One of the greatest misconceptions going imo is this strange idea, apparently which you hold, that men "always had righs". Ah Bolony. Since it varies from culture to culture, let's limit it to the Western tradion for brevity's sake (and truthfully it's the most I know about too). The vast majority of men had to fight for their rights too--and very tiny percentage actually made "the rules", and many if not most of those who did probalby did so in order to look attractive to the best women--women didn't have to do that to look attractive to men. Almost no one had anything like "rights" except monnarchs (some of which were women rulers--who certainly had for more rights than the bulk of peasant/ manual labourer men underneath them, same is true for all upper class women), and a tiny percentage of upper crusts who served them properly, until the rise of Constitutional demacracies in the late 18th century. Then a few more men got rights, and eventually by the 1880s or so in the US finally all men got the right to vote -- and about 20 years later in Scandanavia all women received the right to vote nationally (local elections already allowed women to vote). Even so, certian men, such as black men, effectivily had no voting rights in the old south due to the constant threat of violence and even death if they were to do so. Women, at least white women, when they got the right to vote did not receive anywhere near the level of violence that these black men faced.
There was actually a reason behind men getting the vote first before women beyond the typical evil patriarchal active agenda of oppression of women tripe you often hear. The justification for their enfranchisement was in large part due to the fact that they would be expected to be called upon to fight and possibly die for their country when need be--this 'life sacrifice' bestowed them the right to vote as a kind of reward--even so, like I said, these were only the white, land owners at first.
There was also a strong public/private dichotmoy that fitted men and women into differing social spheres, with men's sphere considered the public, and women's the domestic. Much of this, if not most, is based on biological imperatives and evolutionary roles. Eventually, these spheres were no longer required or sensible to remain in place, hence women's movement and even eventually men's rights movement.
I would check yourself to say that men don't face predjudice and sexism. They did quite overtly in about the last 3 - 4 decades, but even years before that there were many first wave feminists that were know to say some bigoted and mean-spirited, prejudiced things about men collectively. Beyond that thoguh, the expectations and requirements they needed to fulfill in order to be considered "real men" and be sexually selected by women (remember women always were the ones who were the choosers in the sex selection game, it is like that in many other species as well). Men who didn't cooperate or fulfill what was esxpected of them (which was often just as narrow and suffocating as it was for women if you really look at it) would be the rejected misfits, social piriahs, geeks, criminals, bums, and so on (btw, all this essentially remains the same, except the pressure on men to be pursuer is now more dangerous than ever). Women didn't need to, and they still don't, need have a "good" well paying job (often one that kills you earlier with stress and a heart attack which men always were the greater vicitm of, as far back as stats go on it anyway), or public status, in order to attract a mate. But the higher men achieved in those things, the more attractive they were to a mate. Women simply didn't have to. Of course now this is no longer necessary or needed for our more advnaced, complex society to function -- but at one time it was. Btw, women get paid less money because of the job choices they make. Men put it more time, overtime, less vaction, less parental leave, work the most dangerous/stressful jobs and so get extrea "hazard pay" or other premiums for doing so. In fact, pay incentives in order to fill a mandate to get more women in certain male dominated jobs actually created a situaton where women are getting MORE money for the same job.
I'm sorry to hear your treated "a certain way" in the film industry. I can tell you I sure as hell wouldn't give you any special treatment, just because I would want to consider you an equal and fully capable co-worker. A great failing of many men that still persists is the dronish chivalric/protective instinct (so-called instinct although I think it can be changed and not all men are infected with it) that is the very thing you are criticizing. Thousands if not millions of years (going back through the "Homo" line) of protecting women and children as men's primary role probably created it and it lingers and limps on to do this day ironically in an age where there is actually laws that discriminate against men, widespread negative stereotypes and bigotry against men (more than just the women's magazines and cleaning products you mentioned.I've seen many of them with my own two eyes), and where women have more rights and privileges (while having still less responsibilites) than men, and in additon often get to keep all the special treatment and little perks they always had as well. pretty sweet deal eh? But I don't get what you mean by you having to "justify" giving orders. So you have to "soften" your order to your subordinates? Well if that's true, that's wrong. All orders given should be properly justified. But let me ask you: do they "soften" their order to you too then? If that's true, perhaps you should be happy that you are spared and exempted from much of the harsh and brutal treatment many men expereience on the degrading and often dehumanizing male dominance hierarchy -- not just in business, but elsewhere in life as well.
