Feminism and the Disposable Man - General

[video=youtube;vp8tToFv-bA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA&list=TLsAdlDWBwJl0[/video] This showed up in my news feed today on facebook, I watched it with some (well a lot) of skepticism and I will say I don't necessarily agree with everything she says and I doubt many people will but with the large feminist group here on Facepunch I think it would be an interesting watch for everyone agree or not it is some food for thought and interesting to consider.

It's heartening to see a women recognizing the hypocrisy of modern feminism. But it should be noted; feminism wasn't always like this it was once a genuine struggle for political equality until it was warped by radicals in the 1980s and now censorship and the sexist attitudes discussed in this video are their main agenda.

This is really important to take into account. When you strive to make sure there's gender equality, you need to make sure that one side isn't greatly being favored over the other.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;41738039]It's heartening to see a women recognizing the hypocrisy of modern feminism. But it should be noted; feminism wasn't always like this it was once a genuine struggle for political equality until it was warped by radicals in the 1980s and now censorship and the sexist attitudes discussed in this video are their main agenda.[/QUOTE] Feminism has never changed, individual feminists and organizations have. While you have people that act as if they are the sole representatives of the movement as a whole, they are not. The people really getting stuff done don't care about that image.

[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;41738346]Feminism has never changed, individual feminists and organizations have. While you have people that act as if they are the sole representatives of the movement as a whole, they are not. The people really getting stuff done don't care about that image.[/QUOTE] Feminism isn't a strictly hierarchical organisation with set leaders and obviously there are differences between individual feminists but that doesn't mean there can't be shifts in consensus within a group. Feminism is not what it used to be; if you tried to get feminists in the 1960's to ban porn they'd laugh in your face and now it seems to be all some feminists care about.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;41738424]Feminism isn't a strictly hierarchical organisation with set leaders and obviously there are differences between individual feminists but that doesn't mean there can't be shifts in consensus within a group. Feminism is not what it used to be; if you tried to get feminists in the 1960's to ban porn they'd laugh in your face and now it seems to be all some feminists care about.[/QUOTE] To be fair that's quite a generalization, most feminists want the porn [I]industry[/I] (aka the workings and organizations behind the production of porn, not the material itself) to be better regulated, mostly to improve the godawful working conditions. The "let's ban the whole thing" group is a minority afaik and was actually way bigger in the past, what with feminists such as Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon being the most widely recognized as anti-porn. We have to remember that the mainstream media is generally not fond of feminism and the more fringe groups always get coverage. As was the case with a certain group in Iceland a while ago, if I'm not mistaken.

i think talking about a group of people who adhere to a general philosophy as a single hive mind is a dangerous and stupid thing i also really like this video

I bet you anything that had this been a guy, people would've made fedora jokes 'til the cows come home

Well yeah, this speaks to a very totalitarian PRO WOMAN type of feminism. But I would argue that the majority of people calling themselves feminists would say that rescuing a person from a burning building based on gender to hardly be a feminist incentive. At least in my mind as a feminist I prioritize equality before women. It's a very complex issue, negating feminist points through a rather crude "who would you rescue from a burning building" example is something I disagree strongly with because it doesn't take into the account the scope of challenges that are encompassed in gender issues. Both men and women have gender issues, and in the face of these problems I find it disheartening when people establish these fronts - as if it's constructive in anyway in attempting to solve it by setting up a MEN VS WOMEN scenario. And before people start showering me with boxes; I'm only saying that we should work towards equality rather than gauging problems in a way that favours one over the other. "Who needs help the most? Women are being harassed on the streets, but then again I'd rather save her from a burning building than him." It's just too simple. [QUOTE=Mr. Jelly;41738812]I bet you anything that had this been a guy, people would've made fedora jokes 'til the cows come home[/QUOTE] Not necessarily, she raises some good points about perceived human worth in modern society.

While I will not contend with the fact that currently the sociatal norm is that of male disposability it should be noted, that it's a fairly new concept overall. And the idea of women and children first is relatively recent and didn't exist until not so long before.

