Defining Misogynism

[Batou667]

Well, the definition that you've been using isn't actually a definition of patriarchy theory at all, it's a common misunderstanding of the theory that usually gets espoused by MRAs when they feel like attacking something that isn't there, so that's one so-called "varying definition" that you can forget about right away. That leaves two out of the three definitions that you've supposedly heard, both of which are listed in my previous post from the dictionary entry for patriarchy theory. So, confusion solved.

Fine, I accept I may have unintentionally been insulting. Apologies to anybody who feels aggrieved by my comments.

You're right, "men work harder" is subjective so I retract that. What I meant was that men typically work longer hours, are overrepresented in manual labour and are more likely to be injured or killed in the workplace than women.

I've seen "the patriarchy" variously defined as:

- Any society where the father is head of the household and the majority of political power is held by men.
- A system of social norms put in place to privilege men over women of the same social class (thereby benefiting men)
- A system of social norms put in place to limit and exploit women (thereby benefiting men)
- A synonym for violence and control (or sometimes just negativity on general) and the antithesis of compassion and collaboration (or sometimes just positivity in general), thereby harming the majority of men and women

Are any, all, or none of the above definitions correct?

 

[Yuuki]

Judith Butler, for example, has argued that gender doesn't really exist as anything other than a social construct:

Spoiler

I wonder what she will have to answer when asked whether the physical/biological differences between genders are also nothing but "a social construct" lol.

Or is she one of those people who tries to focus purely on the mental/psychological side and pretends that physical/biological differences simply don't exist?

 

[bananafishtoday]

Sure, the coal miner or firefighter can come home after a hard day at work and console himself that he does a difficult job. Perhaps his pals at the bar give him an extra bit of kudos for it. Maybe it's helped him impress the ladies a few times, the ladies who like a rugged man, anyway. But that's where the social power and influence associated with these professions starts and pretty much ends. Look at who's really at the top in capitalist, patriarchal society: the CEOs, the bankers, the politicians. People - mostly men - who quite notably don't get their hands dirty on a daily basis.

I don't disagree that a male coal miner does not get much privilege from being a coal miner (mostly a function of social class,) but he still gets privilege from being male. A female coal miner would suffer in a similar way due to her class as a male coal miner, coupled with and reinforced by oppression related to her sex. A female CEO would suffer in ways that a male coal miner would not because he enjoys male privilege, but her class privilege would insulate her from other forms of oppression that the male coal miner would suffer.

This notion is one of the pillars of third-wave feminism: intersectionality [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality]. Essentially, multiple systems of oppression or discrimination such as race, class, sex, gender presentation, sexual orientation, ability, etc intersect and reinforce each other rather than operating independently.

No question that rich men oppress poor men on the daily in our society, but it doesn't change the fact that poor men still have a degree of power that women of any social class do not. One could argue about which forms of oppression are "worse," but it's pointless, divisive, and stupid. It's making the same mistake as the "class-conscious" workers in the pre-WWI era, who argued that workers were united by their being workers, and no other distinction mattered. (Well, generally "working men." Also generally "working men but not black men omg no." But imagine even the least-racist of these folks saying to a black dude in the 1900s, "Forget about race, we're all workers suffering the same!")

So yeah, I get where you're coming from on the class argument, but it's only one facet of a larger system of oppression. I have some very... strong... opinions about the rich, to say the least, but we need to understand and confront all forms coercive power if we're going to get anywhere.

I wonder what she will have to answer when asked whether the physical/biological differences between genders are also nothing but "a social construct" lol.

Or is she one of those people who tries to focus purely on the mental/psychological side and pretends that physical/biological differences simply don't exist?

I actually think she's one of those people who are capable of understanding the distinction between biological sex and gender identity/gender expression.

Gender Trouble was prolly one of the most difficult books I've read in my life, both because Butler's ideas are complex and her prose in her early works is needlessly opaque. So I won't pretend to fully understand it all, but...