So don't tell me that men don't face sexism and predjudice, for they always did in a way to one extent or another, and they now face major and significant sexism and LEGAL discrimination (I've already written to much, I can't get into ALL that now!)I know a lot of it is men's own doing (men are tragically often their own worst enemies), not just feminists--though they had a large part to play in it too, at least some kinds of feminism esp that arose in the last 30-35 years or so. The fact that you and many others don't see that and acknowledge it only goes to show just how deep the ignorance, neglect, and uncaring goes for men's situation in society--and how much there is a need to correct this and create a true balance between the sexes. And just so you know "Masculinism" is a term long abandoned. The word's meaning has been usurped by some gender feminist 20 years ago now. We prefer the term Men's Rights Activist--and see if they can twist that one into something bad. I know they will try and do their best.
reply
share
maconbaby
13 years ago
I didn't say that men don't face sexism - if you read my post you'd see that.
When you say that black men had to fight for their rights, where on earth do you think black women were? Enjoying rights denied to the men? Of course not. The rights of women have always been secondary to those of men, throughout recorded history (around 3000 BCE), and it is only as recently as the 1960s that women have started to gain equality.
And your long paragraphs about how men had to fight for their rights throughout history - they weren't fighting against another sex that denied them the rights that they themselves enjoyed, were they? No, they were fighting with other men - other men who had rights that some men didn't have by virtue of race, status or finances. Women only gained the vote in this country in the 1920s, and to begin with it was only those who owned property over the age of 30! Not a criteria applied to men at the time of course.
And yes, there have been a few female queens - but let's remember, they only got to rule when they had no younger brother to outrank them purely by virtue of being male. Both Mary and Elizabeth, fully grown adults, had to step aside for the 9 year old Edward to go first - just because they were women.
I'm sorry to hear that men experience "degrading and dehumanizing male dominance hierarchy" - but I'm not sure how that's an argument against feminism? Women suffer from, as you put it, the "male dominance hierarchy" too. You do seem to have a bit of a bugbear about who gets to choose sexual partners - and to say that women have always had the upper hand in this is terribly simplistic. Until the twentieth century (and still today in some countries) women were merely chattels to be sold by their father to another man for the purposes of procreation and serving all his needs. Women were given zero say in their choice of husband, but were expected to serve him in every way and remain faithful, while the husband could do as he pleased - and he could legally beat his wife whenever he fancied. And if we go even further back, being hit on the head, kidnapped, raped and discarded, was also a common occurrence - and depressingly still is in some countries.
I'm glad you wouldn't treat me differently at work because I'm a woman - luckily there are some enlightened men! But the fact remains that the majority of men in the male-dominated industry I work in are sexist and sometimes even misogynistic. It offends me that I have to 'play the game' to get things done - I don't believe they'd spend as much time as I have to pussy-footing around MY prejudices, but of course they don't have to, because they dominate. If you worked in a female dominated industry you might have an inkling of the difficulties you can face, and just saying that they shouldn't be there doesn't change the fact that they are. Of course, as I said before, there is reverse sexism - but there is also absolutely continued sexism toward women, in many many walks life, and we're not even talking about countries where women are still denied basic rights.
reply
share
Sheldonshells
13 years ago
“they weren't fighting against another sex that denied them the rights that they themselves enjoyed, were they?”
No. They were fighting for the rights and/or protection of everyone, particular emphasis always placed, and still is, on saving “women and children”, btw, as if men don’t exist and it’s perfectly alright to ignore their health and safety. And yes men fought each other in these wars, but how is that supposed to change anything? And it depends on the time period I suppose determining how many rights they did or did not have. Apparently they didn’t have the right to abstain from going to major wars in much of the 20th century without going to jail for it. Many were forced by their government (the same government that granted them the right to vote) to die in wars before they even got a chance to vote, while no women in most of the 20th century were denied that because of forced death.
I never heard about it stipulating that only women with property and over the age of 30 could vote. Where was that? Just in the US? Because I’m not sure if I remember that in Canadian history or British history. Anyway, I guess it was more of a case of ageism going on here this time, and remember at first men too who did not own property could not vote.
