Feminism is a word that – to me – stands for the proposition that sexism sucks; that what’s between our legs doesn’t dictate who we are or what we can do; that women are unfairly disadvantaged in our society; and that we should be actively working to change all that. I’m not gonna back away from a word that means all that.
The reason that people object to “feminist” but not “equalist” isn’t that “equalist” is a better word. It’s that no one knows what equalism stands for.
But what would happen if all feminists decided that “feminist” was a bad word, and switched to “equalist”? Within a month, all the right-wingers who have worked so hard at making feminism a swear word would re-aim their guns at “equalist.” Whatever the word is that means “our status quo sucks, it hurts all of us but women especially, and it’s gotta change,” that word will be reviled.
Pingback: Official Shrub.com Blog
Pingback: girls in the corner
Pingback: feminist blogs
I agree. i think directly challenging the stigma behind the word is a big part of the battle itself. explaining what feminist/feminism means in reality and how it’s been negatively stereotyped over the decades tackles a lot of issues right there from the get go.
Equality does not “equal” Equity. Hence I would doubt if equalism is a helpful word at all here. All depends on what you value, indeed.
I would add that I think “equalist” evades the key point of distinction between (most) feminists and (some) traditionalists. Feminists generally argue that men and women are both equal and approximately identical; traditionalists often argue that women and men are equal, but complementary. (Within the Christian world, think of the difference between Christian for Biblical Equality and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood).
We do? Can you point to supporting theory for this?
QGrrl,
Maybe I put what I was saying inaccurately.
Most feminists (I think) would disagree with this statement:
Men and women are equally valuable, but have different abilities and thus should fill different roles.
Many conservatives would agree with that statement.
From the way feminism has been expressed to me by feminist is that Feminism means man and woman are identical save for their reproductive systems and all other physical bodily functions affected by it. I would say this is the main reason why I have never been able to accept feminism because I honestly believe otherwise. I wasn’t introduced to “Feminism” until college and it put me off immediately because it seemed radical and even supremecist. Also because I have no negative ideas about gender I couldn’t wrap my head around some of the concepts. I’ve been able to find versions of “Feminism” that make more sense to me, but my mind doesn’t equate the word feminism with versions, more like ‘logic’ or common sense. I’m not sure Equalist would mean anything to me unless it meant a certain type of equalism.
Hmm. I absolutely disagree. Most feminists would say that despite any and all differences, women should have equal legal and economic parity with men. It’s not the difference that matters, it’s what that difference means when used to socially reduce women’s status. For example, like Z says above, there are differences in reproductive function, more so for women then for men. Women are socially and legally punished because of these differences. The differences are seen as a weakness because they are valued only in connection to and in contrast with male biology.
A lot of people I know in and around the UK student movement have advocated something along the lines of “equalist” as a replacement for “feminist”. It’s a symptom of the bourgeois feminism that rules here – what happened to liberation rather than the not-very-politically-inspiring “legal equality now!”?
Most of the feminists I know of don’t necessarily disagree that there are general differences between most men and most women beyond the obvious physical ones–we disagree that individual men and women who happen not to match all general gender trends in temperament, interest, and ability should be punished for it.
All nature/nurture issues aside for a moment, you don’t have to disagree with “men are less likely to express sadness” to disagree with “real men don’t cry,” or to disagree with “women are less likely to be competitive” to disagree with “women shouldn’t compete.”
To me, “equalist” and words like it have their own set of unpalatable baggage — “I assert a belief in equality in the abstract, but I’m not interested in any sort of deeper analysis of how inequality manifests and is sustained in our society, and I want to distance myself from all the people who have been fighting for equality all along.”
Equalism also loses the gender component. It sounds like you want to make everyone the same– conjured up in my mind vague images of egalitarian masses walking the street in blue and grey Mao suits. That’s definitely not feminism, LOL!
Anyways the point is less that “we want men and women to be equal” but why and how we want men and women to be equal. It’s that being a man or a woman doesn’t degrade one’s innate humanity or personal worth, and that if you really accept that idea, then you ultimately can’t accept sexism justified on the grounds of tradition, or religion, or biological determinism.
To me the only reason to use equalist is if you are trying to find a term that goes beyond the issues of gender. The danger of that term goes back to ideas such as “separate but equal” which lets people say, “We treated you equally, but by lagging behind in a variety of areas you’ve proven that you are inherently inferior.”
Perhaps we should all just be buddhists.
:)
I’ve considered myself a feminist my whole life. I always felt that it would be absurd and masochistic not to- never thought twice about it. However- I’m a sex-positive feminist, and might actually be best described as a “femme”-inist- as I wear make-up, shave my legs, date men, am friends with men, and believe men can be feminists. There are those, however, that would say that, because of these things, and various I can’t “qualify” to be a feminist- which I think is pretty crappy- and it hurts quite a bit. Also, we know that in the past the feminist movement has sidelined poor and minority women (of course, in the third wave we’re supposed to be changing that). So, I can understand why some might gravitate towards another term. I don’t think I will, because I don’t like the idea of the term being entirely co-opted by one type of feminist, or of feminism being an exclusive affair.
I agree with Abyss2hope, but I’m a person who obsesses with gender issues almost on a daily basis. Gender related impulses, not necessarily traditionally defined, do move us to do what we do and the confusion we sometimes feel may be rooted in our very DNA. To try to find a term that implies equality is just so complex. Why do we strive for equality? The answer to that question is something that I really struggle with.
Hmm. In Sweden we have “särartsfeminister” – feminists who believe that men and women are essentially different and “likhetsfeminister” – feminists who believe that men and women are essentially the same. This is seen as the main ideological divide between feminists. I also believe that french feminism generally belong to the former variant while anglican feminism is more like the latter.
Miss Robyn
I actually believe the problem is that there really is not such thing as feminism in its essence. There is no reason for a man to be a feminist. A man should not be sexist. From my perspective one of the main reasons Feminism and feminist ( and the terms) get a bad rap is because they are seen as anti-male or anti-man. Many woman feel and are made to feel they can’t meet the demands of feminism because they don’t harbor the required ill notions of male/man/masculine or in the totally equality of man/woman male/female. I feel like I am one of those women. I would never feel comfortable calling myself a feminist because I don’t feel I am or that it is even necessary to lable myself a such. My main beef is that I feel that men and women are no tgenerally equally in physical terms, emotional and physical needs, our need within our community structures and our natural roles. However I do believe that these difference are not absolutes and one side should not be able to dictate how the other side can or should want to function. I don’t believe that is compatible with feminism as it seems to be presented. So Feminism doesn’t work for me and Equalism doesn’t work for me. Anti-sexism seems more compatible to my ideals.
Miss Robyn-
Your comment highlights an issue within feminism that really makes me sad: that we feminists always seem to be in competition with each other. Or at least, there’s the undercurrent of competition. Feminist A says “I think the cultural imperative to shave is sexist”, and a certain number of feminists will feel as though they are being called sexist or bad feminists. Feminist B says “Being hairy is not a requirement for being a feminist” and a certain number of feminists will feel as though they are being marginalized as scary radical Others.
It reminds me of the way women are pitted against each other outside of feminism, too. We have to be the prettiest, the thinnest, the nicest, in order to win the most desirable guy, which is, of course, the whole purpose of our lives. We’re encouraged to sneer at the fashion mistakes of others and constantly compare ourselves to models and actresses.
