She obviously hasn't played any TES.

As for the [censored]ig about feminism, most males, and ones here, I expect, certainly won't get it.
Women have for centuries, gotten the short end of the stick. Equality between the sixes should exist, but doesnt, and inequalities are experienced in every single culture. When attention is drawn to those inequalites, women are gaslit, accused of being hysterical, [censored]es, feminazis, degraded, humiliated. Women are objectified, penalized economically, reproductively, and cultually. It's easy to cry reverse sixism, but in reality, you can't suffer revese sixism when your gender is the one with the power, doing the oppressing.
Feminism is the belief that no matter the gender, male, female, trans, hermophroditic, sixual orientation or gender identity, humans should be accorded mutal respect. If that is too difficult a concept to get behind, that's your problem. I have better things to do, now, talking to brick walls undebridge dwelling denizens who eschew goats is not on my high priority list.

She might have at least played some TES to give the industry some props, that I have issues with.

Well, there are norms we can't opt out of, because opting out of them would be considered against good morals, that may well be harmful to some people. Every society has these non-optional roles and it's just too bad if you don't want to be saddled with them, unless you're willing to find a place where your taboo is acceptable.


Sorry to say, but that's a very simplistic view of the world, and your description of feminism doesn't even apply to all sub-movements. Not trying to get into a debate about it, because it would get the thread locked but just pointing out that there are other views.

Am I the only one who sees a serious disconnect between these two statements?


Not quite sure what you are getting at. A little elaboration, please?

From what I understand, Feminism by its very name is incapable of being what Mamagato just said it is.

Now, Humanism is another story.

I always preferred the term "egalitarianism" to "humanism" and especially to "feminism". It's just more accurate a descriptor.

I'm trying to point out that gender norms, even enforced ones, aren't necessarily a bad thing, just like other societal norms. Now, I'm not really a typical male, so I'm not advocating for a return to rigid gender roles, but I am saying that gendered roles work for some societies, and if the majority of people in that society are okay with it, it's difficult for me to take issue with it. If people don't like a society, they have two options: convince enough people that this isn't the way to do things, as has happened in the West, or move somewhere where you get to do what it is you want to do.

Argh, sorry about the double post. I meant to edit this into the above one.

Hmm... further out to sea, here. I meant, what did you mean about non-optional roles and morality. What would you consider a non-optional role?

Browse http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/ for more than five minutes, I would hope your thoughts could be changed.

Like, if you want to marry more than one person. Sorry, you're not allowed to do that in the West. If you don't want to be a taxpayer, you don't get to opt out of that imposition. There are tons of things people can't do because they're considered reprehensible by the majority or because it would interfere with the powers that be. Strict gender norms are no different than these other things. They can be a bad thing if you don't want to be constrained by them, and they can be a good thing if you think deviating from them would harm your community.

[Edited for clarity.]

None of those really relate to gender norms, though. Those are all based on politics or religion, which are a whole different kettle of fish.

Actually, that isn't feminism. More or less it's egalitarianism you're talking about.

I'm 100% pro-gender-equality (as well as racial and most other forms of human equality). That said, conversations on the topic oftentimes leave me torn because I'm also anti-hypocrisy.

It's really late now, so I'm not sure I'm going to be making sense, but I'll give it a shot:

That's the point, that enforced gender norms aren't really any different than other socially enforced roles in the West. Someone can decide to be a Rastafarian, and then what recourse do they have when they're not allowed to practice their religion? Someone can decide they want to be in a polygamous marriage, and then what, if they live in a country that prohibits this? If someone doesn't want to pay taxes, they're out of luck. This is no different than living in a society with strict gender norms and wanting to be something that's outside of your gender norm. So the idea that we can judge other societies on the grounds that they don't subscribe to the same social system that we do isn't really justifiable. It works for them, and they're happy with it, so who's to say it's not right for them?

I don't know how this thread got so off topic ...