-snip- automerge failed me

[QUOTE=NOR_92;41738925]Well yeah, this speaks to a very totalitarian PRO WOMAN type of feminism. But I would argue that the majority of people calling themselves feminists would say that rescuing a person from a burning building based on gender to hardly be a feminist incentive. At least in my mind as a feminist I prioritize equality before women. It's a very complex issue, negating feminist points through a rather crude "who would you rescue from a burning building" example is something I disagree strongly with because it doesn't take into the account the scope of challenges that are encompassed in gender issues. Both men and women have gender issues, and in the face of these problems I find it disheartening when people establish these fronts - as if it's constructive in anyway in attempting to solve it by setting up a MEN VS WOMEN scenario. And before people start showering me with boxes; I'm only saying that we should work towards equality rather than gauging problems in a way that favours one over the other. "Who needs help the most? Women are being harassed on the streets, but then again I'd rather save her from a burning building than him." It's just too simple. Not necessarily, she raises some good points about perceived human worth in modern society.[/QUOTE] This, so bloody much! Every time there is a discussion about gender relations there just [I]has[/I] to be a group of people bringing up rather petty "us vs. [I]them[/I]" issues (for instance, the burning building or similar examples) instead of looking at it from a broader social perspective. They just start looking for flaws in the opponent's rhetoric and as opposed to actually trying to compromise and understand why things are the way they are and how we can make it better. [QUOTE=Mr. Jelly;41738812]I bet you anything that had this been a guy, people would've made fedora jokes 'til the cows come home[/QUOTE] the fedora jokes only apply when the person speaking is obviously lonely, bitter and resentful

Ha! She's filming in the kitchen!

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41739162]This, so bloody much! Every time there is a discussion about gender relations there just [I]has[/I] to be a group of people bringing up rather petty "us vs. [I]them[/I]" issues (for instance, the burning building or similar examples) instead of looking at it from a broader social perspective. Everyone's looking for flaws in the opponent's rhetoric as opposed to actually trying to compromise and understand why things are the way they are and how we can make it better.[/QUOTE] Yeah brother, I think a lot of people on FP have very good intentions and opinions on these things but get caught up in preserving "face" in discussions. A lot of topics are way too complex for an oppositionary state of mind where one has to side with one and be against the other. It's very counter constructive - tricky issues must be handled and discussed in a delicate way. And that shuts out the standard "I must shower the opposition with boxes" protocol that we see way too much in these threads. [editline]7th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=pedrus24;41739200]Ha! She's filming in the kitchen![/QUOTE] The internet anno 2007 called, they want their humour back.

I'd also like to add that the "men are expendable" thing is (again) a by-product of outdated patriarchal rules. Historically, men have always been the ones to serve in the military and take other "risk" occupations, under the belief that women were weak and had to be protected. Now this obviously has changed, women have taken a much more active role in society in the last two centuries, but this perception that women are the weaker sex has not fully changed, thus creating this new perception that the life of a man holds less value. Basically it's us going "wait, what?" once we realize the unfortunate implications of excluding women from dangerous activities. This is why patriarchy sucks: it creates archetypes and rules of what and how things should be like, and while it strongly values male traits over feminine traits it frequently backfires on men, this problem is just one example of that.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41739368]I'd also like to add that the "men are expendable" thing is (again) a by-product of old-ass patriarchal rules. Historically, men have always been the ones to serve in the military and take other "risk" occupations, under the belief that women were weak and had to be protected. Now this obviously has changed, women have taken a much more active role in society in the last two centuries, but this perception that women are the weaker sex has not fully gone changed, thus creating this perception that the life of a man holds less value. Basically it's us going "wait, what?" once we realize the unfortunate implications that excluding women from dangerous activities. This is why patriarchy sucks: it creates archetypes and rules of what and how thing should be like, and while it might value male traits over feminine traits it frequently backfires on men, this problem is just one example of that.[/QUOTE] What makes you assume that women were believed as weak? I think it was because women were considered precious for humanity. Women can only make so many children in their life while men can theorically impregnate a shit load of women, during a long period of their life. I mean, when you have a fertile woman in your hands you don't want to get her killed in war. And I guess you guys can tell it's hard to find females to fertilize, even these days ;)

