impact those kind of decisions then it is more then gender equality isn’t it? \* Um, I think the root of the problem here may be that we’re mixing up our “waves” of feminism. 🙂 If my broad picture of the history of the women’s movement is sorta correct, then the term “feminism” came into wide use a few decades ago with the connotation of what’s now called “first wave feminism”, which put a lot of stress on equality of opportunity and the idea that women could do most things men could do (and many more things than society currently approved of their doing) and shouldn’t be shoehorned into a domestic, supportive role just because they were women. Then “second wave” feminism started stressing somewhat different aspects of gender issues, arguing that there are some important intrinsic differences between men and women, and that male-dominated society should change somewhat to reflect those “natural” differences, rather than just requiring women to act and think exactly “like men” whenever they took on what had traditionally been a man’s role. (I put those phrases in quotes because I’m pretty dubious about this line of reasoning: it seems that “intrinsic” differences between different individual members of each sex are at least as great as the differences between individual men and women.) So you can’t really tell which type of feminism, or what blend of types of feminism, is being referred to by the label “feminist” without getting more deeply into these issues. To some people the word still means mostly gender-equality, equal-pay-for-equal-work type principles, and to others it means a general repudiation of “masculine” traits, and to most feminists it probably means a very complex mix of ideas on a broad range of related subjects. It may not really be possible to “make up one’s mind” about any simple and concise definition of “feminism”. \*‘I believe that the “fighting violence with exposure to violence” amounts to pouring gasoline on a fire; it will have a dramatic effect on the problem, but not the desired effect. Encouraging individuals to avoid violence, when possible, discourages terrorism.’ We’ve tried avoiding violence and now we no longer have the World Trade Towers. \* Hmm, I don’t think we can really describe ourselves as having been “avoiding violence”. We fought a war in Iraq, we took part in the conflicts in Eastern Europe, we bombed targets in the so-called “Operation Monica”, and so forth; and of course we have also continued to support with public and private funds a good deal of violence carried out by other regimes and groups. It’s true that most of this (except the Gulf War) didn’t really involve most Americans actively **wanting** violence or rooting for it; in most cases, I think most of us didn’t even know very much about it or pay very much attention to it. But from the viewpoint of the rest of the world, I doubt that they would describe us as “avoiding violence”. So I don’t think I quite buy what you seem to be arguing, i.e., that terrorists struck at us because they felt confident we wouldn’t hit back. I don’t think terrorists think that way. After all, terrorist organizations have been striking for years and decades at various governments all over the world that continually and forcefully hit back at them. Violent reprisals don’t have a very good track record at making terrorists just give up and go away. \*Patriarchal, “manly” traits promoted the Bill of Rights and recognized that individuals did have rights. I won’t make claims as to the perfection of attitudes or the documents written in the 1700’s. However without the manly concept thta all men were created equal there would never have been feminism, would there? \* I dunno that the idea of “manliness” is really any more clearly defined than the idea of “feminism”. The ideal of the universal brotherhood and equality of man seems to me not really so much “patriarchal” as rooted in the Christian concepts of the teachings of Jesus, who is not usually portrayed (except maybe in _Paradise Lost_ :)) as the macho dominant male. ---
**Author:** ![HairyPotter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@HairyPotter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HairyPotter)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-feminization-of-america-is-howard-stern-on-to-something/83846/64 "2001-09-28T00:28:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by HairyPotter \* > > \*\* > > > > To anyone who suggests that “feminization” is “soft” I suggest (only rhetorically) that you try to harm a child in the presence of their Mother. > > \*\* > > Are you trying to tell me that all those men who abuse their children do so without the knowledge of the mother? Domestic violence is all about control. The agressor works over time to undermine the self-confidence of the victim. Psychological dominance preceeds physical violence. Once physical violence commences, the phychological battle has been won, the victim has usually been brainwashed into thinking she is worthless and to blame for all family problems, and that she deserves the abuse she is receiving. Furthermore, the victim is justifiably frightened for her life, because women are frequently murdered by their abusers when they try to escape from the abusive situation. Many women are pushed to take the risk and leave the abusive situation when the abuser starts harming the children. Some victims kill the abuser and end up in prison. Many are too beaten down physically and emotionally to defend themselves or their children. Thus, I would have to say that you are correct in assuming that some women are aware that their abuser is abusing their children, and feel unable to do anything about it. Only an emotionally sterile monster would label such women as uncaring or not protective of their children. I’m curious, does striking a woman give you a sense of power and control? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-feminization-of-america-is-howard-stern-on-to-something/83846/65 "2001-09-28T02:20:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > So you can’t really tell which type of feminism, or what blend of types of feminism, is being referred to by the label “feminist” without getting more deeply into these issues. \*\* Bingo. I also don’t like words such as liberal or conservative because as the word is used it doesn’t really mean much. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Hmm, I don’t think we can really describe ourselves as having been “avoiding violence”. We fought a war in Iraq, we took part in the conflicts in Eastern Europe, we bombed targets in the so-called “Operation Monica”, and so forth; \*\* In the specific cases I mentioned we have certainly avoided exposing Americans to violence as much as possible. During “Operation Monica” we lobbed a few missiles and didn’t accomplish anything. So yes I’d argue that our aversion to violence has convinced many people that the United States is in fact a paper tiger. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-feminization-of-america-is-howard-stern-on-to-something/83846/66 "2001-09-28T02:24:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HairyPotter \* > \*\*I’m curious, does striking a woman give you a sense of power and control? \*\* Yes, and I also enjoy drowning kittens, kicking puppies, and stealing candy from babies. You’re question was uncalled for and offensive in the extreme. If you want go down that road I suggest you take it to the Pit. Marc ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-feminization-of-america-is-howard-stern-on-to-something/83846/67 "2001-09-28T02:31:46Z")
There’s plenty of room for saying “Hey, you forgot to define your terms”, but it seems to me that if you’re going to start off with the assertion that America is being or has been “feminized”, or that its boys have been or are being “feminized”, you end up looking pretty silly protesting, farther down, that other people are “making unfair generalizations when you say such-and-such characteristics are ‘patriarchal’”. Certainly most feminists do not believe there are a collection of evil characteristics built into the male form itself. Were this not so, I would not be enamored of feminism, since I’m male myself. At the same time, to the same extent that you can count on us knowing what you mean when you say “feminized”, I think it is fair for us to say you know what “patriarchal” values and priorities are. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-feminization-of-america-is-howard-stern-on-to-something/83846/68 "2001-09-28T17:56:33Z")
**MGibson:** \*In the specific cases I mentioned we have certainly **avoided exposing Americans to violence** as much as possible. During “Operation Monica” we lobbed a few missiles and didn’t accomplish anything. So yes I’d argue that our **aversion to violence** has convinced many people that the United States is in fact a paper tiger. \* (Emphasis mine.) Wait a sec here, I think we may be conflating two separate notions with very important differences. To be “averse to exposing Americans to violence” is not the same thing as being “averse to violence”. In fact, the kind of military attacks that are safest for American personnel (like the air strikes in Kosovo and Iraq) tend to be the most indiscriminate with regard to targets, and the most likely to inflict violence unintentionally on non-combatant victims. (In the same vein, the “Operation Monica” bombings did actually accomplish the destruction of a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant that was never actually shown to have any connection to terrorists, but **was** very important in manufacturing medicines. Once again, that ended up hurting a lot of people we didn’t mean to hurt, which doesn’t make us look good.) So I still don’t think it’s really justified to describe U.S. policy as “averse to violence”, or that we’re widely perceived as a “paper tiger”. It might be more apt to say that many people perceive us as a “mean but blind tiger”: when someone pulls our tail, we lash out with claws and teeth, but we can’t really tell and don’t very much care whom we get, as long as we get somebody. I think this is exactly how terrorists want us to be perceived, since they can use that in their spiel that we’re all cruel and dangerous oppressors who don’t care whom we hurt as long as we get our own way, so they must launch a holy war against us, blah blah blah. That’s why I think we need to be really, really careful and restrained about the use of violence, because whatever we do that attacks innocent victims (however unintentionally) will in the long run end up creating more terrorists than it kills. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-feminization-of-america-is-howard-stern-on-to-something/83846/69 "2001-09-28T17:59:54Z")
**MG:** _Yes, and I also enjoy drowning kittens, kicking puppies, and stealing candy from babies._ Hang on a minute here, I thought we established the last time we discussed this that it was **kittens** you liked to kick. Get it right, **Marc** , willya? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![easy\_e](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/eb8c5e/32.png) [@easy\_e](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/easy_e)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-feminization-of-america-is-howard-stern-on-to-something/83846/70 "2001-10-04T23:40:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by don willard \* > \*\* Yes we are soft and also soft in the head. Our children reach college with only 15% knowing how to read at their age level, for instance, and about the same per cent know even simple geography or can do ordinary arithmetic. > \*\* Cites? \*\* > [@](#): > > student evaluation of teachers even in college > \*\* Have you sat in on a college lecture? Especially at a high-profile research university? Do you realize that some college professors are–gasp–_bad educators_ ? Do also realize that even if a professor gets bad evaluations, there are often few repercussions? \*\* > [@](#): > > The grades zoomed up so now almost half the grades given in the average college are A’s with a few B’s thrown in. > \*\* I don’t want to turn into a broken record, but do you have some cites for this? \*\* > [@](#): > > The rest of the teachers are assigning “projects” and “portfolios” and students get points in college mainly for these things, that involve handing things in AND FOR ATTENDANCE AND GOOD BEHAVIOR!!! > \*\* There are some things that you can’t evaluate any other way. I live with an art major–the only way I can see for her to be meaningfully graded is by creating a portfolio. I am an engineering student. I am in my fifth semester of design. This involves working on a “project” up to 10-15 hours a week. I get one credit for this. \*\* > [@](#): > > Professors are supposed to submit detailed syllabi announcing when every test will be so students can evade them and do makeup. Nobody takes attendance in college and the students come and go as they please, half of them are usually tardy. And they eat and drink noisy foods while the “professors” are lecturing or otherwise holding class. > The syllabi have to state just how much per cent is given for every little thing and only 15% is for grades on tests, in most cases. > \*\* Syllabi are generally useful. For instance, they allow me to plan my readings accordingly. Some of my classes state in the timetable that tests will be in the evening, and reccomend that students not take the class if they would be unable to attend because _no make-up exams would be given_. Most of my classes schedule “make-up” exams _before_ the regularly-scheduled exam. I am confused–earlier you seemed angry that grades were based on attendance, now you’re mad that no one takes attendance. What is the point of taking attendance if it doesn’t influence grades. I’ll admit, I have skipped class. And either I’m capable of recovering from the mistake, or I realize that it was not a good thing to do and suffer as a result. So I say “I’m paying, and I have to deal with the consequences of my actions.” As to your allegations about grading, here are some examples: Stat 541: 20% homework, 2 exams, 20% each, one final 40% Mechanical Engineering (ME) 231: 30% lab assignments, 70% exams ME 418: okay, I don’t have that syllabus with me. I believe it’s something like 15% homework and 85% exams Biochem 501: all exams (3 midterms @ 100 pts, 1 final at 150 pts). Maybe I’m an exception, but that’s why you shouldn’t throw generalizations around. \*\* > [@](#): > > he commented that in all his engineering courses at several universities he has never encountered anybody but “foreigners, like me,” as he put it. > \*\* Again, a generalization. I am a white female in engineering. Holy shit, stop the presses. Yes, there is a concentration of international students in the sciences. And yes, it’s probably due to different educational systems. Yes, we need to intensify our programs. But as I will mention later, many students are quite capable of stepping-up the intensity of their education. \*\* > [@](#): > > Our youths are not taking up anything challenging and aren’t interested in anything but “fun and excitement” > \*\* I guess you didn’t meet some of my high school classmates, who were taking calculus classes most people don’t reach until their 3rd semester in college. Or the people who got college credit by taking 6 AP exams over their high school career (oops, I didn’t mean me, did I?). Or the people who worked in high school, while doing these things (me again?). Or the students who work part-time jobs while taking full credit loads. Given that all of my professors recommend that I spend 2 hours outside of class for every one hour inside class, that works out to 15 hours in class + 30 hours outside of class + 13 hours of work = 58 hours per week. And I didn’t even include drinking time! Lots of stuff cut. I really should be studying. \*\* > [@](#): > > However, we must not generalize too much. > \*\* You realize this? \*\* > [@](#): > > When I cross the border from Metropolitan Chicago into Wisconsin there is an immediate difference in the people, including in the teenagers. Even the ones who are already disfigured by obligatory tattoos and piercings ARE POLITE. I can’t understand this, because American tv and movies have so homogenized people that they CAN’T be different from one place to another. Yet they are. You go into a store and the teenager in charge ACTUALLY LOOKS AT YOU, SMILES, AND SAYS HI!!! In the CMA or Chicago Metropolitan Area they don’t even look at you but talk with each other and slouch around in offensive outfits when they are not on the phone with their friends. \*\* Oh, I get it. It’s because I live in Wisconsin! I’m usually not like this, but when I see someone spout off some crap like this, I just can’t help myself. I know I shouldn’t resort to an ad hominem attack, but when I read what **don willard** has been saying, and how he’s said it, I wonder how much time he spent on his studies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-feminization-of-america-is-howard-stern-on-to-something/83846.md?page=3)