Am I being a conspiracy theorist if I think that this all functions to keep women from actually organizing and focusing on IMPORTANT stuff? Who cares if anybody shaves or not, wears makeup or not? What’s important is dismantling the patriarchy and the system of oppression that keeps us down. Not shaving and not wearing make up are some of my little forms of protest, and I do think it is instructive to point out all the little ways the patriarchy is ingrained in our lives, but my personal appearance doesn’t make me a better feminist than anyone else.
Isn’t ‘equalist’ just a position used to bash feminism? In my experience it’s used rhetorically to imply that feminists don’t really care about gender equality, so much as getting preferential treatment for women. Equalist is supported as good, in contrast to feminist which is bad.
I do think there are some (mainly historic) strands of feminist where this was the case, and where rights for women were sought which didn’t apply to men. But this isn’t a mainstream position in current feminism, and using the word ‘equalist’ to imply that is just spreading stuff which isn’t true. That’s why I wouldn’t use the word ‘equalist’, it seems largely to be thrown around in order to misrepresent people.
Denise-
I agree with a lot of what you said. I really feel that, as feminists, or womanists, or whatever we want to call ourselves- we should be encouraging and embracing differences between women instead of trying to change them. The fact that I like to wear make-up has nothing to do with me being a woman- if I were a man, I’d be a drag queen! I wouldn’t change myself to fit into the patriarchy’s mold of what a woman should be, and I also wouldn’t change to fit what another feminists mold of a woman should be. I’m the only person that can decide that. While I think debate is important, I really hate the idea of inter-woman put-downs… because you’re right, women are always going up against eachother in whatever social venue. It’s why a lot of women won’t even be friends with other women, which is sad.
Z- I just want to say, that not only do I believe it’s possible for a man to be feminist- I think it’s an imperative if we’re ever going to get anywhere. If the definition of a feminist is someone who believes that men and women deserve equal rights and treatment- then I think that if one is not a feminist, then they are a misogynist. I care about civil rights and I’m white. Why? Because it’s about people, not about socially determined groupings of people.
In my experience, “equalist” is a word that gets co-opted by MRAs and their ilk in a way that “feminist” doesn’t, which is why I’m always wary of those calling themselves “equalists.”
Robyn,
I’m just saying a man doesn’t need to be a feminist. He just needs not to be sexist. A man that is not sexist will by definition not adhere to sexist notions men hold women to and affect women with. But then I don’t associate feminism as a fight for anything regarding men, only women. I associate feminism with alieviating oppression of women, not making sure both men and woman at treating equally. There are feminist components that don’t and cannot treat men on an equal basis as women because its focus is on the needs of women. Such as reproductive rights and options, childcare, work issues regarding child rearing, the want NOT to have a child, issues that affect girls, etc. The very word seems to be gender biased to me. Which in itself is perfectly okay. However a man can be a feminist. I just don’t think a man has to be a feminist to be considered a good man.
An Equalist? Isn’t that the opposite of a Splendist? The Saccharists, of course, have largely died out.
Not to mention the fact that “Ekwilist” was Nabokov’s name for the fascist totalitarian state in Bend Sinister.
Hmmm… a friend of mine once noted the inherent sexism on packages of fake sugar… “Equal” in blue (for the boys) and in pink, for the ladies “Sweet and Low.” Splenda is clearly the only choice for gender neutral fake sugar. Also, I think it tastes less like death.
I’m a little skeptical of “neither sexist nor feminist.” The heart of feminism is anti-sexism. When you take anti-sexism out of feminism you’re left with nothing worth defending.
I do think feminism can benefit men, when feminists take down stereotypes of how all men are supposed to be, not showing their feelings, behaving in mindless, animalistic styles. I think, when you look beyond Playboy centerfolds and porn stars and towards girlfriends and wives, men benefit from–and want– partners who are independent, assertive, and valuing their own minds as well as bodies.
Men can support feminism and still look after their own interests because feminists appeal to justice– they might appeal to justice mostly for women, but it’s still justice, which means it’s not incompatible with justice for men; being a man and feminist doesn’t mean I can’t support justice for men in other areas which feminists might not talk about as much.
Finally, I don’t think that political views are a prerequisite for a man being a “good person” and no one said that, but that doesn’t mean you can’t think that they should change their mind.
Abyss2hope wrote:
To me the only reason to use equalist is if you are trying to find a term that goes beyond the issues of gender.
I think the the push to replace “feminist” with “equalist” is a little more sinister than that. It removes a key aspect of feminism, which you mentioned in your post, from the political agenda; that is, the understanding that sexism against women is prevalent and is something that must be fought against. The call for “equalism” seems to suggest that women don’t really have it that bad (affirmative action programmes have made it so easy for us, right? ), and we should focus on, well.. “equality.” But, like you said abyss, it’s such an empty word. Equality on what grounds? And for whom?
I’ve really enjoyed going through the comments here and reading about people’s personal struggles with feminism. I think the problem largely comes when we try to find a monolithic definition, even if it’s just within one nation. There are some who believe you can’t wear make-up, but there are many who believe that’s ridiculous (I’m in the latter – I’m a strong feminist who loves her dresses and big stompy boots and fun make-up and hair accessories). I think that’s just the way it goes. I disagree that it’s about pitting women against each other; rather, I think recognising difference within feminism is recognising differences amongst women in general. Women all come from different classes, abilities, sexualities, ethnicities, regions, upbringings.. And our feminisms reflect that.
I’m surprised that no one has pointed out in response to Sam that there are indeed opposite schools of Second Wave feminist thought: equality feminism, which holds that men and women are basically biologically the same (with a few “minor” differences in physiology, like a uterus) and thus have basically identical capabilities. From the comments, I would posit that most of us responding to this post are basically modified equality feminists. There is, however, another school of thought, known as difference feminism, which holds that men and women are essentially different: men are aggressive and dominating, while women are nurturing and caring; this nurturing and caring nature is better than men’s aggressive and dominating nature, so the world would be a better, more peaceful place if women were in charge of things. This is of course a very rough summary and misses some nuances. However, it is important to remember that there is not one “feminism” that is at essence anything. There are many difference strains of feminist thought, which is why many feminist theorists actually talk about “feminisms”. Personally, I consider myself a feminist and would reject the “equalist” label. The point isn’t for men and women to be exactly equal (such a claim is easy to factually deconstruct) but for the ways in which women are different from men not to be devalued and a basis for discrimination (I think Q Grrl says it nicely). Note that the way that equality feminism has often played out assumes that the “male” is the norm to which the female should strive to be like.
Beet
Again, this is hard for concept me to grasp because as a woman I don’t equate the word Feminist or Feminism with anti-sexism by definition as you do. I see it as an anti-sexism movement for women meant to change men for the benefit of women. I don’t believe in sexism period. You are correct in saying that there are issues for men that feminism can benefit, but its more of a by-product to me.
I’ve run into too many “Feminist” and presentations of “Feminism” or things embraced by “Feminist” that seem extremely sexist. Men have perpetuated the bulk of sexism against women and have institutionalized it. However its appears that feminist women and feminism can and have prepetuated sexism against men, mainly heterosexual men because by default it seems okay for the victim to victimize what is perceived to be the general victimizer.
I don’t believe either gender should be subjected to such things.