[QUOTE=pedrus24;41739550]What makes you assume that women were believed as weak? I think it was because women were considered precious for humanity. Women can only make so many children in their life, while men can theorically impregnate a shit load of women, during a long period of their life. I mean, when you have a fertile woman in your hands, you don't want to get her killed in war. And I guess you guys can tell it's hard to find females to fertilize, even these days ;)[/QUOTE] Even if it wasn't because they were considered weak (which is incorrect), you're still basically saying that it was misguided men who decided women were more valuable than themselves. Just think about it dude, some countries' armed forces are integrating women in combat roles just now, in the 21st century! They weren't able to do so up until now, all under the assumption that women are not capable of carrying out the same tasks as men.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41738506]To be fair that's quite a generalization, most feminists want the porn [I]industry[/I] (aka the workings and organizations behind the production of porn, not the material itself) to be better regulated, mostly to improve the godawful working conditions. The "let's ban the whole thing" group is a minority afaik and was actually way bigger in the past, what with feminists such as Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon being the most widely recognized as anti-porn. We have to remember that the mainstream media is generally not fond of feminism and the more fringe groups always get coverage. As was the case with a certain group in Iceland a while ago, if I'm not mistaken.[/QUOTE] The point is that this "fringe group" was elected in Iceland and had it's anti-sex polices of banning strip clubs and pornography were made law. It might be a a statistically small number of feminists who supports this stuff but they get so much support from inattentive liberals the far right that they often manage to make their voices appear louder than they actually are and in the case of Iceland change the laws to reflect their repressive sexist views.

Fuck please close the thread before the clusterfuck begins.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41739368] Historically, men have always been the ones to serve in the military and take other "risk" occupations, under the belief that women were weak and had to be protected. [/QUOTE] Other way around. Females were to be protected BECAUSE they are the ones group's survival depends on. They might be weak or not - it doesn't matter if they aren't, they're still to be protected. Because where male dies - fuck him, we have a lot, but where female dies - it's a danger to whole group, one less "unit" capable of reproduction. It's harsh, it's objectification, but that's how it was going at the dawn of times. It's only relatively recently, women became percepted as "weaker". Because times changed, danger to female grew less and less, while traditions were already set in stone.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41739162]This, so bloody much! Every time there is a discussion about gender relations there just [I]has[/I] to be a group of people bringing up rather petty "us vs. [I]them[/I]" issues (for instance, the burning building or similar examples) instead of looking at it from a broader social perspective. They just start looking for flaws in the opponent's rhetoric and as opposed to actually trying to compromise and understand why things are the way they are and how we can make it better.[/QUOTE] Every time someone goes "but men have gender roles too and they are expected to do this things and if they don't they are looked down upon" you people (maybe not you personally) go with "baww white males are being discriminated lol", "persecution complex much?", "yeah like white men have it bad lol", "it's not discrimination because on average white males have it better", along with a long explanation how those gender roles are also a product of patriarchy like the person saying that has no understanding of it. Feminism is often associated with being anti-male, and many feminists indeed are, even if they are just a vocal minority. [QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41739623]Even if it wasn't because they were considered weak (which is incorrect)[/QUOTE] Weak as in not as strong physically? Aren't men physically stronger on average?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;41743991]Every time someone goes "but men have gender roles too and they are expected to do this things and if they don't they are looked down upon" you people (maybe not you personally) go with "baww white males are being discriminated lol", "persecution complex much?", "yeah like white men have it bad lol", "it's not discrimination because on average white males have it better", along with a long explanation how those gender roles are also a product of patriarchy like the person saying that has no understanding of it. Feminism is often associated with being anti-male, and many feminists indeed are, even if they are just a vocal minority. Weak as in not as strong physically? Aren't men physically stronger on average?[/QUOTE] during puberty teenagers will build muscle more quickly because of testosterone but afterwards the reason men are generally stronger than women is that women don't get that kind of exercise

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;41744052]during puberty teenagers will build muscle more quickly because of testosterone but afterwards the reason men are generally stronger than women is that women don't get that kind of exercise[/QUOTE] Yes. Your point? What do you disagree with?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;41743991]Every time someone goes "but men have gender roles too and they are expected to do this things and if they don't they are looked down upon" you people (maybe not you personally) go with "baww white males are being discriminated lol", "persecution complex much?", "yeah like white men have it bad lol", "it's not discrimination because on average white males have it better", along with a long explanation how those gender roles are also a product of patriarchy like the person saying that has no understanding of it. Feminism is often associated with being anti-male, and many feminists indeed are, even if they are just a vocal minority. Weak as in not as strong physically? Aren't men physically stronger on average?[/QUOTE] Again with the sweeping generalization of feminists. Do you have any idea how many "moderate", equality willing feminists there are opposed to the anti-male stereotype you exaggerate in your head to win over a petty discussion? Bottom line, patriarchy creates rules and boundaries for the individual based solely on their gender. In the big picture it's not really the motives for it that are important, but it's the inhibiting of people's freedoms.