But that was precisely my point: a lot of these gender norms that have harmful consequences can't be opted out of. In a social context where women are traditionally seen as taking care of the household rather than having an independent income, seen as being subservient and not worthy of political support, seen as being subject to the sixual whims of their spouse, it is not so easy for women to "opt out". The woman who tries to get a job is treated less seriously by employers. The women who wants to contribute to political decision making is taken less seriously by political parties. The woman [censored] by her husband is taken less seriously by law enforcement. These social norms, by influencing the decision-making and behaviour of others, can constrain the ability of a woman to take control of her own life and pursue her own goals, without being negatively impacted by others.

when I see double sided pretentious feminists.

I just go to youtube and watch the Comedian punch a women in the crowd.

Now thats equality.

Right, all these are examples of people trying to enforce gender norms. My point is that it is the enforcement that is wrong, and not the norm itself.

EDIT: Those aren't really even norms, per se, as much as attempts at control.

I was thinking of replying to Mamagato in the same manner, but your words pretty much sum up my thoughts.

That is really a distinction without a difference. There is good evidence that these norms are robust causes of these sorts of discrimination against women. It's a bit silly to just criticise these various events of discrimination and attribute no blame to the underlying causes.

No. The root cause of any discrimination is ignorance and egotism. Everything else is just attempts to justify prejudice. Even without those norms, sixists would still find ways to vent their bile.

I see feminism as nothing more than a flawed ideology.

I don't understand your argument here.

1. I never claimed that gender norms are the unique cause of gender discrimination. It might well be true that gender discrimination would continue to exist (in some form) in a population without gender norms; that is not an argument against gender norms being partially causally responsible for gender discrimination.

2. Of course the existence and maintenance of gender norms is itself something that is caused. But it's not like the blame for a wrongdoing should be attributed only to the starting point in a causal chain (for then nothing other than the big bang would be to blame for anything).

Then how do you explain people that conform to those norms and are happy about it?

I'm not certain that it's correct to say that because a thing has been 'normalised' by a society that that thing is, in and of itself, not a part of the problem. And that it's only when we try to impose that thing, on others who object, that the norm becomes wrong. I think that's a little too strong. A society could decide that, by lottery, a first born female of a family is chosen each year to be sacrificed to appease a demon; is it only wrong when the unfortunate winner objects?

That's a little esoteric. Let's go for something more mundane and real-world. How about if wives were mandated to be stay-at-home? You're not allowed to work, but you don't have to deal with the stress of providing for your family. You get to be with your family. You get to spend time doing pretty much anything you want, once you're done cooking and cleaning. On the other hand, you don't get to interact with the world outside of your mandated box. It can be stifling. You're not really ever required to do anything very taxing, so you just don't develop many worldly skills. You're forever dependent on someone else. But, again, it can be nice to have somebody else take care of all the big stuff. So as I said above, there are pros and cons. Is it necessarily wrong that a woman in a society with this strict role for women can't really choose to do anything else? If someone wants to set up a society that reverts to the early 1900s in this respect, is that really so bad? You just get a different set of rights and responsibilities than we currently have. I think modern society is a little too quick to judge a setup like this as necessarily evil.

And because this is going to need to be said: this is not my personal idea of utopia. I just think different kinds of societies have existed because they've proved to be working models that have generally benefited everyone. Whether a society decides that the rights and responsibilities of various members are ideal or optimised for X (happiness, personal fulfillment, survival, whatever) will determine whether the society continues to exist in that form or change to something else. And if the majority of that society decide for themselves that what they have is the best, then the minority that disagrees will have to figure out a solution to their exclusion. Every society has its fringe.

Yeah, no. By the very name of feminism, that is illogical and contradictory. As others have said that definition is more egalitarianism; see? Makes more sense that way what with everyone being accorded mutual respect, thus being equal. The very word "feminism" suggest that somehow women are more special (or as George Orwell put "more equal") than all those other groups you mentioned, thus it can't be about equality.

As for the video... meh it's not as bad as some say but neither is it enlightening or convincing in any way. Now the part I don't get is how that cost 150k to make.

Oh BTW, expecting males not to view females as an object of sixual desire is going against human (or should I say animal, because we're very much animals) instinct. Furthermore, acknowledging a woman's sixual attraction is not saying that's all she has to bring to the table, as feminists relentlessly insist.