Feminism, and Masculinity: How to have a more useful conversation.

[Canadian Visitor]

There's an article in this morning's Globe and Mail which discusses the issue of how Canada's Prime Minister discusses the above in public; and how the author feels this is, at best, not terribly constructive.

It got me thinking their are many broad areas around feminism, masculinity and male-female relations on which people speak in extreme terms, be it softly or harshly, and tend, as a result, to speak past one another, rather to one another.

A problem not uncommon on this forum on other issues [[but which I will endeavour not to get caught up in again).

But this is a segue to discuss both the particulars in this article and in some others I will cite below, but also the more vexing problem of people talking past each other; instead of listening to someone else's underlying concerns.

****

First, a primer about the above article:

It essentially boils down to comments Justin Trudeau has made in public fora that seem to suggest female-thinking/style is superior [[my paraphrase) to male-style thinking.

The author argue's that kind of speech is no way to help young men find their place in the world. That you need a positive vision of what a man can be, rather than a negative one.

****

I'll throw in this piece from The Atlantic that discusses the male-female wage gap.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...really/576877/

Then this piece on issues around sexual consent

https://mashable.com/article/researc.../#gqRpeNSZxqq3

****

Rather than start off by offering my opinions on the above, I invite others to comment [[respectfully please).

i will say what i think about all this later.

[oladub]

This thread deserves attention. The decline of religion in the western world, the advent of new technologies, and resultant social movements are changing male female relationships. I could even be criticized for even saying male female relationships because, we are now told, there are multiple sexual categories.That's fair enough because things can be infinitely parsed.

Even dictionary definitions are changing making discussion in some ways more difficult. For instance, Websters' 1937 Home, School, and Office dictionary defines marriage as "n. the act of legally uniting a man and woman in wedlock: marriage ceremony" The contemporary online Websters' Dictionary of marriage doesn't even mention men or women although it has a discussion point explaining the controversy and Websters' decision to broaden the term marriage. Changing the definition of marriage has consequent legal repercussions. Generalizing, older people probably tend to think in the English language they grew up with. Younger people use contemporary definitions to make sense of the world. Sometimes we aren't using the same language to have a discussion.

[bust]

Oladub, I totally agree: language is big part of the problem.

If you're interested, I recommend some readings that illustrate how language itself is a subjective social contruct largely defined by dominant social classes.

A good start, particularly as it pertains to cultural constructions of gender, would be Michel Foucault's "The History of Sexuality".

Here's a bite-sized summary. Here's a snack-sized summary of volume 1.

You mentioned religion. Whoa, what a role that plays in the words we use and their meanings too. Here's one discussion about it. [[Trigger warning: Marx references.)

BTW, sorry to say, the evidence is impossible to ignore: what hypocrites so many religious leaders have been.

[Richard]

To me it is a sterilization of individualism and everybody must conform to the created mould.

It was prevalent in the women’s movement,those women who did not comply to the narrative were ostracized.

So the question becomes,as an individual why is it required to act as a group but yet a tiny percentage of that group can dictate as how the rest of the group should act and believe.

[bust]

It was prevalent in the women’s movement,those women who did not comply to the narrative were ostracized.

There you go again: Flipping it upside down and saying the reverse is true.

Gotcha.

[Canadian Visitor]

This thread deserves attention. The decline of religion in the western world, the advent of new technologies, and resultant social movements are changing male female relationships. I could even be criticized for even saying male female relationships because, we are now told, there are multiple sexual categories.That's fair enough because things can be infinitely parsed.

Even dictionary definitions are changing making discussion in some ways more difficult. For instance, Websters' 1937 Home, School, and Office dictionary defines marriage as "n. the act of legally uniting a man and woman in wedlock: marriage ceremony" The contemporary online Websters' Dictionary of marriage doesn't even mention men or women although it has a discussion point explaining the controversy and Websters' decision to broaden the term marriage. Changing the definition of marriage has consequent legal repercussions. Generalizing, older people probably tend to think in the English language they grew up with. Younger people use contemporary definitions to make sense of the world. Sometimes we aren't using the same language to have a discussion.

Ty for picking this up.

For me, this thread is about people, in general talking past each other.

The male-female thing is simply what set me off on this and a good jumping off point for that discussion.

Lets start w/that first article.

If we begin by giving every speaker the benefit of the doubt, which I think everyone should do, until someone has established they don't merit that.......

PM Trudeau was surely not trying to malign men in his remarks, but rather advance the cause of women.

