Question Time: Backlash, Frontlash, The End of Men?
It’s Question Time again. I’ve been reading through Susan Faludi’s Backlash and her more recent book on men, Stiffed, as well as some of the discussion surrounding Hanna Rosin’s The End of Men and Kay Hymowitz’ Manning Up. Faludi, writing in 1991, obviously saw the 80s as a time of antifeminist backlash.
My question is how you would characterize the years since she wrote her book. A continuation of that backlash? A time of feminist resurgence, from the Riot Grrls up to Rosin’s predicted End of Men? A mixed period of progress and regression?
I’m wondering both what your general assessment of the situation is, and also what specific evidence you have — either hard data or personal experience — that underlies your overall view. This could be anything from data on employment segregation or the prevalence of rape to your sense of how media representations of women and men have or haven’t changed, or even how people you know have changed the ways they talk about gender. What do you think are the significant data points to look at?
The question isn’t just what has changed for women but what has changed for men as well — with my underlying question being: what if anything in the real world has changed that might be making the angry men we talk about here so angry? I think we can agree that most of their own explanations are bullshit, but could there be a grain of truth to any of them? Or something that they don’t see that’s far more compelling?
In the interest of spurring discussion and providing some data to work with, here are a bunch of articles responding to (or at least vaguely related to the issues raised in) Rosin’s End of Men, including a link to her original Atlantic article. In addition, here are some posts by sociologist Philip Cohen challenging many of Rosin’s claims, as well as more general posts of his on gender inequality. (Feel free to completely ignore any or all of these; I just found them useful resources.)
Posted on May 11, 2013, in antifeminism, david has questions, feminism, further reading and tagged antifeminism, end of men, feminism, hanna rosin. Bookmark the permalink. 800 Comments.
@Joe:
Alright, well, this was the website I had found before. Women in mining
This is another educational foundation, sadly, so I doubt you’d care. Women just aren’t encouraged to participate in dangerous jobs. In the case of mining, there’s a long history of being actively discouraged (see this for an example).
If anybody has better examples (I thought I remembered seeing a website detailing the struggles that women coal miners face), would you mind finding them again?
@becausescience – I post for the readers who aren’t manboobzers.
Yep, Joe, the fact that you can’t read properly is now clearly documented. Thanks for your cooperation!
The fact that ragey dudes like Joe keep trying to appropriate the herbivore men will never stop being funny. I just hope they never actually decide to go to Japan to bother the poor guys, who really don’t deserve that kind of crap.
Pear Tree: I don’t want to be overly critical of America, but I have always considered that abortion was legal here only in a very technical sense of the word. Was this once not the case?
Prior to the organised campaigns of the religious right, and the terrorism waged against actual providers, abortion was a lot more easily obtained.
So, up until the latter ’80s, it wasn’t that hard to get one.
“Feminism only wants to bust gender roles when it means upper middle class feminists getting better corporate / political jobs.”
Don’t you love the way Joe talks as if everyone on this board – never mind feminists around the world – is upper middle class and/or aspires to a corporate or political role?
The thought of being involved in either skeeves this feminist out, but then Joe wouldn’t grasp that, either.
*sigh* I wasn’t going to engage him, I really wasn’t, but I need to know!
Joe, just how are we supposed to show that we are not “perfectly comfortable” having TERFs “as part of [our] movement”? Seriously, there is no central board of directors to revoke their feminist cards or anything. And around here reactions to them range from “oh gods them” to “eww” to “feminism must be trans* inclusive, which they are not”
Totally serious question.
Joe: nice try twisting what I’ve said, but all that proves is that you aren’t smart. You are, however, very much like an excitable chihuahua that pees all over the rugs.
“And I’m not “part of a movement” by the way.”
Given you’re a shit, you are.
There was a time when I too wondered why we called it feminism and not humanism or equalism or something. But then I learned what the other commenters have already said earlier. It’s also an easy way for someone to try to derail things. It can veer very closely to “what about the menz” territory.
Here’s how someone on Tumblr described privilege: You’ve got these two kids. The first kid gets a cookie, and the second kid gets half a cookie. You give the second kid another half of a cookie to make up for it. But then the first kid cries and complains that it’s not fair how the second kid gets “two cookies.”
