RE: Feminism

RE: Feminism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 6:30:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf ~FR~ I thought part of feminism was about the choice of a female to live her life as she pleases, enjoying equitable treatment? If that is so, why impose that they should not be this or that because it promotes something that someone else objects to? "Impose" is an interesting term. I don't see any feminist on this thread suggesting that women should be forbidden from pursuing certain activities. I see people noting that certain activities are contrary to the ongoing effort to see women "enjoying equitable treatment." Universal equitable treatment has not been achieved. As long as that is so (realistically, certainly all of our lifetimes), you will have people arguing about where the lines are on what people genuinely want to do and what they are susceptible to do because it is rewarded by the patriarchy (which, in turn, reinforces the patriarchy and decreases the chances of women in general enjoying equitable treatment). Sound silly to you? Probably. But I'm trying to express that these debates aren't about force or imposition, they're about cultural standards and the effects of a critical mass on changing those standards.

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 6:35:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nanshakh There are countries, many a country, developed countries too, where education, higher education, is free. Oh... don't rub it in!

nanshakh -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 7:02:06 PM)
lol - sorry [:)]

ShaktiSama -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 8:05:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne No one looks at cheerleading as a way out of poverty and into millions. Why shouldn't it be a way out of poverty and into millions? Why is a man's body worth more money, more recognition and more social status than a woman's? quote: I just think it's terribly off to treat playing football and being a cheerleader as opposites or complimentary. If they aren't complementary and heavily gendered opposites in a single dynamic, then they need to not be on the same field at the same time. Either that, or the distribution of males and females in both roles needs to be equal. quote: Cheerleading at the highschool, college, and "professional" level (the ladies aren't pros, they're just cheering pros) has a bunch of different issues that we could discuss but I can't summon enough concern to go into it because it just isn't that important. Of course. Cheerleaders aren't important and never will be. Know how you can tell? The announcer never mentions them, and they have no names or numbers on their jerseys, and no future other than spreading their legs in the back of a bus. quote: As for football and what it represents, culturally, that is simply a lot bigger than what cheerleading is. If it is, it is only because men and what their bodies can do to entertain us are far, far overvalued in relation to women and what their bodies can do to entertain us. The level of training, fitness, body type and skill it takes to perform both tasks is roughly equivalent. quote: It's not that I disagree with you that a football game sends cultural signals about what our society rewards. I just think it's uglier and more complicated than what you represent. I don't think I've failed to grant it all the ugliness and complexity it presents, especially given the fact that I'm willing to address both the adult social and economic issues AND the psychologically damaging messages that are being hammered into both small girls and adult women. But if I've missed something, please--tell me. I hate to leave anything out! [:'(]

pyroaquatic -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 8:28:09 PM)
MORE FEMALE FOOTBALL PLAYERS!!! MORE MALE CHEERLEADERS!!! Shakti, you remind me more and more every day why I dislike men on the total. Are things changing though? Do you have to accept the way people treat you because you are a woman? No. Can you change their minds? No, but they can certainly change theirs. ----- Can't make babies without the ladies.... so supreme the male figure is. [8\|]

ShaktiSama -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 8:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic MORE FEMALE FOOTBALL PLAYERS!!! MORE MALE CHEERLEADERS!!! Shakti, you remind me more and more every day why I dislike men on the total. Awwww. Don't say that! I still like men. But from now I think that every guy who asks me to feminize him is going to have to become a cheerleader. With pompoms, the little kicky skirt, and two perky little ponytails. [:D] quote: Are things changing though? Definitely. For the better, very often, and in most places. quote: Do you have to accept the way people treat you because you are a woman? The only women I respect are those who don't, but that's a personal thing. quote: Can you change their minds? Absolutely you can. If you want to be cheered up, Google "Elizabeth Blackwell" and read a short bio of her somewhere. She is one of many reasons that "Feminism" will never be a dirty word, no matter how many evil idiots try to say so.