And you mention how women served men like it didn’t work the other way around too. What do you think men did? Laze around all day. Most of them broke their backs and wore out their bodies and minds trying to SERVE their wife and children and be considered a worthwhile and good man. Btw, your presumption that women “being hit on the head, kidnapped, raped and discarded, was also a common occurrence” is based on probably very little if not nothing. The actual historical evidence we have of any occurrence going farther back is scant at best. There would be no conclusive proof that women faced this much violence at the hands of men. And arranged marriages often forced men into unwanted marriages as well. Not all (actually not nearly all) arranged marriages were for powerful men wanting beautiful young girls as you might think it is.
I realize that there was a strong bias towards having male leaders, but even that has another reason beyond the typical active oppression of women in patriarchy argument you get from so many feminists. Like I said in my last post, men were basically valued by their propensity to be willing to harm or kill themselves, put themselves through situations of great stress, etc. Since protection of your culture and society (and women and children) was a first and foremost priority in much of human history from various invaders, men were the obvious choice for the ones to fulfill this protector role for biological reasons. One of the results of this kind of organization is the choice of the great leader of the warriors, the one who stuck his neck out the most, to become a political leader as well. One of down sides to this development of male leadership was the women’s roles devalued in state-level civilizations, as the thrust for expanding and prosperous empires and imperialism gripped human society. There is certainly some evidence that the roles of women, particularly the mother (and the importance of the mother actually lingers on far into the patriarchal age) were far more valued in pre-state-level human societies.
Terribly ironic, btw, how you say “luckily there are some enlightened men!”, and in just the next sentence mention how supposedly the “majority of men in the male-dominated industry I work in are sexist and sometimes even misogynistic”. Goes to show how shamefully blingsighted people are to sexism against men and misandry. I’ll bet you don’t know 1 percent of all the men in your industry and here you are making the sweeping generalizations about them. And talking to me about “some enlightened men” It’s truly incredible....
Believe me, men got to "play the game" as well.
reply
share
maconbaby
13 years ago
"Saving women and children" in the case of disasters, has always been part of the dominant attitude that men are the breadwinners and women must be looked after by them. The whole point of suffrage was to change that attitude and acknowledge that women are independent adults. "Saving children" is still accepted in the case of disasters, because they are not able to look after themselves. Women are no longer put in the same category as 'helpless children", but without suffragettes etc. we probably would be. Any vestiges of door opening etc are to do with old-fashioned manners - courtesies extended to "the weaker sex" and to your elders. You dislike that - don't do it.
"as if men don’t exist and it’s perfectly alright to ignore their health and safety."
I don't think anyone now thinks it's ok to ignore a man's health and safety - you seem to be arguing about a time when the world was far more sexist than today - so the feminist movement has improved matters for you, hasn't it? Women are able to join the armed forces now, and still feminists are fighting for their rights to front line battle, along with the men. It's continuing male sexism that makes this not common practice.
"Apparently they didn’t have the right to abstain from going to major wars in much of the 20th century without going to jail for it. Many were forced by their government (the same government that granted them the right to vote) to die in wars before they even got a chance to vote, while no women in most of the 20th century were denied that because of forced death."
Conscription is very complex, and each country has acted differently - and its use in the world wars was not blanket, and it continues in some countries and not in others. You are talking in massive generalisations here. But, despite that, you do realise that MEN made the laws that sent MEN to the front and refused to allow women to do that yes? You seem to be railing against women, when it is your own sex that has made all these decisions ... and yet you are annoyed that my sex finally said no, we want to be treated equally. We want to be allowed to do all that the men can do. We want to be treated th same. You are annoyed that men have had to go to war - and now women can too, because women fought for their rights - and yet you're not happy that they fought for them? Your arguments are very confused.
"And yes men fought each other in these wars, but how is that supposed to change anything?"
Well, off the top of my head, the french revolution, the US war of independence, the abolition of slavery ... all wars in which men fought men, and things were changed. My point was that men have never had to fight a dominant sex for an acknowledgement of their rights - you said that they have had to fight for their rights just as women have, and that is blatantly false because they have not had to fight governments or authorities made up of a dominant sex that keeps them subordinate! Men chose their rights, they enforced them, they chose what the role of women would be, and they enforced that too.
"I never heard about it stipulating that only women with property and over the age of 30 could vote. Where was that? Just in the US? Because I’m not sure if I remember that in Canadian history or British history."