There are too many presentations of feminism that contradict or are not compatible with my own beliefs and Equalism seems illogical to me, so I can accept neither those terms.
I don’t feel there is anything one with a woman wearing make-up and dressing themselves up to attract a man if they choose to. Men in my eyes do that same. I enjoy the fact men are attracted to me. This has not been received well. Porn doesn’t bother me from a sexism point of view, it bothers me from a moral point of view. This has not been received well. I belive in Choice for Men. This is not received well. The idea of gender does not offend me and the denial of gender seems bizarre to me. Wrong. I’d rather stay at home and take care of home and family(be a house wife), than sit in my office cubicle like I do now. Definately got reemed for that(apparently such thinking sets the women’s movement back a hundred years). House husbands seem okay to me. But I don’t fit in with the feminism that considers them to be oppressing women by living off of them. I don’t think any standards should be lowered for me because I’m a woman (or a so called miniority), but don’t tell me what I can’t do unless I proved I can’t do it. Again, not received well.
I find no evil in heterosexuality. On another thread that Heterosexual family units might do more harm to children than good. Absurd to me.
That is why for the sake of this discussion I lean toward anti-sexism. But again remember while you may believe Anti-Sexism= Feminism, I think they are two seperate terms with two seperate purposes. Feminism may have a core component of Anti-sexism and some might think that by defination a person who is a anti-sexist is a feminist, but that is the same as saying anyone that believes in Jesus is by definition Catholic.
again just my perceptions
z-
I don’t know any feminists who think all of those things you have attributed to them. Some of them have ideas that may superficially match what you said, but I think you are not giving us enough credit. There is such a vast history of fucked-up-ness with regards to how society has treated women, the poor, and minorities that we can’t really have a good discussion about affirmative action or staying at home without taking into consideration a great deal of theory and history. So no, most feminists aren’t really saying that stay at home mothers are ruining the women’s rights movement. They’re saying that, considering our cultural history, the choice to be a stay at home mom is not as free as we think it is. And it’s not even as simple as that. I could write paragraphs about the nuances behind this issue, and affirmative action, and “Choice for Men”.
I don’t know the feminism that hates heterosexuals. I know some gays and lesbians (and hell, straight people, too) who think hets can be really ignorant and offensive. I don’t know the feminism that hates straight men. I know some feminists and women who think men can be real fucked up jerks sometimes. I know seperatists who think the best way to stop male rapists and abusers is to remove their favorite targets (women). I don’t know the feminism who hates house husbands. I do know feminists and women who don’t want to be in a relationship with someone who doesn’t adequately contribute to the family.
I certainly don’t know the feminism that seeks to victimize men.
Anything can be made absurd by reducing it to a soundbite, especially something that involves such a depth of thought as feminist theory.
Z,
Sometimes people get lost in labels and don’t discuss issues. Most of the issues you discuss aren’t so simple. I agree with Denise in that the vast majority of feminists wouldn’t judge your choices or what you want to do, but they would critically analyze what makes it so that such a disproportionate number of women choose X thing and not men, if it’s such a desirable thing? If porn is morally wrong as you say, isn’t that because it objectifies women and isn’t it mostly used by men? Can you admit there’s a difference between the genders but also think that maybe some of it is artifical in our culture and not natural?
There are all kinds of people who would call themselves “feminist.” There are equality and difference feminists, radical and liberal, Christian and atheist, libertarian, conservative, Democrat, Republican, pro-Life, pro-Choice… I’ll even go so far to guess that not all of them would fit on this blog. But if you can take the words of a few people who said some things that most feminists wouldn’t agree with, like finding evil in heterosexuality, then you can paint any group of people with any brush you like. Just like you can paint all Christians with what Fred Phelps says or Pat Robertson says, but that wouldn’t be accurate. Feminists have HUGE arguments with eachother, which Ive seen reading these blogs. So I really think that being a feminist doesn’t require you to hold any of those views it just requires you to live up to what you say you believe if you say you believe in anti-sexism. Because if you look up “Feminism” in http://www.Dictionary.com it means belief in equality of men and women, which in my mind is anti-sexism.
Feminists would take this belief in anti-sexism, and look at the world around us… is there sexism in this world? Of course. Do people who aren’t consciously sexist sometimes inadvertently contribute to sexism? I think so. Is it dominated by men? Yes. Do men sometimes see women only for their bodies and not their minds, and do some women see themselves like that? Yes. In the end it’s not just about saying you’re anti-sexist, like Bush says he’s for compassion but then doesn’t do much about it, it’s about thinking about what that means for you and society. I hope that helps.
This has not been received well.
By whom? Who, exactly, is telling you that it’s a bad thing if you like men being attracted to you?
Mythago – That post is in regards to my personal interaction with those calling themselves feminist and also women(co-workers, friends, and even my best friend) not directly calling themselves feminist. This is face to face and those I have interacted with online.
Z,
I’ve never met any of those feminists. And I’ve been a feminist most of my life.
B
of course you havent, and I’ve never met you until right now
…?
Are you implying I’m lying, or such doesn’t exist, or there is an invalidity to what I’m saying.
That post is in regards to my personal interaction with those calling themselves feminist and also women(co-workers, friends, and even my best friend) not directly calling themselves feminist.
Okay, so both feminists and non-feminists are telling you these things, and you therefore attribute those things to feminism?
mythago – okay let me rephrase that
those who don’t advertise , “I’m a feminist” but are feminist.
does that make sense?
How do you know they are feminist? Because they disapprove of your choices?
Well I just asked one yesterday, upon telling her about this discussion and your questions, would she consider herself a feminist. And she said “of course, I don’t see how a woman couldn’t”.
Does this settle it then?
Lots of feminists agree with you about this.
Lots of feminists would agree with you that women (and men) should have the choice of being stay at home parents, and that there’s nothing wrong with a feminist making that choice. For example, look up the book The Invisible Heart, by Nancy Folbre.
Some feminists are nasty about stay-at-home moms – Linda Hirshman is the most famous example. But in my experience, feminists who’ll be that mean about women choosing to take care of their kids full-time are one in a thousand. And when you look at the feminist reactions to someone like Hirshman, you don’t see unanimous approval and agreement; what’s really there is a huge variety of views , all of which are more nuanced then your description of feminism seems to admit.
I have never met or read a single feminist who disapproves of house husbands this way. Not even one. Whatever feminist you met who said this is a freakish exception to the norm.
Again, lots of feminists would agree with you. Frankly, “don’t tell me what I can’t do unless proved I can’t do it” could be the motto for all of liberal feminism.
The problem with anecdotal evidence like yours is that it doesn’t really help to facilitate debate and discussion between people who disagree. You’re coming here, to a room full of feminists, and you’re telling us that what’s wrong with our movement is that women who say they’d like to stay home with their kids are “reemed” for it and told that their “thinking sets the women’s movement back a hundred years,” and that we hate househusbands, and so on.
Clearly some feminists here – me included – are looking at aspects of your portrait of feminism and saying “that’s not what I think, and that’s not what most feminists I know think, either.” That’s really the only possible response to anecdotal evidence like what you’ve brought up here. But where dowe go from here?
What are you hoping to happen with your posts on “Alas”? Do you want to have a polite debate or discussion? I’m definitely willing to do that, but I don’t see how we can do that based on anecdotes. Did you come here just to let us know (politely) that you think feminists are hateful, awful people? That’s probably not your intention, but that’s in effect what you’ve communicated so far.