Joe’s bloated ego actually allows him the delusion that he’s schooling us for the benefit of lurkers. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Joe, have you ever considered therapy? You don’t have issues, you have subscriptions.
@Kirby – Hmmm, closer, but no cigar. Still on the “soft” end of mining.
Yes, there was outrage in Victorian times at the horrible conditions in the mines that women and children had to deal with. So there was an act passed in the UK to stop them going down the mines. Men had to keep mining though. Funny that.
So now we get this bizarre situation, where I simultaneously get feminists on the one hand holding up women miners of the past as an example of women’s terrible oppression because: “patriarchy”
and
women NOT being miners now as an example of…. women’s terrible oppression because: “patriarchy”.
Lol!
Would you like the moon on a stick to go with your fried ice?
@Joe:
I… don’t see how this is bizarre. The first is complaining about unsafe working conditions for people who are working, the second is complaining about people being prevented from working.
How about, and I know this is a radical notion, everyone is allowed to work in any job they are qualified for, and those jobs are not explotative and dangerous due to poor conditions? Welcome to feminism and… human decency.
Joe, you’re a loser at life and you’ve failed Basic Decency 101 – you weren’t even allowed to sit the exam. Nobody’s impressed with your scratched-record blatherings.
Exclusion of men! They’d have let a woman who was a belligerent asshole sit that exam!
LOL!
Are we discussing Victorian treatment of women? Because Joe has clearly never heard about hysteria and wandering uterī and clitoridectomies. (How bad is it that my autocorrect actually knows how to spell that?)
Joe, history lesson! Women were seen as lessor beings prone to fits of insanity brought on by failure to use their reproductive organs, aka not being pregnant often enough. Literally seen as brood mares. So yeah, do keep citing how being kept out of mining was meant to make men suffer. You have just given a goddamned perfect example of women being prevented from doing dangerous work by men. Unless you think that politics where feminist when women couldn’t vote.
Please, do continue to discuss the Victorian period.
Tangentially, thoughts on a tan jumper (the long dress apron like jumper, not a jacket/sweater jumper) with dark shirt underneath? We’re talking June so short sleeve. My mother has a brunch at church, Victorian dress encouraged, but has to go to work after. I’m thinking it kinda works as a working class civil war era outfit.
@Argenti – Well, feminists demand that any man bringing up issues re. men’s suffering first renounce anything any MRA said anywhere, evAR.
I’m just holding feminists to the same standard they apply to men.
I’m also pretty damn sure that if Radfems were not mostly transphobic bigots (who e.g. exclude transwomen from their meetings / try to sabotage their careers (looking at you Germain Greer)) that the rest of the trans-friendly feminists would be a-ok with them.
As far as I can see: Radfems denial of and exclusion of transwomen is part-and-parcel of their misandry, because Radfems deny the woman-identity of transwomen, and insist that they are/were men.
I am opposed to Radfems BOTH because of their misandry AND their transphobia.
That goes double for the murderous / gendercidal Radfems.
“How about, and I know this is a radical notion, everyone is allowed to work in any job they are qualified for, and those jobs are not explotative and dangerous due to poor conditions? Welcome to feminism and… human decency.”
QFT
Take a shot everytime Joe says “Funny that.” in an attempt to put more emphasis on his argument.
Thanks for clarifying on the jumper, or I’d have wondered why your mum was attempting to break new fashion boundaries by pushing the no-pants look at church.
@Kirby “and those jobs are not explotative and dangerous due to poor conditions?”
there’s a little thing called global corporate cronyism standing in the way of that.
Um, way to not answer the question? Or you expect every comment anyone makes to start with “I hate RadFems”?
We don’t have signatures like we do on forums…your suggestion is not practical. And actually, no, we don’t. We demand specific people who hold up aVfM as “moderate” renounce their support of terrorism.
I mean, has anyone ever said that you need to renounce Spanish and Russian using the same alphabet? That evolution isn’t a thing or there would be super dogs? That overdoses are treated by needles to the heart? That baby girls should have their voice boxes removed?
Cuz yeah, welcome to things MRAs have said.