That some hear his remarks, and think only about what they see as negativity towards men is not wrong on their part, but nor does it make the PM's intentions poor or the bulk of what he had to say wrong.

It should be possible to understand a perspective advocated by speaker one.......that might be read as, "There remains an economic gap between men and women, and women remain under-represented at the top of society, particularly in business, I want to do something about that"; and to not think ill of him for that desire.

It should also be possible for a different speaker to say of the PM, perhaps circumstances are changing faster than you realize, and you're in some respects combating a problem of 10 or 20 years ago. Moreover, to the extent a problem remains, perhaps you could advocate for change in a way that doesn't seem to demean male-ness.

But neither side tends to hear the other.

Why can't we have that intelligent conversation where we can agree that women should have equality of opportunity; and that overall that should lead to something that vaguely resembles equality of outcome, in the fullness of time; without suggesting that every profession or business need have an equal breakdown by sex, particularly all at once.

Why can't we say that one sex's thinking-style isn't 'superior' to the other, but rather highlights different attributes. That in most, if not all businesses, [[and government) it would be useful to have both of those sets of attributes represented in senior decision making; something that should occur using a merit-based approach over the fullness of time.

Why can't we also acknowledge that some businesses/institutions resist change, either consciously or subconsciously [[for instance stacking a board of directors with golf buddies is going to underrepresent women, for reasons that aren't sexist per se; but also aren't merit-based either.

People would benefit from admitting when someone they disagree with perceives a problem, that it probably is a problem in some way.

That where this is room for honest disagreement maybe about the scale of the problem, the appropriate solution[[s), and at what speed any resolution should be expected to be implemented.

****

The subsequent articles reveal similar disconnects.

On the wage gap:

Do women, even in developed-world nations, earn, in the aggregate, less than men?

The answer is clearly yes.

But that's too simple.

Women and men of comparable education, in comparable jobs, with comparable experience almost all earn comparable salaries.

That would imply no wage gap at all!

That too, is too simple.

What we see is that differences in total earnings have to do with a few different things.

The first is different professional vocation choices with different earning power associated with them.

Among the highly educated, this might be seen as more women nurses, but more men in STEM fields.

Among the less educated the differences are more stark, because construction, mining, [[heavy labour jobs), but also policing in many areas would be more highly paid; as opposed to say retail, or hospitality, office cleaner which might skew more female.

The reasons are partly market-based; but also have other historic reasons [[mining and construction have a heavy union presence, and male-dominated work places historically were at higher risk of violence by unhappy workers), as such wages tend to be higher than in female-dominated fields.

The wage gap also occurs because many women take time off to have children. This creates a direct gap during any 'leave' period; but also an indirect one as male colleagues not taking time off continue to accumulate experience and may have better access to promotion as a result.

The matter is further complicated by the fact men are less risk averse. Simply put, men are more likely to ask for a raise or even demand one, and more willing to leave a job for higher pay/opportunity.

Not all of that is easily resolvable by law, assuming one wished to do so.

But some of it is.

Can there not be a reasonable conversation on how one might make changes, be they state-based or market-based or likely some combination of the two, that would effectively narrow that gap, but without resorting to quotas, and without exaggerating problems?

****

Finally, a quick look at the issue of sexual consent.

Hopefully, everyone will agree that 'no means no' and that ought to be respected.

However, that is very rarely the issue in matters of consent in this age.

The article discusses whether if a woman feels 'pressured' for sex, that removes 'consent'.

To me this begs the question of what 'pressure' is?

If by pressure we mean a threat of violence or some such thing, then clearly, that is not OK.

But if my pressure we mean a man clearly wanting to have sex, and the woman internalizing pressure on herself to capitulate, even if she is otherwise disinclined, I'm not sure that can be classed as a male problem.

Is the onus on one person to say to the other 'don't feel any pressure to do what I want you to do to make me happy' ?

Here, language itself is key.

The word 'consent' is not about being joyful about something or enthusiastic. Its about a yes or a no without violence or threat of same, or other illegal conduct.

Of course there are men who are jackasses, and whatever we can do as a society to reduce their numbers, good on all of us.

But when the language is altered in such a way to confuse different concepts and conflate one persons regret or tentativeness with another person being criminal, we do everyone a disservice.

It is, however, important to remember how many women do experience abuse, and coercion, and to address that. Its also important to discuss the differences between the sexes and social expectations, such that people are emotionally and otherwise able to handle 'life'.