Andalusite -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 8:41:14 PM)
Elisabella, I went back and read the thread where you brought up men and women being better at different things, and I obviously misinterpreted it! When you brought up women being home-makers and what men and women are good at, it came across as much more absolute at the time. I guess I was a little too tired or something. ShaktiSama, yes, professional football players make more money than professional cheerleaders, but they also make a lot more than either male or female track stars, archery experts, fencers, etc. Comparing sports in which both men and women can be pros, such as golf and tennis, seems far more relevant. In general, I support sports getting some funding, if the institution can afford it, but teacher/professor salaries, library/computer/other resources, and infrastructure are far more important, as LH points out. I don't think that spending an equal amount to the football team is a good idea unless the money is actually used, rather than wasted. As long as the teams are full, they're able to get the equipment they need, a good coach, etc., that is the important thing. I think that setting the dollar amounts like that, for sports with lower facilities expenses, encourages people to be wasteful. Women should be able to try out for any sport they like, including baseball and football. Yes, some children (and adults, for that matter) overtrain and injure themselves, but coaches are becoming more careful and aware, and trying to implement better protective gear, spotting, and not pushing too hard. My coach frequently tells me to take a break or back off a little if I'm trying too hard, and getting tense or exhausted. In general, I think that encouraging people to be active, and to find sports and other forms of exercise they enjoy, is a good thing!

pyroaquatic -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 8:54:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Absolutely you can. If you want to be cheered up, Google "Elizabeth Blackwell" and read a short bio of her somewhere. She is one of many reasons that "Feminism" will never be a dirty word, no matter how many evil idiots try to say so. The Mass of the Typical Male I have met in my life time has always been full of belt notchers-how many women have you done in your life time. It is heartless, but I do not and cannot see the women who are caught between being a prude and a slut the victims. They propagate chauvinism just as much as males.... Just as Femists can be males, females are also quite capable of being chauvinist. Masculinism is a dirty word, even though it propagates the rights of males. I don't think it matters what dangly bits a human has, we are 'dirty' vile creatures. I will disagree with you on the quoted part. You can open the door... but to walk through it. I still like you, though. Aidan is such a lucky boy, bless his heart.

Arrogance -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 9:23:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne No one looks at cheerleading as a way out of poverty and into millions. Why shouldn't it be a way out of poverty and into millions? Why is a man's body worth more money, more recognition and more social status than a woman's? Economics. The NFL is a billion dollar industry. I don't think pro cheerleading would garner that sort of money. Professional crochet though... oh boy!

aidan -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 9:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Absolutely you can. If you want to be cheered up, Google "Elizabeth Blackwell" and read a short bio of her somewhere. She is one of many reasons that "Feminism" will never be a dirty word, no matter how many evil idiots try to say so. The Mass of the Typical Male I have met in my life time has always been full of belt notchers-how many women have you done in your life time. It is heartless, but I do not and cannot see the women who are caught between being a prude and a slut the victims. They propagate chauvinism just as much as males.... Just as Femists can be males, females are also quite capable of being chauvinist. Masculinism is a dirty word, even though it propagates the rights of males. I don't think it matters what dangly bits a human has, we are 'dirty' vile creatures. I will disagree with you on the quoted part. You can open the door... but to walk through it. I still like you, though. It's true that many, many men are still set in the "old ways" that continue the cycle of oppression and dehumanization, but the question you posited wasn't "are things finally perfect", it was "are things getting better", and the answer there is an emphatic yes. The fact of this conversation and thread are proof of that. The number of men who decided not to be fucking barbarians grows everyday. We may still be out numbered, especially among the ruling class and those who set the cadence of our culture, but we're still growing. That's a positive trend. As for the rest of your post...I'm having a hard time parsing it out. Women who are caught between being "a prude and a slut"...It's their fault that's how society at large chooses to categorize women? I'll agree that certainly women propagate patriarchal with extreme vigor sometimes (a cursory glance at this thread will show you that), but I'd argue that most women are, for the most part, getting along to go along. Which is the case for most people when faced with oppressive situations. After that you really lost me. What does Dr. Blackwell have to do with not walking through doors that have been opened? Are you sure you're quoting the section you intended to?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 9:35:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne "Impose" is an interesting term. I don't see any feminist on this thread suggesting that women should be forbidden from pursuing certain activities. Forbidden? No. Made to feel it is wrong by the comments made? Yes. Societal pressure is imposed in the same way that those that are conveying their ideas and judgements, on other females. Is this not validating the method that many speak against? quote: I see people noting that certain activities are contrary to the ongoing effort to see women "enjoying equitable treatment." I agree, I see many stating their opinions and beliefs, from their own personal perspectives. Enough of the same perspective (such as patriacrhy) and it will prevail. If those ideals prevail, is it not a new boss that is the same as the old boss, just in new clothes? quote: Universal equitable treatment has not been achieved. As long as that is so (realistically, certainly all of our lifetimes), you will have people arguing about where the lines are on what people genuinely want to do and what they are susceptible to do because it is rewarded by the patriarchy (which, in turn, reinforces the patriarchy and decreases the chances of women in general enjoying equitable treatment). Sound silly to you? Probably. But I'm trying to express that these debates aren't about force or imposition, they're about cultural standards and the effects of a critical mass on changing those standards. Doesn't sound silly, it sounds idealistic with a very small probability of occuring. Human behavior dictates most things, and as society changes so will humans evolve and adapt, but there is no guarantee that the evolution will go in the way that the pressure is applied. People are different, and it is the differences that gives us our strengths and weaknesses. Two people with opposite strengths and weaknesses, compliment each other to make a whole. There will never be any universal equitable treatment, because not everyone is the same. If I want the best runner, then those with the best stamina and speed will be higher in the selection. It is a fact of life, that cannot be denied. No matter who rules, as long as a duty of care is established and maintained, then they will prevail in their authority. That is natural stratification, and some may deny it but it has been in place for as long as humans have been around. These debates create social force, that does impose the standards of those creating the force. Force that is not imposed, is stagnation. All movement requires force to start, and then momentum to continue. Force is the final arbiter of all things. So as someone states that X just perpetuates some unpleasant thing, as more people state X, believe in X, then X is slowly imposed upon everyone else in some way. So these debates do more than what you say, and it is in ideals that power first gains force.

