The Glade 4.0

I am woman, hear me moan...

I have never been much of a fan of classical "Feminism." Too many activist women have tried to tell me what I should be, what I should do, or more importantly, what I shouldn't do. They tell us what's appropriate and what degrades us; they tell us what to think, what to feel. Frankly, I have no use for them. Early on I decided that part of liberating women is empowering us to use our own bodies the way we wish to do so.

But MacKinnon and Dworkin and their ilk don't represent all feminists. When I became aware of Sex-Positive Feminism (and read a bit of Camille Paglia) my dislike for the word "Feminism" softened a great deal. So when my friend Coro told me about the rabid anti-pornographic girls in his university class complaining about the objectifying of women in pornography, I gladly told him:

"Have they ever even watched any porn? A woman in a porn film remains a woman. We're not objectified in the slightest. You want to see the victims in a porn film? Where are the men? You know, men: the faceless frameworks on which the rigid erect cum fountains are mounted? They're nothing more than living dildos for her pleasure! Objectifying women, my ***...figuratively speaking, of course. Men should be the ones complaining, except men like being sex objects."

Therein lies the difference. The very things so many of us women complain about, men have no problems with at all. If I were to smack a guy's *** at work, I guarantee you he's going to appreciate it, rather than report me for harassment. And it is because of these differences in how men and women think, that our push for sexual equality has overshot the goal. Oh, we've done great things for women. But what about men? There's a new double standard at work, and we haven't even noticed. The most obvious place for the standard is in our sexuality. Female same-sex relationships are far more accepted than male same-sex relationships. In general, even open-minded people are repulsed by male-on-male intimacy. Intellectually, they have no problems with it; to each their own, if you're not hurting anyone else, do what you will! But they don't want to see it! But women? Well, lesbians are hot, right?

This double standard continues through less explicit categories, though. Today, thanks to the wonderful progress we've made culturally, a woman can be a CEO, a soldier, a police officer, a firefighter, an action hero, whatever she desires, and be no less a woman for it. In fact, men like the female action hero--she's sexy! But what of the man who is a homemaker, or a dancer, or a hairdresser? Why is it that those things make him somehow less manly? How is it that in our push for equality, men are still culturally denied the right to cross gender rolls, while women can do so with impunity? Of course, the truth of the matter is that men, themselves have perpetuated this. While men have chivalrously accepted us as equals, they are still brutally sexist to themselves. And when you're your own worst enemy, who is there to stand up for you?

Do ever want to just grab someone and say...WTF is wrong with you?

sexism, like many other isms, it’s been pushed too hard in one direction

Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.

I like Paglia and think Dworkin was literally crazy, so I'll agree with this for the most part. Men are far too feminized in some areas of our society for my tastes. Rare to see a man celebrated for what he brings to the species.

Maybe that's a poor choice of words, neutered possibly, emasculated?

Do ever want to just grab someone and say...WTF is wrong with you?

There's a new double standard at work, and we haven't even noticed....{W}hat of the man who is a homemaker, or a dancer, or a hairdresser? Why is it that those things make him somehow less manly? How is it that in our push for equality, men are still culturally denied the right to cross gender rolls, while women can do so with impunity? Of course, the truth of the matter is that men, themselves have perpetuated this. While men have chivalrously accepted us as equals, they are still brutally sexist to themselves. And when you're your own worst enemy, who is there to stand up for you?

Men are far too feminized in some areas of our society for my tastes....Not in all places, and not all the time, but overall yeah....It's kind of a long derail I dont wanna screw up Talys thread. I'll try to make my own tomorrow since I like that topic

Personally, I'm a little torn on this issue. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a societal archetype for masculinity, but I do think it's wrong to condemn or demean those who, by birth or by choice, don't adhere to it. The dilemma I see is whether it's possible to have the former without the latter.

... Latin men are entirely capable of crossing some of our western "Masculine gender role" stereotypes and not seem any less manly for it. The spanish dancer can remain the height of hunkish manliness, the italian hairdresser does a masculine thing making women look beautiful, etc.

The standard also varies from culture to culture. During the many conversations I had that day that helped crystallize my position, I did pose a caveat that Latin men are entirely capable of crossing some of our western "Masculine gender role" stereotypes and not seem any less manly for it.

Anyway, note that women who cross such gender roles are not in any way considered less feminine...not anymore, anyway. Why can't the strong, masculine man stay home and keep the house clean (and repaired, if he's feeling too feminized!) and look after the kids while his wife brings home money?

Anyway, note that women who cross such gender roles are not in any way considered less feminine...not anymore, anyway. Why can't the strong, masculine man stay home and keep the house clean (and repaired, if he's feeling too feminized!) and look after the kids while his wife brings home money?

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

This of course is not in relation to sexual appeal, but more towards the other side of femininity, child bearing, house keeping, cooking and home making. Regardless of the degree to which the line has blurred between gender roles, those women who chose careers do lose out on femininity points. It takes a truly talented woman to balance all of the above.

Personally I'd like to see the idea of manly move towards job AND home making, however I have come to accept the idea that men are usually lazier than females.

As for the men, the ability to provide is a desirable trait when looking for a husband. Thus those with bigger packages (still talking about money) is able to get more interest from girls, and thus considered more manly.

What's the purpose of these "femininity points"? Seems anti-feminist to me.

Empirical evidence shows that women don't actually select men for their money, regardless of what women say they look for.