@ Smudge
Fuck no, I have an interview to do tomorrow.
@Joe:
… k? So you do agree with my other point that feminists are against limiting access to jobs (any jobs, even “shitty” service jobs) based on gender? Sweet. I’ll just assume you won’t bring this up again.
Unless you think that feminists are the cause of global corporate cronyism… Then I’m afraid I just can’t help you.
@Argenti –
“Are we discussing Victorian treatment of women? ”
As an example of feminist doublethink, yes. See above.
“Because Joe has clearly never heard about hysteria and wandering uterī and clitoridectomies. (How bad is it that my autocorrect actually knows how to spell that?)”
Duh.Yes I have.
“…So yeah, do keep citing how being kept out of mining was meant to make men suffer.”
Women were taken out of mining because the great and good of the day were horrified at their suffering. It was just assumed that it was ok for men to suffer. As it alway is.
“You have just given a goddamned perfect example of women being prevented from doing dangerous work by men. Unless you think that politics where feminist when women couldn’t vote.”
Duh. At the time it was seen as a great victory for women, because women were suffering so badly in the mines. It was parsed as a moral problem. There was public outrage. (Yeah, I actually studied this in history)
My POINT is that there has been NO push to get back down the mines with the men by feminists, but feminists like you love to bring it up as an example of awful “patriarchy” denying something women wanted! lol!
Wait… Joe… so if some canadian douche wrote a bunch of articles about how women were too precious and weak and beautiful to be allowed to “play soldier,” and they should be kept off the front lines so they wouldn’t distract the men from their duties, would you consider this to be a great feminist victory?
@Kirby –
“… k? So you do agree with my other point that feminists are against limiting access to jobs (any jobs, even “shitty” service jobs) based on gender? Sweet. I’ll just assume you won’t bring this up again.”
Errr, no. Feminists give this the briefest of lip service, but have zero interest in doing those dirty, difficult, dangerous jobs.
Hence why all their effort is directed at, duh, cushy corporate fat cat sinecures.
Just like every other corrupt political movement.
Ok, who has the citations, because I know there was a push by women to be allowed back into the mines.
And Joe? Because it was assumed okay for men to suffer? By other men. Welcome to classism. Intersectionality, it’s a thing.
And I don’t fucking even…you know about clitoridectomies but think Victorians wanted to save women from suffering?
What the everloving fuck? How is that not causing suffering? How are you not getting that the entire problem here is paternalism?
I hope your hoop skirt flies up and breaks your nose.
Joe: get off the cross, we need the wood for the fire. Your martyrdom routine is beyond tired.
@Joe:
*sigh* Link dump time!
Sewer workers face sexual harassment
Construction work is a “man’s field,” women need to prove themselves to participate
Mining advertisement for women, say that the pit is gender neuteral, but generally describe jobs like truck driving and cleaning as suitable for women… Also some mention of wage inequalities that have kept women out of the field
Let me know if you want me to find more, Joe.
“I hope your hoop skirt flies up and breaks your nose.”
And the whalebones in his corset break and stab him inna ribs.
Hey Joe, here’s a question, an honest-to-god question: have you ever been happy? Have you ever had the simple pleasure of enjoying another person’s company? Do you like anyone, and does anyone like you? Because there’s nothing in what you write to suggest any of that.
You can do it, son. You can answer the question. Even Slavey managed to answer that one.
@Kirby – Actually kinda.
I’m well aware of all the “safe-work environment” training that the US army has put in to cater for women recruits, to try and appease the feminist lobby.
And that many women recruits skip deployment by getting pregnant.
Feminists would be the first to howl about “discrimination!” if and when feminist women started coming back home in body bags in the same numbers as men.
Doubly so, if it turned out that women recruits in general were *actually* in fact, less capable than men soldiers and so *actually* got killed more often.
The battlefield is the ultimate UNSAFE workplace, where the enemy is DISCRIMINATING against you.
That trad white knight nationalists continue to work to stop that happening? Gives feminists the chance to be seen to be fighting “teh patriarchy” without any real risk.
Not just Joe’s martyrdom routine, but his appropriation routine. He’s quick to say he’s never met a woman thousands of years old to dismiss women’s historical oppression, but boy do he and all men everywhere suffer every bit as much as the men down Victorian mines!