aidan -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 9:39:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arrogance quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne No one looks at cheerleading as a way out of poverty and into millions. Why shouldn't it be a way out of poverty and into millions? Why is a man's body worth more money, more recognition and more social status than a woman's? Economics. The NFL is a billion dollar industry. This is not a cause. This is an effect. The NFL is a billion dollar industry because a man's prowess is more highly valued than a woman's, not the other way around. We still have to answer the question of why a man's pursuit is more valued than a woman's. This is a phenomenon that's been cropping up a lot in this thread, and in related threads in the past, among people who have the best of intentions in regards to feminism and equality. We (and I mean the royal We, you and me and the gang) are skirting around the underpinning causality of our state of affairs. The formula seems to go like this: "We can't have b because of a," where b is an effect that is parallel with a. There is no deeper probing into why a is so; I would posit that this is because honestly answering that question makes many of us very, very uncomfortable. Scary questions lead to scary answers, more often than not. This is why most comedians and philosophers drink heavily.

Arrogance -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 9:55:03 PM)
I think football is a billion dollar industry because it's very fun to watch and is marketed very well, not any sort of gender-based equation. It's a male-dominated sport because of the physical traits that cause one to be successful in it. People watch it because it's entertaining, not because it validates their sense of macho manliness or bolsters their bravado. I'm all for feminism and equality, I'm a big proponent of both. But I'm just calling this particular one like I see it. I loves me some football.

GoDolphins -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 9:56:32 PM)
The NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry because people want to watch it. The NFL makes more money than Major League Soccer does. Both are men's sports leagues. What is wrong with this picture? I'd say nothing as it simply represents a difference in preference among sports fans but apparently there is something terribly wrong with this picture as apparently every sports league must be getting the same exact amount of attention and money or something is wrong (sounds more like communism than feminism to me, but that's another story). But you can't claim sexism on this one. It's going to say I'm replying to Aiden, but this could really go to a number of people here.

