Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Neonivek, you understand that the best way to handle sexism that adversely affects men is to deal with the more prevalent and more harmful sexism that adversely affects women, right?

It works both ways. You can't affect one without working with the other.

As well, what suggestions would you have for stopping sexism against men, then? Because a lot of sexism against men portrays it in a positive light, which is the problem

Positive sexism is just as terrible a thing as negative ones. Tear down positive stereotypes, affirm that there is virtue in not having them.

are the equal of men in every way that counts(don't bring up fucking sexual dimorphism/athleticism bullshit into this, please).

You need to work it on both sides...

Because "Women are equal" but "Men are in control and strong"... = Assert control and dominance over not men... which is women... but doesn't that mean women aren't equal and are weak and need to be help in line? BOOM!

[Samarkand]

-snip-

Agreed. I think there are a lot of negative affects of sexism towards men (I'm male and do ballroom dance competitions, and this is often met with mocking from peers). However, the solution to this is to understand sexism towards women as being more than just a woman's problem, and start getting involved as a man. Equality is best sought be elevating women, and by phasing out language like "You throw like a girl".

Not even necessarily phasing it out, though that would probably be the best practical solution, but making it positive instead. Or rather, 'You throw like a woman'. Now, consider your first reaction to that phrase. It seems negative, because of the cultural connotations. Consider the phrase 'You throw like a man'. Now tell me, was your reaction to that the same? Likely not, because being manly is considered good, and being womanly is considered bad. However, I would much rather it be that being either, or neither, or both, were all considered good.

This is not entirely an altruistic wish on my part; I identify as androgynous, so...

Both being regarded as good is simply less likely than phasing out the phrase entirely. After all, it links throwing to gender. It implies, whether both are good or not, that men and women throw differently.

[Neonivek]

Men and women could throw differently if we go by skeleton (I don't think you would notice though). but still.

I will say that the term "Tomboy" is probably the one phrase I feel has no real meaning anymore. A girl who wears T-shirts, Shorts, and likes sports? What do we call her? Ohh right a girl who likes sports... or even just a girl.

To the extent where I just feel odd whenever I see it pop up. (The last time I've seen a western show bring it up it was Lizzie Maguire... which the episode basically said it was BS and no one really cares... and anime/JRPGs/Mangas are SO OBSESSED with the "Girl who needs to retain her femininity" plotlines that will often take any sort of guy activity as an affront on their womanliness, to the extent where I could count maybe 3 animes who ever did that plotline in a satisfactory way that didn't rely on "but she is a woman and is not meant for this... because she is a delicate white flower on a patch of dew. She should be free to be a woman" garbage)

[Tiruin]

I think there shouldn't be much of a question that the way gender roles are constructed currently is problematic. The real problem is how they can be reconstructed. A binary doesn't work, trying to put everyone in one of two boxes is bound to leave a lot of people out, but that's our current structure. The real question is if there just need to be more boxes, if there needs to be a continuum, or if we need to get to a point where the idea of gender is not meaningful with regards to behavior. Its a challenging question, even those who agree the current system is problematic disagree about what developments can take place.

> Get all the positives and mark it as that, without the negatives.
^{Seems that simple for me.}
Aspire.

But people want to aspire to different things. The point is that positive means different things to different people. Some fall into the nurturing role easily, and see it as a positive. Others do not, at all.

Then perhaps we must not generalize a whole populace with the role and instead use the role as a guide--a diagram, if it could be termed so, instead of labels to attribute to people before we know of their intent in regard to the role.

That seems a lot better than assuming.

[Samarkand]

I think there shouldn't be much of a question that the way gender roles are constructed currently is problematic. The real problem is how they can be reconstructed. A binary doesn't work, trying to put everyone in one of two boxes is bound to leave a lot of people out, but that's our current structure. The real question is if there just need to be more boxes, if there needs to be a continuum, or if we need to get to a point where the idea of gender is not meaningful with regards to behavior. Its a challenging question, even those who agree the current system is problematic disagree about what developments can take place.