But to have these and other intelligent discussion, that by nature will involve nuance; people must be open minded, accepting, patient and willing to listen.

If anyone chooses to just blast an idea or a speaker in a reactive way, it only makes thing worse and reduces mutual understanding rather than alleviating it.

[Richard]

There you go again: Flipping it upside down and saying the reverse is true.

Gotcha.

There you go again,because you believe different,I should have posted something that you felt more comfortable with.

Gotcha.

[bust]

I'll grant you this: Some feminists have gone too far in their criticism of women who conform by the expectations set by dominant male culture. But my, oh my, what women suffer if they don't conform to those expectations. That's much worse.

What do you think of women who don't shave their legs and armpits? Would a dancer with stubble have been permitted to work in your club?

[Richard]

I'll grant you this: Some feminists have gone too far in their criticism of women who conform by the expectations set by dominant male culture. But my, oh my, what women suffer if they don't conform to those expectations. That's much worse.

What do you think of women who don't shave their legs and armpits? Would a dancer with stubble have been permitted to work in your club?

Yes,I would have,some guys like that while others do not and in some cultures it is the norm.

If the majority did not like it then her tips would reflect that and she would either adjust or leave.

It goes to what is considered socially exceptable,and as others have posted the generation thing plays a big part in it.

I was raised to respect women as a woman and a gentleman always opened the door for women,pulled her chair out for her in public,helped her with her coat,and would not even think about letting her walk curbside now you get the gauntlet of a simple thank you to,what do you think,as a woman I am to weak to open the door,I am perfectly capable of opening my own door.

Then it goes even deeper,you have groups that want to be treated equally but yet retain the individualism.

So you have women that want to be treated as equals but punch one in the mouth as you would a man and it becomes socially unexceptable.

The LGBT community wants to be treated equally but still retain their individuality as a separate group.

In reality there is no equality when you have individual groups pushing to be equal but yet reserve the right to remain as an independent group.

It was simple,a man was a man and a woman was a woman,the only part that needed work was respecting each person as a fellow human being.

You know,the part about treating others how you like to be treated.

Now days you have to present a 1000 page questionnaire when you first meet somebody on the off chance that they may be offended in some way shape or form depending on their individual thoughts and feelings.

Like it was posted some grew up with the Webster’s dictionary where now there is the Urban dictionary where words have a completely different meaning.

I think that may have been why the standard of what was socially exceptable was set,which is fluid and can now change at any given second.

[bust]

Yes,I would have,some guys like that while others do not and in some cultures it is the norm.

If the majority did not like it then her tips would reflect that and she would either adjust or leave.

Let me guess: You opened your club just in time for the 2012 republican convention. Tampa is infamous for strip clubs, especially then. Not surprising at all that an operator there and then would be from St. Pete.

punch one in the mouth as you would a man and it becomes socially unexceptable.

If you punched me in the mouth I wouldn't accept it either.

[Richard]

Let me guess: You opened your club just in time for the 2012 republican convention. Tampa is infamous for strip clubs, especially then. Not surprising at all that an operator there and then would be from St. Pete.



If you punched me in the mouth I wouldn't accept it either.

Tampa has always been infamous for their strip clubs,why are you so against women making a living?

I had one employee that actually did dance her way through collage,3 days,3 four hour shifts $1000 and still have time for study.

When she finished she moved to Detroit as a engineer.

I am guessing in this age it would be exceptable for an 11 year old boy to dress up in drag and dance sexually provocative on stage in a strip club in front of a bunch of gay men.

You keep pushing in the morality of the strip clubs,where adults entertain adults but no issues when it comes to the morality of children.

As much as you hate religion,it did practice a sense of morality for the majority,something that has disappeared long ago.

Watch the video,to you it is morally correct and exceptable,to me it is discusting and everybody in the club should be charged.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ri3ufgYVPCQ

See how the generations think different.

[Canadian Visitor]

Tampa has always been infamous for their strip clubs,why are you so against women making a living?

I had one employee that actually did dance her way through collage,3 days,3 four hour shifts $1000 and still have time for study.

When she finished she moved to Detroit as a engineer.

I am guessing in this age it would be exceptable for an 11 year old boy to dress up in drag and dance sexually provocative on stage in a strip club in front of a bunch of gay men.

You keep pushing in the morality of the strip clubs,where adults entertain adults but no issues when it comes to the morality of children.

As much as you hate religion,it did practice a sense of morality for the majority,something that has disappeared long ago.