ElWray -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 9:57:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama and no future other than spreading their legs in the back of a bus. I can't tell you how amusing I find it when a so-called feminist spreads more sexist rhetoric than a man ever could.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 10:23:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElWray I can't tell you how amusing I find it when a so-called feminist spreads more sexist rhetoric than a man ever could. I can't tell you how much it doesn't amuse me when people mistake sexist realities for sexist rhetoric. Feminists are often bashed by people who don't like being reminded of reality; I'm pretty familiar with the "Shoot the Messenger" tactic at this point. "WAAH! You told me something true that I don't like to think about! You're talking about sexism so YOU'RE the big poopy sexist!" Been used in this very thread--what, seven times already? Try a new play, chief. Third and long.

eihwaz -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 10:37:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Like I said above, I have no problem with people being feminists in their own homes and private lives. It's when they want to change society to fit in with their desires that I get annoyed. quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella I have a serious problem with equating equal rights to feminism. To me, equal rights = equal legal rights regardless of sex, gender (the two don't always match up), race, ethnicity, religion, age (once you're an adult that is), disability or lack thereof, etc. Feminism, by its very name, is concerned with womens issues These are rather startling assertions. You seem to be operating from some cartoon parody notion of feminism. Were it not for the feminist movement: Women would not have the right to vote, the right to inherit property, the right to equal pay for equal work (still not a reality but much improved), the right to their own sexuality. Women would still be considered the property of their husbands, both de jure and de facto. Before the 1960s version of feminism, women were commonly regarded as responsible for being raped ("she was asking for it") and could be legally raped by their husbands. This is a quite truncated list of the injustices and oppressions; the actual list is long, and many persist. I hope you're not saying you'd like to see a return to this pre-feminist state of affairs? (I believe that "feminism" denoted as such has its origins in the late eighteenth century, but I'm out of my depth on this history. Shakti? Somebody?) Certainly there are some extreme strains of 'feminism' -- most significant social movements have had, and have, fringe elements. I've personally been hammered by self-described 'feminists' as if I, as a male, was personally responsible for millenia of patriachal oppression, an accusation I really didn't appreciate. It's easy to discredit ideas and movements by citing the excesses of some of their adherents -- but it's intellectually dishonest. Perhaps it's gratifying in a facile sense to trivialize workplace sexual harassment as "not liking dirty jokes," but that's not the reality. So let's maintain some perspective on what are very real "women's issues" and the significant achievements of the feminist movement. BTW, the "separate spheres" doctrine is from the nineteenth century and, at least in some versions, predicated on the innate (biological) inferiority of women. And even where not, it's reminiscent of another notion of the nineteenth century, the "separate but equal" regime of the American South.

ElWray -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 11:15:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama I can't tell you how much it doesn't amuse me when people mistake sexist realities for sexist rhetoric. Excuses excuses. The truth of the matter is that you ascribe the sexist slants to cheerleaders that you assume men do. The reality of professional cheerleaders is that not only are cheerleaders given scholarships just like football players, but the ones who become professional cheerleaders are encouraged -- almost to the point of being mandatory -- to pursue even higher education and goals. Yet despite that truth you still throw out lines like the one I quoted. That's funny to me. What's also funny is your absolute ignoring of that one guy's post about 3 or so pages back, challenging you on your "showing their panties" comment. I find it very telling that you avoided the point he made. (Post #147, page 8 if you need a reference) As for the rest of your posts, they're all the same type of "waaah it's just not fair....why do male pro-athletes make more than women...waaah!"

ShaktiSama -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 11:31:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElWray Excuses excuses. The truth of the matter is that you ascribe the sexist slants to cheerleaders that you assume men do. Not at all. I don't give a flying fart what men "ascribe" to cheerleaders. I care about the sexual, social and economic realities of their lives. Like for example, the fact that the lowest median wage for a professional NFL player in the lowest paid team in the league is about 640k per year. And the fact that most professional NFL cheerleaders make about 750 dollars over the course of the entire season. quote: What's also funny is your absolute ignoring of that one guy's post about 3 or so pages back, challenging you on your "showing their panties" comment. I find it very telling that you avoided the point he made. Actually, I missed his post, so I have no idea what you're talking about. But I am not unclear on why male athletes make more than female athletes do: it's because patriarchy blows. It is an unjust, corrupt and evil way of life. Anyway, if there is some Person With a Penis who actually has the stupidity to argue that the male interest in ALL female athletics, including cheerleading is not sexual--he needs to get a serious grip on reality. As SOOOOOOO many male posters to this thread have been SOOOOOOO eager to point out, the majority of spectators and supporters of ALL sports are male, and it's their tastes that decide who gets paid for what. Take a look at the Forbes list of Highest Paid Male and Highest Paid Female athletes some time. It's all the proof you need that female athletics are utterly dominated by male sexism. The highest paid male athletes are always the top performers--people who dominate their sport with real performance. The highest paid male athlete in the world is actually a golf player--might have heard of him. Tiger Woods? Funny, but the highest paid female athlete in the same sport is a teenage girl who has never won a tournament, but looks a whoooooooole lot like a little cheerleader. Upshot? The reason that male athletes make more money than female athletes is the same reason that female athletes are rewarded for their looks rather than their athletic ability at the professional level. It's because our society is dominated by the needs, wants and appetites of ONE gender over the other. Period. End of story. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