> Get all the positives and mark it as that, without the negatives.
^{Seems that simple for me.}
Aspire.

But people want to aspire to different things. The point is that positive means different things to different people. Some fall into the nurturing role easily, and see it as a positive. Others do not, at all.

Then perhaps we must not generalize a whole populace with the role and instead use the role as a guide--a diagram, if it could be termed so, instead of labels to attribute to people before we know of their intent in regard to the role.

That seems a lot better than assuming.

Every guide places restrictions. But I do see your point.

[Tiruin]

Ok, um...reword :I

Gender Roles = Remove the negatives associated with it that may skew any kind of perception to look down upon the other/same gender as something...lesser. Emphasis on the Gender and not the Role.

Like 'You throw like a girl D:<'
^{Oh I throw very well, sir :I}
Or other stuffs like that which go deeper into society, like marriage or many things which are more on the personal sphere. .-.

[Neonivek]

That is interesting though.

Because the thing is that... none of these gender roles, at least few of them, are bad in it of itself.

A strong outspoken person who will put everything on themselves is just as virtuous a person as a soft-spoken person who supports others emotionally without supplying their own judgements.

Instead just supplying people with role models of every sort for both genders... might be a good way to do it.

Instead of saying "lets let my kid decide if they like dolls or wrenches" we can instead give both dolls and wrenches and show how great they both are.

[Samarkand]

Ok, um...reword :I

Gender Roles = Remove the negatives associated with it that may skew any kind of perception to look down upon the other/same gender as something...lesser. Emphasis on the Gender and not the Role.

Like 'You throw like a girl D:<'
^{Oh I throw very well, sir :I}
Or other stuffs like that which go deeper into society, like marriage or many things which are more on the personal sphere. .-.

The problem is that removing the connotation of lesser is only a first step. A big one, but a first step. While it liberates those who fit well into the categories of man and woman from oppression by eachother, it does little to alleviate the internal tensions faced by those who don't feel either gender category fits them. They're left feeling as the Other even to their Selves, complete with the scary capital letters.

[Neonivek]

A lot of this sort of plays into this whole "Us versus them" aspect to the genders.

It is rare that gender is spoken of in a "we are all part of the same team" way.

It is probably why people who are in between gender stereotypes probably feels so torn between them... because they are expected that if they are one way they have to go all the other way.

It is kind of why this idea of Gender roles is odd in it of itself.

---

As for Sexual Dimorphism my opinion on it is: It exists and is utterly meaningless... Who cares if women have a better sense of smell then men?

I dislike when people try to argue it doesn't exist just as much as people who try to argue it is more important then it really is or use it for any superiority argument. Yeah as if bench presses is the height of human freeken achievement.

[Rolepgeek]

Because "Women are equal" but "Men are in control and strong"... = Assert control and dominance over not men... which is women... but doesn't that mean women aren't equal and are weak and need to be help in line? BOOM!

*sigh, again*
*also facepalm*

It's not a competition between us on this, stop trying to make it one please. You know what I meant, but I'll reiterate for the benefit of everyone anyway.

"Women are strong". Women are thus equal to men, who are also strong. The 'in control' part would fall away as part of this.

Besides which, you're arguing semantics, in a particularly convoluted and unnecessary manner of doing so that doesn't contribute anything to the discussion, though I think you're trying, at least.

In all honesty, I feel like there shouldn't be any such thing as Gender Roles. Roles, yes. Gender shouldn't have anything to do with them.

[Neonivek]

I am mostly trying to explain my viewpoint so what I wrote is supposed to show a line of consciousness that diagrams the problem... Showing that the positive stereotypes that men retain in turn becomes negative even in light of female uplifting and eventually become negative female stereotypes once again, or at least equivalent. Not so much I am trying to mince words to somehow flip it back on you. but I see I am doing it quite badly so I'll drop it.

As well you always want to be careful with positive stereotypes. Even "Is strong" can easily be a noose around someone's neck.