Watch the video,to you it is morally correct and exceptable,to me it is discusting and everybody in the club should be charged.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ri3ufgYVPCQ

See how the generations think different.

Enough! Get off my damned thread!

This is not the subject of this thread.

I don't want people insulting you here, because I don't want you here.

This is a place for adults to have an intelligent, on-point, conversation.

[Richard]

Screw you,it is a thead posted in a public forum and not your personal little chat room,notice you had nothing to say to bust who started the whole thing.

This is why so called adults do not have these conversations,because as soon as they hear something they do not like they get but hurt.

There is no direct subject to this thread,you can take it into a million different directions.

Maybe you should try growing up before calling yourself an adult.

Some would consider it rude not to reply,he spent time replying so it had to meen something to him or her or they would not have replied in the first place.

I guess I could take the stance of others and say my time and thoughts are more valuable then yours and just ignore those who I do not agree with,but that kinda defeats the whole discussion aspect,

But you just made an example of the subject that you brought up,the world does not revolve around an individual,it is a collective.

[aj3647]

I am guessing in this age it would be exceptable for an 11 year old boy to dress up in drag and dance sexually provocative on stage in a strip club in front of a bunch of gay men.

You keep pushing in the morality of the strip clubs,where adults entertain adults but no issues when it comes to the morality of children.

Because gays are pedophiles, right Richard?

I find it ironic that you are participating in a thread about language when you can't even type English properly. Your posts more often than not read like some sort of stream of consciousness nonsense written by someone who is functionally illiterate or has a learning disability.

[Canadian Visitor]

Screw you,it is a thead posted in a public forum and not your personal little chat room

The distinction between a message board/forum and a chat room is one of technicality as to the speed of read and reply.

The essential substance is identical.

Except that here, this subject, this thread, was started by me. Not you, not a random person, ME.

So yes, as the OP I get to say what's on-topic because its my damned topic.

It does have room for interpretation and points of view. But pedophiles and strip clubs are not even remotely or tangentially on topic.

notice you had nothing to say to bust who started the whole thing.

Bust should not have wandered off from the point of the thread. He started well. You derailed him.

But, at first, I let you both off the hook rather than start something until you went full on insane, offensive and idiotic.

Then I stepped in.

Does the fulsome explanation make you feel better?

This is why so called adults do not have these conversations,because as soon as they hear something they do not like they get but hurt.

Oh FFS.....its butt hurt............

At any rate, I have no difficulty having adult conversations with many here, including those with whom I disagree.

Wesley Mouch and I have traded many messages; while I disagree with Oladub on many things, he can thoughtfully express himself, and do so politely.

You seem quite incapable. You also make the rest of us incapable by stirring the pot non-stop.

[Richard]

And thank you for contributing to a discussion in a adult manner like your buddy.

Gay or not,if you find it appealing to have an 11 year old boy dancing sexualy provocative in front up you,dressed up as a little girl,then yes,you have some serious issues.

It has nothing to do with gay or not,but nice try.

[Richard]

The distinction between a message board/forum and a chat room is one of technicality as to the speed of read and reply.

The essential substance is identical.

Except that here, this subject, this thread, was started by me. Not you, not a random person, ME.

So yes, as the OP I get to say what's on-topic because its my damned topic.

It does have room for interpretation and points of view. But pedophiles and strip clubs are not even remotely or tangentially on topic.



Bust should not have wandered off from the point of the thread. He started well. You derailed him.

But, at first, I let you both off the hook rather than start something until you went full on insane, offensive and idiotic.

Then I stepped in.

Does the fulsome explanation make you feel better?



Oh FFS.....its butt hurt............

At any rate, I have no difficulty having adult conversations with many here, including those with whom I disagree.

Wesley Mouch and I have traded many messages; while I disagree with Oladub on many things, he can thoughtfully express himself, and do so politely.

You seem quite incapable. You also make the rest of us incapable by stirring the pot non-stop.

That is what you fail to understand,it is not about you,making it about you takes away from the context.

That is where we are at today,what one finds offensive another may not and as you bolded ME,do you really think the world should be molded after ME.

If you do not take the time to understand where others are coming from then you are not as smart as you think you are.

If you are going to refer to pot stirring,read your posts,out of the gate somebody that you do not agree with you always come out with the superiority card and name calling.

Is that the best you can do?

It is my fault that you cannot control your words and emotions?

Now that is two things related to the topic.

It is all about ME

It is everybody else’s fault for my behavior.

