Natira, the ruler of that world that was actually an asteroid hurtling through space.
The attorney that prosecuted Kirk in his court martial.
The Romulan Commander.
Vanna, the leader of the rebel Troglyte miners.
The queen of the Scalosians who wanted to freeze the Enterprise crew and use Kirk to repopulate her world.
Edith Keeler.
T’Pau and T’Pring on Vulcan.
Assistant Federation Commissioner Hedford.
Daras, the hero of the Nazi planet who was actually working for the good guys.
Dr. Miranda Jones, the assistant to the Medusan ambassador.
Kara on Spock’s Brain; the head of a matriarchal society that captures and enslaves men with belts that can torture them at the press of a button.
The Horta.
So a baker’s dozen of mostly single episode characters. And Uhura. Which was notable for the time, really it was. Progressive. Unusual. But was a small number compared to men on the ship, as major characters, and as protagonists.
I said I could only think of a couple. That there were actually more than I could remember does not surprise me. I knew the number wasn’t large though. My suspicion is that actually nearly every one of those few strong woman characters was a battle to get through … other than the Romulan because she had a thing for Spock, and the oh let’s flip the script matriarchy one. Remember that Majel Barrett was originally supposed to be Number One until the network balked at a second in command woman, so she was recast as Nurse Chapel and Spock was created. Roddenberry had to fight to keep Uhura. The few there were battles won; male was default.
First it’s in every show, not just Star Trek. And real life. And people do value puppies and children more than they do men. Outside the elite few men aren’t seen as “lesser”, they are seen as resources, just so much coal to shovel into the furnace. Or they are outright unpersons. Yes, women tend to be treated as “objects”, but men don’t even rate that much.
Also, if killing men isn’t a show of not valuing them, then what is? Killing female characters (as in the previously mentioned example of “fridging”) is considered a sign men are valued more than women, male characters being killed off in greater numbers is also considered a sign that men are more valued.
It seems obvious to me that we are expected to just accept that predetermined conclusion and twist any facts into “evidence” for it. More and more reading this thread I’ve come to the conclusion that as a society we are incapable of actually discussing the issue in the thread title.
In my experience, for a relationship to work, everyone has to be happy. One person sacrificing their happiness for another rarely turns out well in the long term.
The rest of us, on the other hand, are constantly bringing up and seriously discussing in this thread multiple ways in which societal gender norms unjustly penalize men, only to have the discussions derailed by your substantially less hinged melodramatic fantasies about society not valuing men at all.
Meanwhile, of course, in the real world men still speak substantially more than women in public forums, and men are still significantly overrepresented in leadership positions all the way from local business management up to national politics, and psychology studies still consistently find that the same application or essay is rated lower if it has a female rather than a male name on it, and surveys still reveal that significant percentages of the population believe that a man should automatically be deferred to as head of the household, and so on and so on and so on. The notion that men as a group are considered societally worthless is self-evidently ludicrously false.
The degree of baked-in privilege-obliviousness it takes to even entertain such a notion is breathtaking. Jumping from ”deaths of cute helpless puppies and kittens are more sentimentally distressing to moviegoers than deaths of agency-possessing adult male human bystanders” to ”society values puppies and kittens more than men” is just CLUELESS. Like, third-grade-level clueless about the workings of the adult world. Evocation of sentimental pity on the grounds of cuteness and helplessness is not a meaningful proxy for degree of societal value.
It took my husband six years to see an attorney about setting up a trust for our family. It was actually a quote I shared from the Dope that got him to act. His standards are often so exacting that he won’t let me just go do the thing. So I often have to wait for him to feel like he’s ready for things that feel quite urgent to me.
I’m not all there at work and I’m not all there at home. When I get home I often just want to decompress rather than be present with my son. When I’m at work, I’m worried about my kid. I find it really difficult to manage the constant disruptions in my schedule in a way that significantly impacts my productivity. There is zero self-care happening for me. I can’t even remember the last time I cooked myself a balanced meal.
My husband is actually a lot closer to the “do everything” stereotype. He handles a lot of the logistics around our son. He puts effort into things I don’t care about or just forget about, like sending in Halloween treats for all the kids at school. He’s not in the PTA but he’s like PTA Dad.
He also handles most medical appointments.
The reality is I’m the one with ADHD so he holds stuff in his head better than I do. I offered to handle the school stuff and I was doing fine but he took it back over without asking me. I don’t think he is able to let go of control over certain things. I used to take it personally but I don’t really think it’s personal. I think it’s just his personality that he has to check that everything’s going exactly how he wants it to.
I have seen him lighten up a bit with certain things. I did a lot of the legwork for our new house and he was grateful for it. And of course I’ve been handling our finances for years, so he’s been comfortable with that, and it felt like a natural extension for me to do the financial planning for the new place.
His stamina is relentless. He’s like some kind of machine. An agonizingly slow but very reliable machine. I’m ready to tap out by the afternoon and he just keeps going. He’s a highly engaged father. He’s also currently not working a full time case load and super behind on his work. But at home, he’s showing up. That’s going to make a huge difference to our kid. The upshot though is that compared to him I feel like I’m pretty shit. I have felt that way pretty much since the day my son was born.
I’m confused that I might be posting in the wrong thread. I thought someone upthread said that women are always telling men to suck it up when they don’t get what they expected from life. That might have been the TV thread?