If you want to have a real discussion, we could stop discussing anecdotes, and instead limit our discussion to things that feminists have said that we can link to, so that all of us could read the same thing and discuss what it means, without getting stuck in the “are you saying my personal observations aren’t valid?” quagmire.
But if you don’t want to limit the discussion that way, then with all due respect, I’m not sure what the point of continuing this discussion is.
Yes Amp, that is what I meant to say. Feminist are awful, hateful people. I have such people in my life because because lordy knows I love to suround myself with hatefullness. I should have just said it from the get go because obviously that is what I meant to say. Lukily I’ve done it politely.
I’m sorry I don’t have a study, or web link, or an flow chart to describe my personal experience with feminist or how feminism has been potrayed to me. So only the only evidence I have is anectodal. Unless you want to move to New York and go back in time 10 years and tie yourself to me so you experience everything I have, then I don’t know what else to tell you. I guess i doesn’t matter I repeatidly stated this is my own perceptions. And I guess I made a claim somewhere to know all feminist in the world and I’ve had the same experiences with all them. I’ll have to run through my post and check that out.
There IS no point in continuing the discussion, atleast to me. So lets end it, eh?
Z, as I already said, I don’t think it’s your intention to say such things. But I think that’s the effect you’re having.
It’s clear that you found my post hurtful, and I’m really sorry that happened. That wasn’t my intention. But that I didn’t intend to be hurtful doesn’t make it okay that you feel hurt.
If you’re willing, I’d like to continue trying to have a dialog.
You did say you were reporting your own perceptions. I think we understand that. But what I don’t understand is, what point are you trying to make by reporting your perceptions to us? I’m not saying that to be snarky; I genuinely don’t understand, and I’m hoping you’ll explain.
Miss Robyn:
Wow ! Me, too. I like sex. Oxygen is nice, too. Fresh water is great, also. Oh, and chocolate. Well, most foodstuffs, really. Definitely, definitely pro-food.
I always thought a lot of the criticism of house husbands came with people who criticized them for not adopting traditionally “masculine” roles in the home. I think what works best and is agreed upon by members of a family unit is what should be done and this works for lots of families.
Wow ! Me, too. I like sex. Oxygen is nice, too. Fresh water is great, also. Oh, and chocolate. Well, most foodstuffs, really. Definitely, definitely pro-food.
Given that the suggested alternatives are, “pro-industry,” “pro-porn,” “pro-prostitution,” and “not feminist,” you can hardly blame sex-positive feminists for sticking with the original moniker.
I don’t see why sex-positive is so offensive. It’s not like other feminists complain when “radical feminists” use that term to distinguish themselves from other schools of feminist thought. It’s understood that the term doesn’t imply that non-radical feminists are complacent.
Amp
I said this to give to the point why I have not been able find it acceptable to call myself a feminist and chose rather anti-sexist. Even if some consider the core of feminism is anti-sexism, I have not been able digest or fit into what I see as the outer crust because my thoughts on certain things vary immensly. There are too many varying opinions that will sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with my own line of thinking that I choose not the label or the identification of such. Frankly I don’t know what feminism as a movement is anymore, is it gender equality, gender social equality, pro porn, anti porn, pro getting dressed up to attract a man, the patriachy causes women to do that, pro-life, pro-choice, can I be a feminist and believe we should make sexual responsibilty (for men and women, boys and girls) priority over the abortion debate? Can I be a feminist and believe whole heartidly that there is a need for a male figure/father figure and female figure/mother figure in a childs life, and its best? Can I be a feminist and believe there are jobs that can be physically suited for men better than women? Do I have to be liberal or can I be moderate?
All of the above?
Again, this is the say I can only go by what I know as of 2006. Who knows what the future holds.
“You’re [z is] coming here, to a room full of feminists, and you’re telling us that what’s wrong with our movement is that women who say they’d like to stay home with their kids are “reemed” for it and told that their “thinking sets the women’s movement back a hundred years,” and that we hate househusbands, and so on.”
I interpreted her to be explaining why she doesn’t identify as feminist, not as an attack on feminism, or any of the Alas posters. I know many people who have similar problems with feminism, both male and female. Just because their evidence is anecdotal, does not mean it is not a pervasive element in our culture.
piny:
Offensive might be too strong. How about annoying ? Anyway, I’m not going to drift any further. Not without coffee, anyway. Did I mention that I’m pro-coffee ?
Just because their evidence is anecdotal, does not mean it is not a pervasive element in our culture.
It certainly means that they perceive feminists in a particular way. Please note Z saying that ‘feminists and non-feminists’ were giving her grief – yet she attributed this behavior to feminists.
And then I said
“those who don’t advertise , “I’m a feminist” but are feminist.”
“Well I just asked one yesterday, upon telling her about this discussion and your questions, would she consider herself a feminist. And she said “of course, I don’t see how a woman couldn’t”.”
So your earlier statement was inaccurate–it’s not ‘feminists and non-feminists’ at all, just feminists with varying degrees of announcement of their political views?
It seems that many people have a problem wrapping their heads around the idea that Feminism is not a monolithic entity. Therefore, “Feminists castigate SAHMs, feminists castigate SAHDs,” and so on. Do some feminists do this? Sure. Are their conflicting viewpoints within feminism? Sure. But if people are set in their beliefs that all feminists are X, their minds cannot be changed any more than somebody who believes solidly that all {fill in your favorite stereotyped group here} are {such and which} can ever be convinced otherwise.
Anecdotal data is fine when saying that, IME X are always Y. But if you can’t accept that your own anecdotal data is not necessarily reflected in the big, wide world then you are not really capable of having productive dialogue on the issue. I mean, we all use anecdotal evidence. But, for my part, when conflicting anecdotal evidence or non-anecdotal data is presented I try to incorporate that into my view of the world and I try to accept that my experience is not necessarily reflective of the way things really are.
I corrected myself, re stated what I meant because i realized it didn’t make sense. But whatever.
I’m sorry I said anything. This thread isn’t about me and lets not keep it going that way. I said my piece and I don’t have any other way of defending the nuances of my post or my anectodal evidence, which as put is not valid in this discussion.
I’ve refrained from joining this discussion while it had productive momentum. But while Z is taking a break, permit me to offer the obligatory “no labels!” remarks.
What’s wrong with labels?
1. They obscure as much as they convey. As Jake Squid remarks, feminism is not monolithic. So if I care whether people understand my views clearly, I need to use more words than merely “feminism.” Whether or not everyone on this list could arrive at a uniform definition, clearly people beyond this list will not.
2. Labels convey a sense of power: Who has authority to declare who qualifies as a Feminist or not?
These two dynamics often conflict. While Jake Squid starts by noting that the label Feminist reflects a range of views, he concludes by dismissing Z’s experience as “not necessarily reflective of the way things really are.” I can’t tell whether Jake means to challenge Z’s account of his experience, or to assert authority to declare who is in or out of the Feminist box.
Amp:
So if I believe that SAHDs are oppressing women, does Amp mean to exclude me from the definition of feminism? Or does Amp mean that my views can fit within the multifaceted, “nuanced” nature of feminism? And if so, is Amp marginalize minority points of view by characterizing them as “freakish exceptions”?
Sure you can! You can simply say, “I don’t agree with that. Those views do not reflect my views.” It’s easy!