Butler actually rejects the sex/gender distinction as it's commonly understood. She argues that the problem with presenting sex as "natural" but gender as socially constructed is that it would necessarily break the link between the two concepts. Setting up gender as discursively defined positions biological sex to be somehow prediscursive--described, rather than created, by language--and thus viewing only gender as constructed serves to obscure the fact that sex is as well. In her view, the fact that gender is constructed by discourse coupled with the fact that bodies are understood in gendered language means that sex is necessarily constructed in the same way.

Basically she follows the post-structuralist notion that language isn't the medium through which we understand the world as it exists. Rather, reality itself is created through the process of describing it in language. Her notions of gender performativity also entirely reject the concept of gender identity. Foucault was much the same way--ironic that his ideas kickstarted so many identity movements when he thought the very idea of identity markers was a tool of oppression.

Prolly goes without saying that some of her ideas are controversial to say the least, lol. (Plus a lot of what she says about trans* folks in Bodies That Matter is really... ehhhhhh.)

Edit: I'd post this in its own reply if not for low-content rules, but...

me and other post feminists

hahahahahahahahahaha

 

[generals3]

]I don't disagree that a male coal miner does not get much privilege from being a coal miner (mostly a function of social class,) but he still gets privilege from being male. A female coal miner would suffer in a similar way due to her class as a male coal miner, coupled with and reinforced by oppression related to her sex. A female CEO would suffer in ways that a male coal miner would not because he enjoys male privilege, but her class privilege would insulate her from other forms of oppression that the male coal miner would suffer.

This notion is one of the pillars of third-wave feminism: intersectionality [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality]. Essentially, multiple systems of oppression or discrimination such as race, class, sex, gender presentation, sexual orientation, ability, etc intersect and reinforce each other rather than operating independently.

No question that rich men oppress poor men on the daily in our society, but it doesn't change the fact that poor men still have a degree of power that women of any social class do not. One could argue about which forms of oppression are "worse," but it's pointless, divisive, and stupid. It's making the same mistake as the "class-conscious" workers in the pre-WWI era, who argued that workers were united by their being workers, and no other distinction mattered. (Well, generally "working men." Also generally "working men but not black men omg no." But imagine even the least-racist of these folks saying to a black dude in the 1900s, "Forget about race, we're all workers suffering the same!")

So yeah, I get where you're coming from on the class argument, but it's only one facet of a larger system of oppression. I have some very... strong... opinions about the rich, to say the least, but we need to understand and confront all forms coercive power if we're going to get anywhere.

But the big question is: is this female oppression real? Because that's what me and other post feminists actually ask themselves. It's easy to claim it exists but does it really? Mainly in most developed countries. I have no doubt it exists in countries like Saudi Arabia where women have a lot of restrictions, but can the same be said about countries like the UK, Australia, Belgium, Sweden, etc. ?

 

[generals3]

First of all:

me and other post feminists

hahahahahahahahahaha

Pretty much covers it. What generals3 actually knows about feminism could be written on the back of a very small dinner wafer. Moving on.

Your derision is filled with delicious Irony. Maybe next time before laughing at something you see as a sign of ignorance be sure your derision isn't a sign of your own ignorance.

"Post-feminism is a reaction against some perceived contradictions and absences of second-wave feminism. The term post-feminism is ill-defined and is used in inconsistent ways. However, it generally connotes the belief that feminism has succeeded in its goal of ameliorating sexism, making it fundamentally opposed to the third-wave intention of broadening feminist struggle."

And do keep in mind that I said "other post feminists" and not "all other post feminists". The latter would have been incorrect due to the broad use of the term. But the former is perfectly valid.

I think that this exhausted rant by Lindy West more or less covers my response to this:

I am tired of being called a shrieking harridan for pointing out inequalities so tangible and blatant that they are regularly codified into law. I am tired of being told to provide documentation of inequality in the comments sections of a website where a staff of smart women documents inequality as fast as our fingers can move. Like, you might as well write me a note on a banana peel demanding that I prove to you that bananas exist. I am tired of being asked to "cite sources" proving that sexism is real (that RAPE is real, even!), because there is no way to concisely cite decades and decades of rigorous academia. Allow me to point at the fucking library. We can't cite "everything," and our challengers know that. It's an insulting diversionary tactic, it's an attempt to drag us all backwards, and fuck it. Do your own research like the rest of the grown-ups.