(Does he give a shit about the kids of both sexes in the mines and factories then? Probably not.)
“Feminists would be the first to howl about “discrimination!” if and when feminist women started coming back home in body bags in the same numbers as men.”
Actually no, we wouldn’t, except in the sense of soldiers (of whatever forces) being sent to fucking stupid wars. Feminists are not asking for women to be in the army and be protected, or avoid frontline duty – just the opposite.
“And that many women recruits skip deployment by getting pregnant.”
[CITATION FUCKING NEEDED]
Also, Joe, you know why the more popularly known feminist advocacy is towards women not being represented among CEOs? Because while women do have access to certain sectors at low incomes (cleaning and housekeeping for example,) they have not had the same access to high income jobs. The “glass ceiling” that kept women from being promoted for various reasons.
Ever notice how successful women are always interviewed about their husband or their family (“Wow, it’s so incredible that you manage to balance a career and mother duties!”)? Yeah… that’s part of the reason why feminists are particularly focused on this.
@Argenti –
“And I don’t fucking even…you know about clitoridectomies but think Victorians wanted to save women from suffering?”
I’m not saying the Victorians were right.
No.
I’m saying that THEY thought what they were doing was right.
Duh.
“And that many women recruits skip deployment by getting pregnant.”
Dafuq?! Let’s start with the obvious, why would someone who’d joined a volunteer military intentionally skip out on it? And you seriously think women get pregnant to avoid a role they signed up for? Like, intentional pregnancy, not having sex in a country with no abortion // no access.
Also, citation motherfucking needed.
That’s a weird Freudian slip. Does he think that all women are feminists, or that feminists wouldn’t care if the women who came home in bodybags were women but not feminists?
On happiness – seriously, everyone else here at least alludes to other interests, stuff that they enjoy, partners they care about, and so on. One of the things I find most disturbing about some of our trolls is that they don’t seem to have any outside interests, or relationships to refer to in passing.
Ok so you’re citing Victorian morals as proof about modern feminists because…
And right after saying that last oppression is meaningless because no one is still alive from then. Giving the Victorian era ended 100~ years ago, yeah, it’s a dwindling population.
@Joe:
Jesus Joe, how can you miss the point so hard? I don’t know specifically what you’re referring to when you say “safe-work environment”, but if I had to guess, it would be the army’s kinda slow attempt to reduce sexual harassment of female soldiers (and perhaps a lack of fitting gear, though I’m not sure about this).
If you’re talking about the army keeping women as medical staff or off the front lines… Ugh… This is the army catering to chauvanists who are convinced that women have no place amongst men to serve, about as far from “appeas[ing] the feminist lobby” as you can get.
@Kirby – hate to break this to you and feminists everywhere:
but the vast, vast majority of men don’t have access to those above the “glass ceiling” jobs either.
And I don’t read corporate CEO interviews. ugh.
Who are the feminists who are advocating a return to Victorian Morals? Cause I think this is a reflection of Joe’s insistance that feminists want to uphold gender roles. It’d be like saying that MRAs want to ensure male disposability…
“If you’re talking about the army keeping women as medical staff or off the front lines…”
Given that little foray into Victorian morals, I’m guessing that’s exactly what he meant. Paternalism is not a thing in Joe’s world, or if it is, it’s proof that feminists think women need protecting.
@Joe:
Statistically, 99% of people aren’t the 1%. Cool, we understand math.
The vast majority aren’t discouraged or kept out of those “glass ceiling” jobs because they are men, while women are discouraged because they are women. It’s seriously not a difficult concept to grasp, dude.
Argenti:
“Dafuq?! Let’s start with the obvious, why would someone who’d joined a volunteer military intentionally skip out on it? And you seriously think women get pregnant to avoid a role they signed up for? Like, intentional pregnancy, not having sex in a country with no abortion // no access.”
Duh.
Join army & get paid for job, get medical benefits etc.
Get pregnant & get maternity benefits, don’t get shot or blown up.
How hard is it to see the motivation there? Really?