What other discussion do you think you can have? Do you presume to speak for all of feminism? By what authority? And, ultimately, what value would your pronouncement have?
If Z says that feminists believe X, and can actually find a quote of Catharine MacKinnon saying X, would your loyalty to MacKinnon require you to conclude that this is the (or a) feminist view, regardless of what X consisted of?
It sure seems burdensome, speaking for the collective. Especially when, as far as I know, you only speak for yourself. Which I do not mean to disparage in the least. To be sure, you are one of the most articulate and widely-read people I know. Among a certain circle of internet friends, when I say, “Amp said…,” people take note. But they take the same note whether I say “Amp said that….” or I say “Amp says that feminists say that….” Your credibility, whether you regard it to be great or small, does not change whether or not you claim to speak for all of feminism.
As far as I can tell, all Z wants is confirmation that he’s not sexist for thinking that it’s ok to be a SAHD, etc. Why not give it to him?
Z, for what it’s worth, SAHDs are a-ok w/ me. (Unless the SAHD is Robert. But that has nothing to do with the fact that he’s a SAHD.)
Nobody.really,
I am pretty sure that Z identifies as a woman:
Given the topic discussed, that seems rather relevant.
Whoops. Good catch, thanks.
My point wasn’t to accuse Z of lying. That said, when she claims that feminists stand for a whole lot of weird opinions that I have never heard or seen any feminist hold (and we are a diverse bunch) I have to wonder where she got this view of feminism. Especially as she put her sources to be people who renounce feminism. It just reads as the big mean feminist strawman – whether of her own or others making.
Since there, in my opinion, really are no good arguments against feminism we get to fight with these evil feminist strawmen instead. Strawfeminists who hate men, motherhood and pretty women.
B
to Clarify, I said Feminist and non-feminst
then I realized didn’t make sense so I said people that have not directly labeled themselves feminist. But that wasn’t understood so I said Feminist that don’t announce their feminist label but are feminist. Then I went to one of the those people after doubting myself and when asked she said yes.
When did I EVER say my sources were people that RENOUNCED feminism? Talking about strawmen. Its easier when you flip someones words and refuse to read them as they were written but turn then around to mean what you want, and refuse to budge from it.
I can’t tell whether Jake means to challenge Z’s account of his experience, or to assert authority to declare who is in or out of the Feminist box.
The answer is neither. I am not challenging Z’s accounting of her experience – I have no reason to disbelieve it. Neither am I in any way (and I can’t honestly see how you got there) trying “to assert authority to declare who is in or out of the Feminist box.”
What I was trying to do in that last paragraph was to explain what anecdotal data is useful for and what it is not useful for. It may be that in my experience (my anecdotal data) that every dog that I have ever seen has short hair. However true that may be, it does not mean that all dogs have short hair. If I insist that my experience (anecdotal) proves what dogs (and, by some extension, the real world) are, not only am I quite possibly incorrect but I will not be able to participate in a meaningful discussion or debate about dog hair. One’s anecdotal data is undoubtedly, and unavoidably, a starting point for understanding the world, but if one insists that one’s anecdotal data is the end-all and be-all of evidence about the world then one is deluded, mostly wrong and incapable of participating in productive dialogue about the world.
The reason that I was trying to make that point is that it seemed to me that A)Z was feeling insulted when her anecdotal data was not accepted as proof that feminists believe X or are like Y and B)that unless Z was willing to accept the possibility that her personal experience was not reflective of feminists as a whole that no productive discussion with her would be possible.
Good. I understand Jake Squid to say that he’s not challenging Z’s account of her own experience with feminists, but rather suggesting that she lacks a basis for generalizing from her experience to all feminists. Moreover, while I might quibble with wording, I find his reasoning as sound as ever.
But what’s the point of this discussion? Neither Z nor Jake Squid support the view that, for example, SAHDs are wrongfully taking advantage of their partners. So there really is no policy discussion happening here. The only question remaining is whether to attribute this view to some feminists or to all feminists – where feminist is apparently defined to mean “any person who claims to be a feminist.” Even by the standards of the internet, that’s a pretty vacuous discussion.
I humbly suggest that, in the absence of the use of the label “feminist,” there would be no dispute here. The label arguably mislead Z into concluding that there was a greater similarity among self-identified people than there is, and the label arguably complicated this resolution. I therefore reassert my thesis that labels obscure more than they convey.
But what’s the point of this discussion?
I had thought the point of this discussion was over labels (feminist or equalist) and why or why not? Z doesn’t want to be a feminist because her experience with feminsts leads her to believe that the movement is anti-several things that she is not against. Self identified feminists here have responded that the movement is not, in fact, anti- those things that Z enumerated. It is now up to Z to decide whether, perhaps, her personal experiences of feminism are an anomaly and, therefore, she might be more willing to re-examine her definition of feminism or to decide that her personal experience really does reflect the real world and she still doesn’t like the term/movement “feminist.”
Personally, I agree w/ Amp’s post.
Ok, let’s go one more round on this.
While I have sought to avoid quibbling over wording, I suspect that wording is central to the issues, such as they are. Here’s Jake Squid’s statement, modified to reflect the best of my understanding to this point:
Here’s my understanding of three terms: “feminist,” “movement” and “reflect the real world.”
Feminist: Since Jake Squid denies that he’s asserting authority to say who is in or out of the Feminist box, then I surmise he uses the term to refer to anyone who labels her- or himself as a feminist. This certainly seems to be the way he first uses the term in the quoted paragraph.
Movement: If we define feminist to mean anyone who self-identifies as a feminist, and if we accept Jake’s acceptance of Z’s assertion that some people who self-identify as feminists are “anti- those things that Z enumerated,” what conclusions can we draw about the “movement”? If we regard the feminist movement to reflect the sum of all beliefs advocated by people who label themselves as feminist, then I don’t know how Jake Squid can reach the conclusion that “the movement is not, in fact, anti- those things that Z enumerated.” The movement would be anti-, pro- and indifferent to a whole range of issues – as contradictory as its members. But if we define the movement otherwise, then we have taken the problem of asserting authority to declare who is in or out of the Feminist box and transformed it into asserting authority to declare what is in or out of the Feminist Movement box.
Reflect the real world: Once Jake Squid concedes that he’s not challenging Z’s account of her personal experiences, I don’t see how Jake Squid can ask Z to question whether “her personal experience really does reflect the real world.” This phrasing appears to marginalize Z’s experience. I suspect Jake intends merely to ask Z to consider that her experience reflects only a part of the real world, and it is Z’s generalization, not Z’s experience, that Jake challenges. But the phrasing obscures this meaning.
ULTIMATELY, it’s hard to see how any of this matters. If Congress was considering a law to penalize SAHDs, Jake might say that we should oppose the law because it’s anti-feminst, whereas Z could say she opposed the law because it reeked of oppressive feminism. WHO CARES? They’d both oppose the law. It’s the policy, not the characterization of the policy, that should matter.
In my humble opinion, anyway.
Well, nobody, we were discussing labels and why one would choose to label oneself as either “feminist” or “anti-feminist” or “equalist.” Who cares? I would say that a lot of feminists care whether or not the word “feminist” will come to carry the same baggage as the word “socialist” or, more recently, the word “liberal.”
It’s the policy, not the characterization of the policy, that should matter.
I couldn’t agree more as to what should matter. However, in practice, the characterization (or labeling) of the policy greatly impacts its likelihood of being implemented.