[bust]

Just to remind everyone:

Richard is a Trumpist former Tampa strip club owner duped by russian propaganda.

His words speak for themselves.

Now let's ignore him.

[Richard]

Actually,Richard was raised to respect everybody and treat others how I wish to be treated,no matter who they were.

Life has taught me to show respect until proven otherwise.

There,that sums up the entire thread in two lines.

[bust]

Actually,Richard was raised to respect everybody and treat others how I wish to be treated,no matter who they were.

Life has taught me to show respect until proven otherwise.

There,that sums up the entire thread in two lines.

Richard wishes to be treated like a stripper servicing the republican convention.

That sums you up in one.

[Zacha341]

Sometimes I don't think there's a true desire for honest dialog or conversation re. feminism and or vs. masculinity.

Nope. It's becoming a tower of Babel. Discord and disparagement is the preferred offering to the emerging god[[dess) of intersectionality.

Obey. Take yo' assigned number and assume your place in the line per todays importance or most maligned.

[bust]

To those of you who think it is off topic to point out the inversion of reality by a commenter on this thread about feminism, or that he also happens to be the former owner of one or more strip clubs, I beg to differ.

Maybe also pointing out his logic-addled distribution of russian propaganda and hyper-partisanship was too much -- but I don't think so. One of the ways the russians have tried to divide us has been through anti-feminist propaganda. The topic seems to resonate with him. And the party he dances for is on the wrong side of so many gender issues.

I look forward to a much more elevated discussion. I'll try to do my part.

[Richard]

Just to remind everyone:

Richard is a Trumpist former Tampa strip club owner duped by russian propaganda.

His words speak for themselves.

Now let's ignore him.

Richard wishes to be treated like a stripper servicing the republican convention.

That sums you up in one.

To those of you who think it is off topic to point out the inversion of reality by a commenter on this thread about feminism, or that he also happens to be the former owner of one or more strip clubs, I beg to differ.

Maybe also pointing out his logic-addled distribution of russian propaganda and hyper-partisanship was too much -- but I don't think so. One of the ways the russians have tried to divide us has been through anti-feminist propaganda. The topic seems to resonate with him. And the party he dances for is on the wrong side of so many gender issues.

I look forward to a much more elevated discussion. I'll try to do my part.

You apparently are doing your part by following the antifa/socialist playbook of Name and Shame,maybe try coming down to reality before trying to elevate anything.

You create a response in another thread about doing research in order to get your own facts,but yet provide links based on somebodies opinion without linking to the actual facts or originating source.

You have made accusations against me but have yet to provide your facts in order to back that up.

You posted "Now let's ignore him" but yet continued your agenda.

You embedded links like a professional.

Last but not least you are posting on a public forum under an alias or fake name.

So I really have to ask,what is your agenda,outside of trying to discredit anybody that disagrees with you?

[Canadian Visitor]

I said STOP!

That applies to both of you!

This back and forth has nothing to do with the thread in any way shape or form!

It makes the entire forum a waste!

On topic of Get the F off my thread!

[oladub]

I'm ok with points of view on this topic ranging from interviews of pimps, to Bible thumpers, to promoters of misandry to gay and other voices offering unique insights. Anecdotes are great too.

_____________________

I'm want to touch on one incident that has bothered me. Scandinavia includes countries leading the way in offering economic and social equality for women to the point of requiring set percentages of women on boards and in governments. The assumption is that women are equal to the point that divorces are usually simple matters equally splitting property and parenting time 50/50 without any alimony. The thought regarding alimony might be that if women have the same educational opportunities in e.g. Norway as men, why then should there still be alimony; a throwback an era when women didn't have abortion services and job opportunities.

The incident I wanted to mention was the sinking of the Estonia. Most of the passengers were Swedish. The crew was Estonian."When the Estonia passenger ferry headed from Tallinn to Stockholm suddenly sank in the middle of the icy Baltic sea in 1994, 852 of the 989 people onboard perished, with only 5.4 percent of women surviving, compared to 22 percent for men."

The Swedish authors of this study suggest that was the norm, that mostly male crew members always have a survival edge, but even their own statistics show the ratio was twice the statistical male advantage rate as was the norm. I remember accounts at the time remarking on how men showed no chivalry. Gone was the precept of women and children first. It was 'every man for himself' and women didn't do nearly as well. If there is a relationship between sexual equality movement in the west and the loss of chivalry, I don't have enough information to say there is, it is not generally discussed as offsetting the many benefits of social and economic opportunities to women.