|
Zonie63 -> RE: Rip-Roaring Feminist Jane Fonda Admits She's Been a Sucker for Alpha Males (5/12/2011 2:57:07 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LaTigresse
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
There are a lot of women who fancy themselves as experts on "patriarchy," so it's kind of the same thing.
Men have a point of view, too. If a man says "this is how I feel" or "this is how it's affected my outlook," those should be considered valid. I find it interesting that Jane Fonda and others talk about "vagina-friendly men," but don't say anything about having to be "penis-friendly women." Not that I'm expecting them to be, but I just find the one-sidedness of the issue to be rather striking.
I snipped to address the bits that I believe that I, growing up in a patriarchal environment, see differently.
Feminism, as a whole (again, I am not speaking for the extremists ) is not trying to force men to live as second class citizens, to take less pay just because they are men, to be treated as having less value in governing communities and families, etc etc, and all the other rights and freedoms women have gained over the last nice decades.
I agree that feminism is not about forcing men to live as second class citizens. I've never perceived it that way.
But in a very real sense, feminism is a message directed as much at men as it is at women. If society is patriarchal and men are in control of everything, then in order for women to be treated equally would mean that the male leaders in society would have to agree to make changes. That would require active choices to be made on the part of the men, who would presumably know what it is that they're choosing to do.
That, in my opinion, is how men "know" about feminism. It may not mean that we live under a feminist society (although even that's debatable), I was just a bit taken aback by comments which seemed to suggest that men couldn't possibly know anything about feminism, simply because they're men.
But how could men not know about feminism?
quote:
From birth I was preached that the father/husband/man of the house, was the ruler of said house. I grew up with the patriarchal belief system that the man's word was law. Regardless of his behaviour, he was to be honoured, respected, and followed. My mother, the woman, was to obey, follow, respect, honour.......regardless. Because by some magic, if she did, he would be the man worthy of such. I was told when I married that I was to obey my husband, honour him, etc etc etc. There was no discussion about teamwork, who might actually BE the better leader. Just the man, by sheer force of his gender, magically IS the better leader, so the woman damned well better listen, do and follow.......regardless. To do otherwise made you a bad woman. That is MY personal experience with a patriarchal environment.
I can appreciate this point of view. I know how things used to be, but I've also seen enormous changes over the course of my lifetime. My personal experience is somewhat different. I didn't really see things in terms of "patriarchal" or "matriarchal," as my formative years were during the transitional period of the late 1960s and 70s where things were in a state of flux. So, I can't say that I was really raised with one view or the other. I hate to say it, but I was probably raised by television more than anything else.
But this is the part of feminism that I actually do get. When someone describes a situation where they're treated as second-class citizens, told to obey no matter what, and given no consideration as to what they want or need, then all I have to do is ask myself, "Would I want to be treated that way?" If the answer is "no," then all I can do is just concede the point. I believe in fairness and individual rights, so I can understand and relate to those principles when expressed this way.
But when it goes beyond that, it starts to get more confusing for me. Some things are easy to understand, like equal pay for equal work. That's just simple mathematics, but other aspects are not so clear-cut as that. It's like, I just want to say, "Let's just have equality and forget it." If we had done that 40 years ago, it would have saved everyone a lot of trouble.
But it just keeps going on and on. We're talking about "third wave" and "fourth wave" of feminism, and they keep having these conventions, and Jane Fonda is still ostensibly not happy with the "patriarchal society" and suggests that more changes are still needed. But I'm not sure what any of it means in specific, concrete terms.
quote:
As for vagina friendly versus penis friendly. I think that is a rather silly point of debate.
Well, I was just bringing that up as an example. I think both terms are pretty silly, and that's the main point I was trying to make.
quote:
I see very few, again other than the possible extremists, even to include many lesbians I do know, that, aside from the sex aspect, even give thought about whether or not they are penis friendly. To be honest, I've never heard a feminist spout off about a man being vagina friendly, or not. And I work in a far left, very gay and lesbian friendly community. I believe it would be a small percentage of the whole that would spout rhetoric like that.
I've never heard the term myself, not until I read it linked in this thread.
But one thing that seems to add to the confusion is that terms like "vagina-friendly" tend to carry the implication that "all vaginas are alike." I know that's not the case, but I've also noticed that feminism often carries this "women of the world, unite" message which implies collectivism to some degree. I know that may be an oversimplification, but I can see how it can be perceived that way.
That's one reason why I resist the idea to some extent, because I know that not all women are alike, nor are all men alike. In matters of personal relationships, it's whatever individual, consenting parties wish to do, so it's all individualized based on their own wants and needs. It's no skin off me, nor do I see any particular reason for me to get involved in someone else's business.
But feminism makes it seem like they're calling on people to join some political movement, in this case it's "women and vagina-friendly men" against...somebody.
I'm not really saying that I'm against it or for it. I'm just wondering if there's any particular reason I should be against it or for it.
|
|
|
|