I don’t see how Jake Squid can ask Z to question whether “her personal experience really does reflect the real world.”
See my dog hair example. My personal experiences don’t necessary coincide with the reality/conclusion reached by examining a wider range of data.
If we regard the feminist movement to reflect the sum of all beliefs advocated by people who label themselves as feminist, then I don’t know how Jake Squid can reach the conclusion that “the movement is not, in fact, anti- those things that Z enumerated.”
My guess would be that, although some feminists might hold opposing views, that you can take the position held by the vast majority of feminists to be the position of feminism in general. So, although you can’t really say that feminism is anti-porn or pro-porn (given the debate that I have seen), I think that it is safe to say that feminism is pro-choice (even though there are feminists who are not).
… then we have taken the problem of asserting authority to declare who is in or out of the Feminist box and transformed it into asserting authority to declare what is in or out of the Feminist Movement box.
It seems to me that declaring what is in or out of the Feminist Movement box is done pretty much by consensus. If there is no consensus on a particular issue then it is open for debate as to whether is fits into the box or not.
Since Jake Squid denies that he’s asserting authority to say who is in or out of the Feminist box, then I surmise he uses the term to refer to anyone who labels her- or himself as a feminist.
That’s accurate in terms of this discussion and my input.
C.S. Lewis is perhaps the most popular Christian commentator published today. The last book of Lewis’ Narnia series features a soldier who has, all his life, prayed to the god of faithfulness and courage and compassion, who he called Taz. Taz was also the name used for the god of evil. In the final analysis, the symbol of goodness Aslan embraces the soldier. What mattered to Aslan was that the soldier valued faithfulness and courage and compassion, not what name he used for it. In contrast, Taz claimed the many who had engaged in evil, even though they claimed to be acting in the name of Aslan.
During his wife’s brief remission from cancer, Lewis and she visited Greece. In the 1950s, everyone knew that it was only a matter of time until the cancer would take her life. Lewis wrote a letter telling of his happiness in sharing this vacation with his wife, and how they nearly danced before the temple of Apollo, god of healing, knowing that any god of healing was simply Christ in another name.
To this day, fundamentalists complain bitterly about Lewis’ blasphemy.
Tash, you heathen, not Taz.
It’s not about the labels, Robert.
(…gotta cut back on Loony Tunes. ‘Course, people have been telling me that for years….)
It’s okay. Sincere prayers of good people addressed to Taz are forwarded on to Tash and from there forwarded on to Aslan.
Tash will smite you, impious mocker.
(All hail Tash!)
Sincere prayers of good people will only be forwarded by Taz and Tash if those prayers adhere to the prevailing orthodoxy.
Pingback: I'm Not a Manhater; I Just Dream a Lot « Objectify This
Any movement that claims to be everything to everybody ends up meaning nothing to anybody. Either there is something called ‘Feminism’ with some overall meaning like ‘Communism’ or ‘Christianity’ or there is ‘Feminism’ like there is ‘Politics’ or ‘Religion’ which are types, not defined instances.
To me, Feminism mostly amounts to telling women that unless they join in a world designed largely for economic exploitation of men, they are missing out or even inferior. I see that as spitting in the face of women who believe that things they have done that men have not are equal or even superior to what men have done, and eliminating the threat their alternate values pose to conservative valuation – in effect, feminism is ‘male chauvinism for girls’: it will change women to fit ‘society’ – a society with no allowance for the fact that women experience pregnancy and rear children – instead of changing society to value what women have traditionally done and to liberate men to do it too.
It is not about equality: it is about women having choices of lifestyle and even manner of dress while men do not. Until there is nothing weirder about a man wearing a dress than a woman wearing pants, there is no equality, only the long tradition that girls are entitled to whatever they want while boys are not and whatever is ‘masculine’ is superior to ‘feminine’
I could sum Feminism up as getting women out of the home and into the workplace with an eye on the boardroom. I want a ‘feminised Socialism’ that gets men out of the workplace and into the home and demolishes the boardroom.
Hi Jan,
Thanks for being wiling to move your comments to this thread from the “Feminism is not your expectation” one.
Effectively, however, you’re incorrect: feminism is about the demolishment of gender roles, and thus is as supportive of stay at home dads as women in the board room.
Other regular commenters here may have different angles to take in replying to you.
feminism is about the demolishment of gender roles
Except for the people for whom it seems to be about the reinforcing of gender roles (or more generously, their redefinition and adjustment) – cf. Heart.
But certainly many feminists do say that they want to see gender roles removed. Which leads to the question:
What will replace them?
Nothing with social function exists in a vacuum. Gender roles are providing social functionality – functionality that leads to bad outcomes, in the views of many people, but functionality nonetheless. What’s going to provide that functionality in the absence of the roles?
Until there is nothing weirder about a man wearing a dress than a woman wearing pants, there is no equality
Only men are holding men back from wearing dresses. Robert, you missed the previous comment:
feminism is about the demolishment of gender roles, and thus is as supportive of stay at home dads as women in the board room.
I think there’s a simpler answer to most of this. It is simply that names become trendy. Look at other socio-political movements. Mussolini and Hitler called themselves Socialists, Mao and Kim Jong-Il call themselves Communist though ‘Emperor’ might be the better term and China still calls itself Communist.
In the last 30 years, if you wanted to say anything about sexual relations or women, the way to get it seen was to call it ‘feminist’ – or if you didn’t somebody else would anyway. So I feel that now, ‘feminism’ is a rag-bag catch-all bandwagon term like ‘socialism’ and parts of it have been exploited by the existing industrialist system to suppress the more radical parts and maintain a belief in the monetary economy as dominant over the domestic. They may call it ‘patriarchy’ but there is far more feminist concern to get women into it than to get men out and replace it with a ‘life-orientated’ more New Age, green social structure.
Feminism has done far more to shore the Industrial system up than to replace it with something putting families first, more to reduce all to equality with the ‘working man’ than to liberate men to equality with the middle-class woman under no pressure to ‘have’ to work (because she married a servant to provide for her). Too many ‘feminists’ aspire to be that middle-class woman paid for what amount to hobbies on the back of working-class women tricked (as men were formerly tricked) into becoming a new sort of servant class by the rhetoric of ‘choice’ to work – in reality removing their mothers’ freedom from having to work.
In the US, ‘Womanism’ or ‘Black Feminism’ saw through that trick. In Protestant Europe they equate more to the working class. Catholic Europe has always valued home life more highly and has a much higher proportion of small family businesses working for themselves, not as industrial wage-slaves.
There were radical feminist alternatives to Industrialism (Capitalism – but the Soviet model only differed in being State-run) but they were sexist and excluded men – so in reality enforced 19th century divisive stereotypes we were getting aways from. It needs much more than ‘house-husbands’. It needs a society built on human relationships and family with the need to work for pay reduced as much as possible, a return to the outlook of an ancient leisured citizenry supported by a battery of slaves without the need for slaves, an end to the ‘work ethic’ which has really become perverted to an ’employment ethic’ to serve e new elilte with no need to work for a living.
Only men are holding men back from wearing dresses.
Riiiight.
You’re too homosocial. While only paying attention to what other men think and what other men think women think, you missed the fact that Jake Gyllenhaal is the Hottest Bachelor in America. He’s metrosexual bordering on gay.