[Rolepgeek]

I agree; stereotypes in general need to be avoided. But the only real way to destroy stereotypes is to show evidence to the contrary, and to make sure people are aware of them to know that they're only stereotypes. One of those will not work effectively in a way that is helpful to anyone for demolishing stereotypes that are typically painted in a positive light.

[Reelya]

When comparing gendered language usages, we do need to be sure that we're comparing apples and apples rather than apples and oranges, i.e. that we're not just picking "just so" comparisons to make our case.

For example, "throw like a little boy" hardly sounds like a compliment any more than "throw like a little girl". Comparing "X like a man" to "X like a girl" is the same as "X like a man" vs "X like a boy" at some level. There's an age-related implication here layered on with the gender thing so that confounds the straight comparison.

Also for comparison: "girls are 'sluts', guys are 'studs'"

"slut" refers to behavior, whereas "stud" is synonymous with "hunk" and refers to appearance. You can be a Hunk or a Stud without engaging in untoward behavior.

Male "sluts" are not in fact called "studs" they're called a "sleaze" or a "lecher" and these are definitely not compliments.

Female Stud/Hunks are in fact called a "Babe" or a "hottie" and a girl can be a "babe" without this implying any sexual behavior whatsoever.

[Rolepgeek]

I'm not going to try to compare slut to stud. I'm comparing slut to 'player'. Both refer to behaviour, but a woman who has sex with lots of people is thought of as 'easy', while a man who does so is though of as 'good' or 'skilled' in that manner. Which is due to the stereotype that all men want sex and women won't, so a woman can get sex at any time any place, whereas a man has to work at it(supposedly). 'Sleaze' and 'slut' certainly do not mean the same thing.

There is basically no language that celebrates a woman being promiscuous, while there is plenty that celebrates a man being so.

In addition, the saying is not 'throw like a little girl'. The 'little' is not part of it. 'throw like a boy' seems very vague as to whether it could be construed positively or negatively, while 'throw like a girl' is almost universally thought of as negative.

[GavJ]

> Get all the positives and mark it as that, without the negatives.
Seems that simple for me.
Aspire.

But people do negative things that are sexual in nature, and other stuff relating to sex and gender.

For example, some DO have sex in a negative fashion (such as when you include routinely having sex with married partners or with STDs that you don't disclose, stuff that causes damage) Or, some people ARE militant and intolerant of members of an opposite gender for various reasons.

It's not entirely unreasonable to have negative, gender-specific or sex-specific labels when those categories are the ones along which people are doing negative behaviors.

I guess you could just still use gender/sex-neutral terms anyway, as a concerted effort, but it doesn't feel very natural, and even if it might theoretically be helpful to always abandon any gendered neutral term, it doesn't seem like a realistic goal.

As long as they aren't completely one-sided (as in their equivalent of the opposite gender is hardly ever used) AND false, negative terms related to gender aren't necessarily the biggest problem.

Neonivek, you understand that the best way to handle sexism that adversely affects men is to deal with the more prevalent and more harmful sexism that adversely affects women, right?

I'm not Neonivek, but this argument sounds absurd. You can and should address more than one kind of related prejudice at once, if more than one exists at once, and there's no guarantee that any prejudice is just going to go away on its own without direct address. Nor is this fair or just to the victims of said prejudice that you are deigning to ignore.

"Women are strong". Women are thus equal to men, who are also strong. The 'in control' part would fall away as part of this.

This is a nice example of how it DOESN'T automatically take care of itself, contrary to the intention of this example.

Two people can be equally strong and yet one still completely in control of the group... do you see how you jumped across two concepts? Strength =/= leadership, control, or power.

Additionally, this assumes that everybody out there is solving logical syllogisms before they speak or think things, which is simply not true. People are dumb and believe contradictory things all the time without thinking twice about them. I have no problem believing that a large chunk of the population could be taught that women are strong, nod yes and sign their name to that, and then a day later, still go around anyway giving strength-requiring tasks to men, and then if you question them, saying "Well I gave it to him because men are strong."