What are you supposed to do when someone asks you to "prove" that feminism isn't a massive conspiracy theory in a country where we've only had 39 female senators in the nation's entire history, and 20 of them are serving right now? What kind of a stupid fucking question is that? What are you supposed to say when the 8,000th faux-incredulous jackass throws you the same argument about the wage gap or the draft or bumbling dads in Tide commercials?as though holding each of their hands individually through the empirical facts of the world around us is a worthwhile use of my time. As though feminist academics haven't filled books (decades of books) with answers to that shit already.

This is probably the best way to admit it's all bollocks. And it also shows the big issues I have with a lot of feminist dogma: having only 20 female senators isn't evidence of discrimination or sexism. If you assume that it is, you're part of a big problem.

to quote myself:
"But here is a statement that the author of the book wrote on the back cover: "what needs to be questioned is the notion that either sex is a victim". Because that's a predominant attitude when we discuss genders in society. That somehow the situation is bad and as such we have victims. But are there victims? If more men than women decide to join the armed forces does that mean there is a victim gender? If less women decide to work their asses off and as a consequence reach the top of the corporate ladder does that mean there is a victim gender? Why do so many people actively seek explanations, often with little evidence, which involves a victim status for either genders and at the same time disregard any theories which would weaken this "victim" status of either gender? Are our lives really so awesome we need to get out of our way to find things to complain about? Because that's how it sometimes feels like."

 

[generals3]

First of all:

me and other post feminists

hahahahahahahahahaha

Pretty much covers it. What generals3 actually knows about feminism could be written on the back of a very small dinner wafer. Moving on.

Your derision is filled with delicious Irony. Do you even know what a post feminist is?

Let's look on Wikipedia, shall we?

"Post-feminism is a reaction against some perceived contradictions and absences of second-wave feminism. The term post-feminism is ill-defined and is used in inconsistent ways. "

Yeah, that sounds about right. What, did you hope that if you didn't bold that bit, I wouldn't notice it?

Also, notice the near-total lack of any academic sources in that article.

Also, notice the fact that you had to go and look it up on Wikipedia before you could explain what a postfeminist is. Lol.

I see why i was often told to ignore you. What is this extremely aggressive way of discussing things with you? I didn't just go and decided to use the word post feminist out of nowhere. I knew damn well what it meant, i quoted that part because otherwise you would have accused me to just be inventing things. But I guess being one step ahead is something you don't like because it reduces the amount of hostility you can throw in my direction?

And who needs academic sources to define a word? If the term is mostly used in a certain way what would be wrong with using it in that way? Just because that gives you the ability to be pointlessly hostile? Ever stopped thinking your methods simply want to make people reject whatever you're trying to promote even more? You might do feminism a great favor by acting a bit more diplomatically. Actually, to think of it, you're doing me a great service.

Yeah, that's more or less the reaction I was expecting. "Oh, so now you're refusing to cite every instance of sexism that exists or has ever existed and sum up decades of rigorous academic research and literature in 500 words or less? That must mean it's all bollocks."

I've provided a link to just one of the thousands of feminists texts out there. There's plenty of stuff on sexism in there. Go read it - go on, try reading just one book - and then come back to the discussion.

Which link have you provided me? Or do you mean links provided to Batou? And which one are you specifically talking about? The one about the ways the patriarchy negatively affects men?

Also it seems there was a bit you edited in later on:

I mean ... seriously? You ask that in a thread that all started off with a guy claiming that modern women are selfish, vain, cruel, feral "creatures" for refusing to give him the sex that he's entitled to, and a bunch of morons cheering him on in the comments? Probably not the best place to demand proof that sexism exists.