I'm talking about my country - the UK - women only got the vote after WWI, and to begin with only over the age of 30 and they had to be householders or married to householders i.e. own property. It wasn't until 1928 that they got the vote on the same terms as men. If you don't know much history Wikipedia makes it all instantly accessible nowadays.
"Btw, your presumption that women “being hit on the head, kidnapped, raped and discarded, was also a common occurrence” is based on probably very little if not nothing. The actual historical evidence we have of any occurrence going farther back is scant at best."
You do realise we have evidence of what people were doing going all the way back to 9000 BCE right? When we stopped being hunter gatherers and early civilization began? The domestication of animals, the cultivation of grain, the invention of pottery .... recorded history - i.e. written language - itself begins around 3000 BCE !
"I’ll bet you don’t know 1 percent of all the men in your industry and here you are making the sweeping generalizations about them. And talking to me about “some enlightened men” It’s truly incredible... "
I spoke about my personal experiences and referred to you as "enlightened" actually - but there is still a vast majority of sexist men on set. I was taking my experience - over many years of working - and stating that as my experience of the industry. If the sets I have been on are not total anomalies (which is extremely unlikely), then they are an accurate picture, and can be used to extrapolate an accurate picture of the whole. Your accusation of generalisation is rather rich considering you are making massive ones about "men" and "women" throughout the entirety of history and geography!
You do not accept that men have been the dominant sex - and that men made that choice. All the ways in which men have treated women - looking after them, being the bread winner etc. seem to upset you, but I still have no idea why you blame women for that? The point is that, only through suffrage, did women fight and gain the same rights as men. Now we have most of those rights, although sexism is not dead - and you seem annoyed about ... what? That some men still give up their seats to women on the tube? That some women now give sexist remarks back to men? Yes, sexism is deplorable whoever it comes from, but sexist remarks by women are still only one iota of the sexist remarks still made by men. Not all men obviously, and not all women either. So what's your problem here?
reply
share
Sheldonshells
13 years ago
"Saving children is still accepted in the case of disasters, because they are not able to look after themselves. Women are no longer put in the same category as 'helpless children", but without suffragettes etc. we probably would be."
I wish you weren't, although certain other evidence points to the contrary. There's a good video on youtube about this matter and related ones that I strongly suggest you see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A&feature=related
And if you consider "dominant" to mean giving up your life to save women or otherwise disparaging or harming yourself in some way to protect women in some way , I urge you to reconsider potential loss of your life or limb and denigration as something that makes one feel "dominant". As a man, this certainly doesn't make me feel dominant or powerful -- although I know there's plenty of men who have been DELUDED and socially conditioned to think so (as WWI poet Wilfred Owen called quite correctly "the old lie"). And I hope you're right: I hope this is in its last vestiges, but there was a cruise ship that went down just a few years back where there was actually a POLICY of "women and children first". When that plane landed in the Hudson River, someone on board also shouted this nonsense. Disgracfully (and you better believe that the automatic valuing of one group of people's lives over another group is disgracful), this attitude hasn't gone away.
"I don't think anyone now thinks it's ok to ignore a man's health and safety"
haha wow, had to laugh at that one. And when was the last time you saw any awareness on countless advertisements and products for raising funds for prostate cancer? Or hell, even lung cancer (which kills more men, and kills more women than breast cancer). The National Institute of Health and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's numbers on cancer funding show that women's cancers are outfunded THIRTEEN TIMES the amount given to men's cancers (in the US anyway). Though there are a few thousand more breast cancer than prostate cancer cases, that still doesn't excuse being outfunded 13 times. And if you can get by on that little excuse (that a few more women get breast cancer than men prostate cancer), just take a look at heart disease. Men are much more likely to die from heart disease and attack than women, yet when did you ever see a "wear red" campaign for men? Not to mention all the most dangerous and unsafe jobs are filled almost exlusivley by men, I could go on and on. What this amounts to is a clear favouring of women's health and safety over men's.
"Conscription is very complex, and each country has acted differently[...]you are talking in massive generalizations here."