I think men and women have never particularly been high in empathy for one another, but it seems like this hasn’t improved much over the last few decades. I think women show less empathy for men than they used to. It is partly because they are tired of caring for the men in their lives without reciprocation. It is partly because the discourse has grown particularly nasty. People are feeling alienated along gender lines in part because of the media but also because there is a growing schism between what women expect and what men expect from a relationship.
My particular relationship is not gender-stereotypical. Our roles and responsibilities have more to do with our personalities than our genders. The inequalities are there because of social inequality, not a battle of the sexes. My husband and I have empathy for each other, though we process emotions differently. He has very high what I think is called cognitive empathy and mine is more emotional. We have discussed these differences with each other before. I literally feel what others feel, like a mirror. He has some kind of filter which makes him not feel others’ feelings but still feel for them. It’s wonderful in a crisis situation. I collapse like a paper cup.
We’re in the middle of an empathy problem as a culture. It’s not going to solve everything, but it would help. If men are saying they’re having a hard time, it’s probably worth listening. The reality is that we can’t really do society without each other. We’re either going to figure it out, or we’re all going down together.
The idea that anxiety or perfectionism is a “woman thing” is difficult for me to process because it runs directly counter to my experience. My husband worries about different things but we’re both on the worry boat together.
Yah I know women are supposed to be skilled at that but I can’t do it at ALL. I do have cognitive empathy and am good at validating feelings and being supportive and providing a shoulder to cry on etc., but this whole mirroring-emotions thing is just like… wut.
And yes, I agree that women and men have to be supportive of each other, in whatever form that empathy takes. Another part of the problem, ISTM, is that society serms to be about evenly divided on whether women should be (1) supporting men in moving beyond traditional gender roles and having the freedom to be a man in lots of different ways, or (2) supporting men in reclaiming their traditional gender roles and restoring male headship in family and society, emphasizing more rigid gender differences.
These two expectations are fairly mutually incompatible. So whichever way women are trying to support men, half of society is going to be pissed at them for undermining men.
Is it though? About evenly divided? Funny enough just read this, and specific to that question not so?
Only about one-third of Americans think the country would be improved by a return to 1950s ideals about traditional gender roles. Another 45% say it would be worse – up from 34% in 1997, a shift that’s mostly due to a growing consensus among American women.
In any case I don’t think they have to be mutually incompatible. If a man and woman find each who want to be 1950’s gender roles, then fine for them. It wasn’t what has worked in my family but I’m not going to judge. I just ask they not judge us for our choices either. My version of being a man Includes cooking and keeping the laundry going, and doing my best to be supportive of my wife’s professional career. They don’t have to choose that for themselves any more than we needed to choose their path.
It’s probably a good thing. I’ve had times where I was so overwhelmed by another person’s emotions I was unable to help them effectively. When you are as emotional as I am, it can be a hindrance, even for basic productivity. My husband told me it’s because of my mirror neurons. I also have empathy for people that you arguably shouldn’t have empathy for.
I used to be a lot worse, though.
What we are seeing reflected in online culture is that a fair contingent of men want all the benefits of gender equality without the trade-offs. So there are manosphere gurus specifically catering to men who are looking for feminist partners who will allow them to express their emotions and not be defined solely as men, but their plan is to push this feminist partner into a more traditional role and assign all household and child care tasks to her.
In other words, rather than try to reconcile the growing mismatch in expectations between men and women, some men are just opting to deceive women. It is like a more complicated form of pick up culture.
My husband has learned about this through his male clients, many of whom are thoroughly plugged into the manosphere.
Yeah both have to want the same thing … so not a shock they are not finding partners. Reality remains though that especially (and exclusively) among the more highly educated male population the expectation is of a more split of household and childcare tasks. My observation is that the bigger driver of the woman doing is coming from the woman partner, internalizing the doing everything messaging of being runner of the house while also being CEO (of getting her PhD). I doubt you are alone in experiencing a partner’s competence in that domain as “compared to him I feel like I’m pretty shit.” And his knowing that doing the job does that and not doing the job feels like not helping is an unintended double bind. Reality of course you are a mutually complementary team.
Yes, I meant to clarify that I don’t think I’m a bad parent, I just think he’s a better one. At least in certain ways. But ultimately i think that it’s okay if we are good at different things. I’ve even read it’s good for kids to have parents coming at parenting from different angles. My husband has more stamina but he also gets more easily riled up when the boy is misbehaving. So it balances I guess.
While I think you can sort of generalize about how women are and how men are, I have a hard time with gender stereotypes. In the course of my lifetime I have known so many different kinds of men.
Yet it’s hard to have a coherent discussion about this without generalizing somewhat.
My general attitude toward life is that you get the hand you are dealt and sometimes it’s unfair, but you’ve gotta play it the best you can anyway. So any solution to these problems - any of them, really - looks like one part social change and one part accountability. The reality is a lot of these guys feeling frustrated and unhappy with their lot in life are not doing anything proactive about it, and they are shifting blame onto other people. This does not work.
To use the Barbie America Ferrera rant mentioned upthread, I was so frustrated with that monologue because so much of it is stuff where women can actually just decide not to play that game. Especially educated professional women who are not economically dependent on men. We have a cousin who is quite religious who could not find a religious man that satisfied her needs, so instead of compromising her values, she got IVF and is now a happy single mother.
There are two parts to this. 1. This sucks and it’s unfair and it totally makes sense you feel this way. 2. What are you going to do to make your life better?
There’s always something that can be done. I really believe that.
Oh, and 3. How can I help? Because I will. I’m willing to take accountability for my part in it too.