There are idiots of all kinds and they will always exist. However the existence of idiots does not prove we have a societal issue. You'll always have sexists around, does that mean humanity is doomed to be facing widespread sexism for all eternity?

 

[Eggsnham]

I was actually going to watch the video, but now I don't think I will.

On a slightly less relevant note: What's the deal with all the gender war bullshit?

Has the recent Anita Sarkeesian fiasco really had that much of an impact on the internet, or is it just something that I've apparently never noticed before?

 

[Dragonbums]

I got to zero seconds through the video, and honestly I don't want to watch it if the comments are anything to go by.
Maybe when it's midnight, and I have nothing better to do, and I'd be too sleepy to give a crap about a wannabe "classy" man trying to define a two sentence definition in 15 minutes.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

So.... it's wrong for women to want or to ask for something that isn't casual shovelware?

Maybe there isn't a market for more mainstream/hardcore games for women because no developer has had the balls or creative insight to make games like that.

There are many bro-hard, female sex-accessory games out there that completely turn me off and I am a male, so not only are these developers missing out on the female market, but they are also turning some of their potential MALE customers away with this bullshit.

I am failing to see your point here as it seems to be that you are indicating what is A LACK of real effort(shovelware) is also somehow evidence of real development or marketing effort.

Also, you must be high off of directly snorting steroids if you think games about babies, playing dress up, and the wii fit are going to appease women demanding more equal consideration and to be taken seriously by the gaming industry.

If anything your examples reinforce the issues brought up by the other side more than they help your case at all...

Women have a small market in "hardcore gaming", when divide up with in type of games, publishers, console, pc, developer, basically any variables the number grows smaller. Not to say there won't be overlap, but the truth is that women in "hardcore gaming" is insignificant, most thing a publisher and game developer could do is appease to their fan base while trying to garner more consumers. No one can try to appease to a base that just doesn't exist, or don't care about your product at all, as they have their own interest.

It sounds more like reality doesn't fit a belief you have. There is a female market, it doesn't fit your view of what a female market should be, because you figure that "hardcore gaming" was the norm. That's the mistake people keeps on making.

What are you trying to go on about? For both male and female the hardcore gaming market is smaller, because in both male and female population there are more casual gamers than hardcore gamers. The biggest issue when playing games that I really enjoy such as Darkfall, was not the lack of other females playing, it was the lack of interest to get my male friends to play it with me. With mmo gaming we want games that we can play with our friends as well, and I see the problem with games being too hardcore is that you can't really do that because of the different skill levels of those who you wish to play with. Sure you can play the games you enjoy by yourself, but then it is also not as fun because your friends aren't there with you.

As for women being " insignificant" in hardcore gaming, I also see that as untrue, as there are many women in hardcore gaming, just many women do not run around announcing that they are women in games to begin with. Most of the time, you don't want people to know your a girl because they seem to place more emphasis on that than your actual accomplishments in games and honestly it doesn't matter. Women already get enough harrassment in games, there is no point in drawing unnecessary attention to it. Personally, I could care less who knows I'm a girl, but many of my female friends make male characters and don't want many to know just because of the harrassment issue.

As for this video. Is this a joke? People actually take this creaton seriously? LOL! funny stuff there. I needed some comical relief.

 

[Smeatza]

There IS a market for mainstream games that appeal to or at the very least don't turn off/away women. And it's not JUST women, I count myself, as a man, as someone that would like to see MORE games that break the stereotypes and clichés that haunt the gaming industry. You are SEEING that market speak up in forums and other discussions just like this, and the people that are speaking up are just a small part of that market.

Maybe it is you that would prefer to believe that such things just cannot be.

Are the terms mainstream and AAA interchangeable?
Because with the way the industry is at the moment, 28% of the console market probably wouldn't be enough of a market share to justify a "risky" AAA game.
I personally avoid AAA games and have had no problem avoiding cliches and stereotypes (including those that are commonly considered sexist) when doing so.