Conscription was responsible for the deaths of over a million men in the US in the last 100 years alone. No generalizations about it, that's a fact. Stop trying to gloss that over and de-emphasize it. However, I do agree with you actually that this is not the fault of feminists; it is the chivalric drone male generals and politicians for the most part that have made this happen -- and I believe I did indict these male power elites in one of my last posts. I never said this was feminists' fault, although women (and no doubt some feminists) contributed to fostering and favouring men who harm themselves or go through potentially harmful acts. Just look at the women who handed conscientious objectors (you know, those "privileged and powerful" men who said that they were going to be priests so they could get out of being forced into harms way by their government) white carnations which is basically code for "you're a wuss and not a real man and I reject you". Women have their part to play in this too, but yeah I do partly agree with you here. And I don't quite see how this is even worth fighting for. It's no privilege or right to go to a foreign place to get maimed and blown to bits for no apparent reason (excepting maybe WWII where there was more at stake than the top stakeholders' shares at JP Morgan and others of the ownership class). How is it good that more recently women are being deluded like men have been into thinking this is a good thing? Well there is some good maybe, in that it takes some of the burden off men to shoulder some of this violent degradation -- only this isn't exactly true. For one, women are protected from front-line combat and even though they make up 20 percent of the military now, are less than 1 percent of all deaths (in US and Canada). Btw, I havn't heard much from feminists about this recently, have you? Maybe they've finally awakened to just how powerless it actually is to be in the military. Also, just look at how they treat veterans and where many end up when they come back as another example. Wow, how worthy to "fight" for. *rolls eyes*
"you said that they have had to fight for their rights just as women have, and that is blatantly false because they have not had to fight governments or authorities made up of a dominant sex that keeps them subordinate! Men chose their rights, they enforced them, they chose what the role of women would be, and they enforced that too."
Wow, amazing how you can just contradict your point like that in the same breath, talking about all the wars men had to fight for their rights and then finishing by saying that it's "blatently false" that men did. There was also plenty of men that had to fight for their rights in between and domestically during wars ie, the Industrial Workers of the World (mostly men), the draft card burners in the 1960s, the draft riots in the 1860s, today's father's rights activists, etc. You say "men chose their rights", which is a highly questionable statement. What men chose? And what rights did they choose? I could go on here but I need to address some other things too.
"I'm talking about my country - the UK - women only got the vote after WWI, and to begin with only over the age of 30 and they had to be householders or married to householders"
Ok. Well I do know the history for Canada and the US (sorry I'm not up on the minute details of every country's history), and that there weren't such terms over here in Northern America. And I've already stated my points in previous posts on the issue of enfranchisment and why and for what reason who gets the vote.
"You do realise we have evidence of what people were doing going all the way back to 9000 BCE right?"
Yeah I do, and I didn't say otherwise. There is "evidence", suffice to say, of people going back even farther than 9000 BCE, just not very much, and this tends to be truer the farther back you go in history/prehistory, as I've said.
"I spoke about my personal experiences and referred to you as 'enlightened' actually - but there is still a vast majority of sexist men on set"
Your "personal experience" is just that, personal, subjective. Maybe what your saying is true, maybe it isn't. And it's not that easy I'm afraid to extrapolate. The process simply isn't always that reliable or sound. Individuals are too complex to be reduced this way. Sorry, but I can't just believe what you subjectively experience as true. Actually, judging from all that you have said already, I can assume with some safety that you are misinterpreting/exaggerating at least some of what you think of as "sexist". And don't worry, those men you think are being sexist to you are no doubt getting their own share of more or less equally frustrating and degrading treatment in some way or another. They always were...
"but sexist remarks by women are still only one iota of the sexist remarks still made by men."
Your last paragraph is just more evidence of how blindsighted you are to the misandry men receive from society -- and it's not all just from women or femininsts I can agree with you on that. There are many self-hating men out there who act as other men's own worst enemy, and of course there's the power elite males that don't give a S*** about the everday man majority. I suggest you crack open your mind just a little bit and check out the Spreading Misandry series by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young. The third volume is due out this year.
reply
share
maconbaby
13 years ago
"We prefer the term Men's Rights Activist--and see if they can twist that one into something bad. I know they will try and do their best. "
Who are these people? Are you actually saying there is a group of women who oppose whatever group you appear to have formed, and spend their time hurling insults at you using whatever label you have given yourselves? If such women exist, they certainly aren't representative of the majority, of we all would have heard of them!
"So don't tell me that men don't face sexism and predjudice, for they always did in a way to one extent or another .. "
They always did? What sexism have men always faced? If you're talking about the historically prescribed role of provider, it must be, by the same token, sexist that women have also had a prescribed role! And it must be just as sexist.
reply
share