Doesn’t a remark like ‘metrosexual bordering on gay’ reveal a far more traditional and critical view of men than of women? Would anybody dare to say “she’s so muscular and intelligent she borders on Lesbian”? Would they ever have said it? Would parents ever worry about a girl taking an interest in ‘boy things’ over ‘girl things’ to the extent the do about boys preferring ‘girl things’? Would they jump to the conclusion that such a girl must of necessity grow up homosexual as readily the boy – whether that’s to try and stop it or to assure him it’s OK (but still expected)?
I think it shows that whether ‘feminism’ is the reason or just part of the general development, we are much more ‘masculine’-orientated than we used to be with ‘feminine’ increasingly becoming seen as inferior even for women, instead of equal to masculine and as acceptable for males as what used to be thought masculine has become for females.
Robert said wearing a dress is a gendered female performance that women don’t like in men. I said women don’t care. Men pressure each other to maintain traditional gender roles regardless of what women think.
Donna Darko
Why do you think women don’t care? Have you asked them all, Donna? Or do you merely mean that you and your female friends and acquaintances don’t care?
Quite a few women I know would be, if not outraged, then at least bewildered and offended if I took to wearing women’s clothing. I’m persuaded that men adapt their behaviour to the expectations of other men, but the expectations of women have an important influence on them too.
I remember far more aggression from women determining I must be gay, so insulting them with lack of interest, because of minutiae of clothes. I remember one women wearing jeans and a man’s shirt screaming at me for being a pervert because I was wearing —– French men’s nylon knee stockings and threatening me with violence for telling her that if she thought that way, them surely her own clothes made her a transvestite. I find a lot of what ‘feminists’ complain of as men making unacceptable demands upon them is only respect as an equal human being and far less then the worship they demand of men. A lot of women use ‘feminism’ to mean “I’m a girl so I’m entitled, you’re a boy so you’re not”
The 100 Sexiest Men in the World are all metrosexuals. There’s not a single manly man among them. This is the list that comes up most when you google “100 sexiest men” or “100 hottest men.” Daniel Craig (#8) looks manly but his feminine qualities made him arguably the sexiest Bond ever. James Blunt (#93)? Jake Gyllenhaal is the second sexiest man in the world even though there were rumors (they were rumors only apparently) he was gay. It’s an English poll but metrosexual soap and pop stars are also all the rage in Asia. Dave Beckham (#14) is the quintessential metrosexual. Johnny Depp (#4) is umm…French.
Men, stop thinking about other men and read women’s magazines or listen to feminists. Men who want to reinforce traditional gender roles also say “women like jerks” so they can keep being jerks to women. Men say “women like macho men” not feminine men to reinforce traditional gender roles. Clearly, this list and most others like it stateside show women prefer feminine men.
THE TOP 100
1. Brad Pitt
2. Jake Gyllenhaal
3. Orlando Bloom
4. Johnny Depp
5. Clive Owen
6. Jose Mourinho
7. Shayne Ward
8. Daniel Craig
9. Simon Jones
10. Olivier Martinez
11. George Clooney
12. Thierry Henry
13. Robbie Williams
14. David Beckham
15. Jude Law
16. Josh Holloway
17. Adam Brody
18. Pete Doherty
19. Alex Zane
20. David Tennant
21. Gavin Henson
22. Heath Ledger
23. Leonardo DiCaprio
24. Joaquin Phoenix
25. Prince William
26. Preston
27. Matthew Fox
28. Jonny Wilkinson
29. Jamie Foxx
30. Vince Vaughn
31. Hugh Grant
32. Freddie Ljungberg
33. Vernon Kaye
34. Colin Farrell
35. Dermot O`Leary
36. Justin Timberlake
37. Ewan McGregor
38. Fabrizio Moretti
39. Ashton Kutcher
40. Usher
41. Jason Statham
42. Eminem
43. Keanu Reeves
44. Matthew McConaughey
45. Owen Wilson
46. Viggo Mortensen
47. Matt LeBlanc
48. James Cracknell
49. Antonio Banderas
50. Calum Best
51. Tom Cruise
52. Ralph Fiennes
53. Goran Visnjic
54. Andrew `Freddie` Flintoff
55. Will Smith
56. Prince Harry
57. Naveen Andrews
58. Sean Penn
59. Brandon Flowers
60. Colin Firth
61. Simon Webbe
62. Pierce Brosnan
63. Jean Christoph Novelli
64. Michael Owen
65. Gael Garcia Bernal
66. Carl Barat
67. Mick Jagger
68. Steve Jones
69. Jason Lee
70. Cillian Murphy
71. Max Beesley
72. Paul Bettany
73. Matt James
74. Nigel Harman
75. Jonathan Ross
76. Lee Ryan
77. Richard Fleeshman
78. Jamie Oliver
79. Steven Gerrard
80. Damian Lewis
81. Anthony Head
82. Jason Orange
83. Andrew Lincoln
84. Jody Latham
85. James McAvoy
86. Daniel Radcliffe
87. Patrick Dempsey
88. Robert Webb
89. Adrien Brody
90. Johnny Knoxville
91. Paul Walker
92. David Cameron
93. James Blunt
94. Russell Crowe
95. Ashley Cole
96. Colin Murray
97. Ben Shephard
98. Will Young
99. Gordon Ramsay
100. Alex Turner
Can I just say how incredibly amused I am to see a Top 100 list cited–seriously, yet–in support of an argument on Alas? It just seems so… unusual.
And.. Brad Pitt a feminine man? And Russell Crowe? What’s a NON feminine man?
Russell Crowe is #94. I missed that one. He’s the one manly man in a sea of metrosexual, feminine men. Did you look at the other 99?
The closest stateside list I could find under “100 sexiest men” and “100 hottest men” was the hottest bachelors of 2007. They are ALL metrosexuals.
1. Matthew McConaughey
2. Jake Gyllenhaal
3. Chris Evans
4. Maksim Chmerkovskiy (Dancing with the Stars)
5. Ludacris
6. Kenny Chesney
7. Blake Lewis (American Idol)
8. Adrien Grenier
9. Apolo Ohno
10. Justin Timberlake
Jake Gyllenhaal is the hottest bachelor in America, second sexiest man in the world and second hottest bachelor in the year 2007. Which means some of you would be more successful with women pretending you’re gay (palling around with other metrosexuals like McConaughey which lead to the rumors Gyllenhaal was gay) than trolling on feminist blogs.
There is no meaningful definition of “metrosexual” that encompasses the men on that list. You’re blowing smoke out your ass.
Eddie Izzard = hot.
Random whining about how feminists don’t want to see men in dresses as if this is in any way an argument? = hilarious and unsupported.
Robert, please make an actual argument if you want to be taken seriously.
I’m with Sailorman on this one. Just to name the “manly” men from the those that I’m familiar with:
1. Brad Pitt
11. George Clooney
29. Jamie Foxx
30. Vince Vaughn
42. Eminem
43. Keanu Reeves
58. Sean Penn
62. Pierce Brosnan
69. Jason Lee
90. Johnny Knoxville
94. Russell Crowe
I don’t know most of the names on the list (ETA: I think that I can identify 33 of the names on the list, but I may be mistaken on about 5 of them), so I’m sure that there are more that folks can identify. Either you didn’t really look at the list or you’re operating from an entirely different definition of “manly” than I am.
Mandolin, I did, in 77. You ignored it.