[QUOTE=NOR_92;41744078]Again with the sweeping generalization of feminists. Do you have any idea how many "moderate", equality willing feminists there are opposed to the anti-male stereotype you exaggerate in your head to win over a petty discussion? [/QUOTE] How is this sweeping generalization of feminists or exaggeration in my head if I said that anti-male feminists are just a vocal minority?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;41744095]How is this sweeping generalization of feminists or exaggeration in my head if I said that anti-male feminists are just a vocal minority?[/QUOTE] Because you make them out to be relevant - and by using the "feminism is perceived as a bunch of men-hating social justice warriors" trope in your argument you do nothing good for this whole discussion. I thought we'd reached past this point in this particular thread. Oh well. And would you please not start with the boxes? It's childish, and we've pretty much refrained from doing it until you came along.

[QUOTE=NOR_92;41744116]Because you make them out to be relevant and by using the "feminism is perceived as a bunch of men-hating social justice warriors" trope in your argument you do nothing good for this whole argument.[/QUOTE] Feminism is being associated with being anti-male because of the way it's portrayed in the media, creating us vs them scenario. And what they do is they show only these anti-male feminists, instead of showing those feminists that want equality and who can see that gender roles are problem for both, men and women. I think it's pretty relevant to the point about having the us vs them situation. [QUOTE=NOR_92;41744116]I thought we'd reached past this point in this particular thread. Oh well. And would you please not start with the boxes? It's childish, and we've pretty much refrained from doing it until you came along.[/QUOTE] Wow aren't you condescending. And I rated you dumb because it's fucking dumb to say that someone is sweeping generalizations and exaggerating in their head when he says that there's a vocal [U]minority[/U].

[QUOTE=NOR_92;41744116]Because you make them out to be relevant - and by using the "feminism is perceived as a bunch of men-hating social justice warriors" trope in your argument you do nothing good for this whole discussion. I thought we'd reached past this point in this particular thread. Oh well. And would you please not start with the boxes? It's childish, and we've pretty much refrained from doing it until you came along.[/QUOTE] It is relevant, have you not heard what happened in Iceland? and all of the anti porn legislation being passed in Britain at the moment, it's all supported by some feminists.They might be a minority among feminists but either way their ultra conservative sexist polices are being made law and because they call themselves feminists anyone who disagrees with gets dismissed offhand as a fedora wearing misogynists.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;41744183]It is relevant, have you not heard what happened in Iceland? and all of the anti porn legislation being passed in Britain at the moment, it's all supported by some feminists.They might be a minority among feminists but either way their ultra conservative sexist polices are being made law and because they call themselves feminists anyone who disagrees with gets dismissed offhand as a fedora wearing misogynists.[/QUOTE] Hey man I agree with a lot of this, but I'm having a huge problem with generalizing that extreme movement with using words as broad as "modern feminism". It isn't constructive at all, and causes confusion and bandwagons. Polarizing, you know? Either you're a mysoginist or you're an over zealous "social justice warrior". Maybe one would think that discussing terms like that to be splitting hairs, but it's very important to be clear and respect ideological nuances when discussing these topics.

[QUOTE=NOR_92;41744229]Hey man I agree with a lot of this, but I'm having a huge problem with generalizing that extreme movement with using words as broad as "modern feminism". It isn't constructive at all, and causes confusion and bandwagons. Polarizing, you know? Either you're a mysoginist or you're an over zealous "social justice warrior". Maybe one would think that discussing terms like that to be splitting hairs, but it's very important to be clear and respect ideological nuances when discussing these topics.[/QUOTE] I agree but outside of inventing my own terms what am i supposed to do? I made it clear that I wasn't being critical of all feminists just the pro-censorship conservative kind.