ElWray -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 11:45:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Not at all. I don't give a flying fart what men "ascribe" to cheerleaders. I care about the sexual, social and economic realities of their lives. Like for example, the fact that the lowest median wage for a professional NFL player in the lowest paid team in the league is about 640k per year. And the fact that most professional NFL cheerleaders make about 750 dollars over the course of the entire season. That would actually be because for the football player, the game is his job. For the cheerleader, it's merely an extra curricular activity. All cheerleaders have full time jobs in addition to being cheerleaders. Some are even doctors. In line with it being the difference in jobs, a football player is one bad play away from being injured or paralyzed for life. A pro cheerleader simply stands on the sidelines and claps or yells. They don't even engage in the same stunting activity of their high school or college counterparts. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Actually, I missed his post, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Then let me enlighten you, because I found it very interesting. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Shaktisama -- are you aware how silly you are making your position look? Your rabid clinging to the "girls flashing their panties" comment, despite being repeatedly told they are not panties just makes you look sad. Do you think it helps your rabid, feminist agenda if you convince people they are panties? You are aware, that not all cheerleading uniforms have skirts, right? My school had a drill team where they all wore spandex leotards -- leaving absolutely NOTHING to the imagination whatsoever. As for your jumping up and down on the cheerleaders in school, let me assure you as a man, it doesn't matter what the girls wore back then. It was all sexy in some way. When I was in high school, most of the girls were sexy to me in some way. Observe: Cheerleaders -- obvious. Choir girls -- innocent, good girls in long satin gowns Jazz band singers -- varying costumes of varying lengths, along with singing/dancing routines Runners (you mentioned this one yourself) -- short shorts, spandex tops...sweaty girls in ponytails Drama club girls -- seriously, do I even need to explain why? Everyone I've ever met said drama club was more like a sex club You see, your rabid determination to 'protect' your daughters from 'flashing their panties' in a cheerleading uniform is really pointless and just shows your own insecurities and fears. Hell, when I was in high school, I even found the geeky smart girls sexy. Look at Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer -- HOT. You see, your 'side' seems to crumble when you think of the varying girls' 'outfits' and the many levels of 'hotness' a hormone-raging boy can ascribe to them. He missed one though, and it surprised me, since it's one you mentioned yourself -- dance. Want to see what passes for "dance" outfits today? Observe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1aKn7jdGnM In that link, watch for about 60 seconds. The girl goes from wearing a business-y look to looking like a hooters girl. The man in the dance never sheds one piece of clothing. Then look at this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YLFkW87slI You'll have to skip to about the :50 mark. But you'll see that although the man is shirtless, the girl is wearing next to nothing. And you say you push your daughters toward dance to avoid them being sexualized in uniforms that "show their panties?" Seriously? I can think of a LARGE number of 'dance outfits' that fall squarely into my 'fantasy file' and have ever since I was in high school. You may think you're using your holier-than-thou feminist agenda to protect your daughters, but you're only fooling yourself. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama But I am not unclear on why male athletes make more than female athletes do: it's because patriarchy blows. It is an unjust, corrupt and evil way of life. Actually, it's because more people are interested in watching male athletes than female ones. I recently saw a news piece on a "lingerie football league" starting here. One of the women players had the audacity to say "they come check us out for the lingerie, but they stay because it's an interesting sport to watch." I retorted "don't fool yourself, honey. It's a lingerie football league....we men probably don't even notice that you're keeping score....or that there's a ball involved. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Funny, but the highest paid female athlete in the same sport is a teenage girl who has never won a tournament, but looks a whoooooooole lot like a little cheerleader. Wow...now your feminism has you ascribing sexist cheerleader qualities to non-cheerleaders. You've really gone off the deep end. Do you need a life preserver?

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0546875