And I did in 89, by pointing out the uselessness of the “evidence” Donna presented.
“And I did in 89, by pointing out the uselessness of the “evidence” Donna presented.”
You didn’t “point it out,” you accused her of “blowing smoke out her ass.”
“You’re blowing smoke out your ass” =/= actually debunking someone’s argument.
I’m completely irritated that you’d use that language with her, and then try to duck out of it by claiming you said something meaningful. Should I use it back at you? My first instinct, as you know if you get these comments emailed to you, is yes. My second instinct is to go ahead and give you the warning I’ve been flirting with — don’t do it again, or you’re gone from this thread.
You didn’t “point it out,” you accused her of “blowing smoke out her ass.”
I made a linguistic point: there is no definition donna – or anyone – can provide for the word “metrosexual” that encompasses the variety of men on that list, and which also says something more meaningful than “male” and “famous”. Which means that her list does not support the point she wishes it to support, and she is unsuccessfully handwaving to elide that reality. Or blowing smoke, in the vernacular.
You ignore the argument, and focus on the language. Why?
Ban away. Says a lot more about you than it does me.
Okay, cool. Robert, you can come back to Alas one month from today.
I’ve had it with your snide attitude, your rudeness to other commenters, your pretense that you have no idea why what you’ve said is beyond the pale, and the way you treat me as a female moderator. I’ve had it with your “forgetting” you’re not supposed to post in my threads, or in the feminist only threads. I’ve had it with your sarcasm and viciousness, and I’ve had it with the way the only person you treat with respect is Ampersand. You should look at this as the cummulative effect of your abusiveness.
Goodbye.
To the normal people on this thread, the 100 sexiest men in the world are decidedly feminine, meaning their looks are feminine. Brad Pitt became famous on his girly looks. Watch the neanderthals struggle to deny it and pretend they don’t know the men on the list! The 10 hottest bachelors in the US are decidedly feminine. The hottest men in Asia are decidedly metrosexual/feminine. While we’re at it, none of the 110 men on these lists are known wife beaters (except Sean Penn, but we don’t first categorize him as a wifebeater). Notice Daniel Craig replaced Sean Connery, a wifebeater. There’s probably a correlation between the desire for feminine men and men who aren’t likely beat you who are more romantic and sensitive. In fact, the desire for romantic, sensitive men is driving the Asian craze for Korean soap stars.
Check mate.
The game is over.
George Clooney’s looks are feminine? Sean Penn? Jason Lee? Vince Vaughn? The rest of those that I picked out as “manly?”
Perhaps you can define “feminine” so that us neanderthals can have a clue as to what you’re talking about.
Or am I just not getting the joke you’re making when you say:
There’s probably a correlation between the desire for feminine men and men who aren’t likely beat you, who are more romantic and sensitive.
First you said that all of those men were feminine men.
Now you’re saying that if i don’t think so, I’m abnormal?
[headdesk] Donna, don’t you think you’re taking this a teeny weeny bit far?
Did you look at the lists and see the great preponderance of feminine men on those lists? This great preponderance surprised even me. You forgot about the study this summer that said women prefer feminine men to masculine men because dominance is unhealthy. Like I said, the game is over. It’s funny to watch men on this thread struggle to maintain traditional gender roles which proves my point exactly. Men want to maintain gender roles, women and feminists want to change them. Men (including men on this thread troll and non-troll alike) keep saying “Women like jerks and macho men,” women say “No, you assholes, we don’t. We want nice, feminine men who won’t beat/dominate us.”
Move over Vin, women prefer feminine men
It is bad news for the likes of Bruce Willis, Vin Diesel and Clint Eastwood – but for less macho men, there is hope. Psychologists have shown that women perceive men with more masculine faces as poor potential long-term partners.
Women see macho-looking men as less faithful, less warm and potentially poorer fathers. Men with more feminine features and a more healthy visage are judged as being a better bet for a long-term relationship.
“Women prefer great degrees of masculinity for short-term partners, but for long-term relationships what we are finding is that they prefer more feminine and definitely more healthy men,” said David Perrett at the University of St Andrews, who led the research.
The team asked nearly 100 women to view images of faces that had been digitally enhanced to emphasise masculine or feminine features. For example, feminine faces had raised eyebrows, a smaller chin and nose and larger eyes. In separate tests they manipulated the faces’ perceived healthiness. The viewers made snap judgments on a variety of factors including the man’s social dominance, parenting skills and desirability. Women also showed a strong preference for healthy-looking men. According to Professor Perrett this is because a woman is subconsciously asking: “How long is an unhealthy person going to be around? How likely is it they are going to infect you?”
The research, which is published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, may help people to understand their first impressions of people. “Yes, it’s discriminating, but it’s discriminating in a way that could help the world go round.”
Macho men ‘bad choice’
08 August 2007
Women see ‘masculine’ men as unsuitable long-term partners, according to new research from the Universities of St Andrews and Durham.
Conversely, the psychologists found that men with feminine facial features are seen as more committed and less likely to cheat on their partners.
A computer-generated face manipulated to look more feminine (top left), more masculine (top right), less healthy (bottom left) and more healthy (bottom right). http://www.perceptionlab.com The study, which is published in the current edition of Personality and Individual Differences, asked over 400 British men and women to judge digitally altered pictures of male faces made to look more masculine or feminine. The participants were asked to predict personality traits including sexual behaviour and parenting skills based on what they saw.
Men with masculine faces, with features such as a square jaw, larger nose and smaller eyes, were classed as significantly more dominant, less faithful and made worse parents than feminine-featured males. They were also thought to have personalities that were less warm when compared to their `feminine’ counterparts, who had finer facial features with fuller lips, wide eyes and thinner, more curved eyebrows. The scientists say it gives further insight into what people see in others when choosing potential partners
The research, partly supported by the Medical Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council, will advance studies in areas such as evolutionary biology, fertility and genetics and offer new insights in areas such as relationship counselling and psychology.
Lead author, Dr Lynda Boothroyd, formerly of St Andrews and now lecturer in Psychology at Durham University, commented, “This research shows a high amount of agreement between women about what they see, personality wise, when asked to `judge a book by its cover’. They may well use that impression of someone to decide whether or not to engage with that person. That decision-making process all depends on what a woman is looking for in a relationship at that time of her life.”
The study asked participants to complete a web-based test. Pairs of pictures which only showed the face without any hair, ears, neck, shoulders or clothing visible, were presented side by side. The participants were asked to select which face they thought was more of a particular trait and how much more so by clicking on a point of the scale. Traits selected for judgement were dominance, ambition, wealth, faithfulness, commitment, parenting, and warmth.
The survey also found that faces which appeared healthier, for instance those with a better complexion, were seen as more desirable in terms of all personality traits, compared to those who looked unhealthy. Similarly, older faces were generally viewed more positively compared to younger ones.
Co-author Professor David Perrett of the University of St Andrews, explained, “Our research found that it is men’s health that conveys all round good qualities for partnership and personality. Our results contradict claims that machismo denotes fitness and disease immunity. Masculinity may buy you dominance but not necessarily tip top physical condition. Instead women see a healthy guy as the source of wealth, and fit for family life”.
Daniel Craig has a face that looks like a bag full of knuckle-bones, and he is famous for playing a knife-wielding, gun-toting psychopath in a dinner suit.
Metrosexual my scabby armpit.