Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I think you misunderstood what Unelias meant Deery...
When he said "The feminist won" I think he meant in the general sense - that they've won and he's treating women truly equally with men.
Ah, well then in that case I take it back.
Also, I disagree with some of the stereotypes you're perpetuating above - in particular that men can be anything they want in movies/TV shows and women are forced to be sexy. It seems to me when that stereotype first started it was because women were always portrayed as weak screamers to be rescued by (sexy) male heroes. Now we have probably as many sexy female heroes as sexy male heroes, or very close. As well as countless shows portraying husbands as dumbasses who couldn't even tie their shoes without their smarter wives telling them how.
While the female characters are written more strong these days (at least as a surface idea of strong), there's still this "token female" syndrome, and yes, the vast majority of them are still as sexy as the "screamers", but I see a lot of average looking, funny looking, fat, old men in movies and TV shows (with a level of charisma and personality that seems to be lacking in the female characters) being lovable despite their obvious inner AND outer flaws (where can we find women in the media that are fat and ugly but still adored?). There's also the fact that you can rarely find women with names talking to other women about things other than a male love interest (the "Bechdel" test). Even if the female characters are strong and smart, it's usually about a guy being the main character, 9 times out of 10.
Male fantasy tends to express itself through images of strength and violence... as heroes basically. So you have the "guy movies". But women also have their "chick flicks". I think fantasy movies for women are romances.
I hate chick flicks (as do most people), especially for its surprisingly misogynistic, corny writing, and chick flicks shouldn't be the only movies where women are represented at all (like "eh, lets just give the women a pink flowery gab fest, no one else will be interested in their stories but them, as a specific genre for an entire gender"). Not all women fantasize about romance.
Does equality have to mean going against your natural tendencies? Is it necessary for men to be housewives and for women to be CEOs and weightlifters in order for them to be equal?
I don't have the natural tendency to be a girly housewife, that's just simply not how I was born. The fight here is not to force everyone to switch genders, but to open society up to different ways of living, where everyone can choose who they want to be, instead of being told that all girls play with dolls and all guys play with trucks and action figures. That's just as bad, forcing people to fit into typical gender divisions when not everybody feels that way naturally.
In primitive societies it's natural and necessary for men to be hunters and warriors and for women to tend the home and raise children.
It's a damn good thing we don't live in a primitive society, then, because I don't want to be forced to sit around and raise children. The key word, here, is choice.
But I also see a lot of feminists making fun of men for doing what comes naturally, as if they expect them to suddenly shed millions of years of genetic programming overnight and turn into Mr. Mom.
Just like I'm not naturally inclined to be Kate Gosselin, I'm sure not all men are naturally inclined to be macho and find it so challenging to be Mr. Mom. In fact, Mr. Dads actually like to be around their kids. The way you talk about biology, as if it's inevitable, makes me feel like I'm an anomaly that doesn't (or shouldn't) exist. I simply don't feel that way when I analyze myself. I think people like to play up biology to try to connect it better with the way our society is run, when in fact society doesn't always run healthy or logically. Why spend so much time playing up the gender differences when maybe the truth is that we're not that different? Of course we have some obvious differences, and there are girly girls and macho guys who naturally exist, but why force it on everybody?
Example... one day I saw something on TV - this woman was all riled up about the statistics of women getting raped in prison. Women. What about the men who get raped in prison? Is that somehow less important? So where's the 'equality'? She seemed only concerned about women and not men. Too often I see feminism being used as a front for anger or aggression on the part of women. Thy say "we want equality" but many of them seem to really want revenge. Not all mind you, just many.
I agree, it would be nice to highlight problems with both genders, but feminism is also an opportunity to talk about problems specific to women, where elsewhere they might be ignored. When talking about women's issues once in a while, it shouldn't have to be required to talk about men at every single point. I agree, though, that there should be more focus on men's issues, but that's also inhibited by the traditional idea that men should "man up" and not talk about any problems. There's a bit of a conundrum between you saying that men are naturally macho and shouldn't be forced to be "Mr. Mom", but saying that we should be more sensitive about men's issues.
|
|
Bookmarks