Yes! Plus, they rant and scream about how all the regulars do is have a hatefest for men – it’s like they don’t (can’t?) see all the posts where the threads are more about personal stuff, fun stuff, books, TV, films, music, cooking, more cooking, animals, families, friends, silly things that happened, bad things that happened, advice … I mean, ffs, how can they not see all that? Are they that firmly blinkered or just projecting their own bile (eww) that forcefully? Jeez, even DKM of unhallowed memory seemed to get some pleasure (creepy though it was) from his dolls. Even Owly claimed to enjoy being with his niece and nephew, though given the rest of his rantings that may not be a good thing. The rest of ‘em, especially Joe here, just seem to stew in hate all the time.
The funny part is, even in Steampunk circles I’ve only seen morality mentioned in terms of how we don’t need that part back. Victorian fans don’t want Victorian morals! (Well, surely some do, but their are assholes in every group)
When people assume that others are that calculating and ethics-free, ie would join the army with no intention of ever fighting, I always wonder if they’re describing themselves, and if they’re honestly unaware that most people aren’t that unethical.
@Argenti:
I don’t even know what Joe’s on about anymore. I think he’s just convinced that feminists want women to be superior to men, and grasps at every conceivable straw to demonstrate it… Including fabricating out of whole-cloth what feminists advocate.
I can’t get over that he thinks feminists want to uphold gender roles. I mean seriously, what the fuck?!?
Ok, time to try the beetlejuice thing.
Pecunium Pecunium Pecunium! We have an idiot blathering about the military! Clean up on aisle 5!!
Citation needed Joe. Badly. Just because you can find some twisted form of logic in which your little made up fantasy might make sense does not mean it happens with any frequency (if at all)
Joe, apart from the fact you’re insulting women soldiers, you’re talking as if pregnancy is something that happens just like a snap of the fingers – it’s not guaranteed to happen, or if it does, the timing isn’t guaranteed either. As a way of getting out of active duty (which is what feminists have been fighting to achieve for years) it’s a really dumb plan.
@Joe:
See, this is why you need to cite sources other than JOESASS. Just because you can tell a “just-so” story, doesn’t mean it actually happens. It’s a lesson that evo-psych folks could do with learning…
kirbywarp — the only possible explaination is that Joe is from a parallel dimension where “feminist” means something completely different. “This is your world Mickey? Even the zeppelins?” (Paraphrased)
@Argenti:
I won’t say his name three times again, because that’ll banish him… But seriously, we really need Pecunium here.
Oops… well, I won’t say Pecunium’s name two more times.
Crap! Ok, ok. I won’t say Pec…. I won’t say his name again. Help us Pecunium, you’re our only hope!
…
God dammit…
Of course Joe thinks everyone is as fundamentally dishonest as he is. If he had any awareness (including the self kind), his head would explode.
Kirby — he’s been emailed, but my best attempts at summoning are failing! Fibinachi you around? You can banish demons so maybe you can summon Sir Pecunium?
Seriously, what if you joint the military, plan to get pregnant just prior to deployment, and then discover that you’re not fertile? Or that the guy you’re sleeping with isn’t? What if you miscarry? This is the shittiest get out of work free for sure plan ever.
I want a sandwich but we’re out of white bread. Clearly this is a conspiracy to make me suffer.
(It’s entirely my own fault as the keeper of the shopping list)
I was going to do late dinner and a movie tonight but now I can’t because I need to be awake and not hungover tomorrow. Clearly this is a misogynist conspiracy, rather than just bad timing.
@Kirby – Here’s the thing. I don’t give a flying fuck why Ms A who is already in the top 1% of wealth earners on the planet cannot move up to be part of the 0.01% of wealthiest corporate scum.
Why should the majority of people care about the “problems” of these already wealthy and priveleged women?
Nice try with the links there.
First off you’re criticising Oz mines for having “driving” as women’s work. As far as I can tell that’s in reference to open cast gold mining in Oz, where pretty much everyone is driving some kinda big machine, above ground (albeit in a giant pit).
The woman in construction specifically said she did NOT feel discriminated in that article.
As for the two discriminated-against women sewer workers? Ok, that’s a count of two, vs. how many hundreds of thousands of sewer jobs? I’m not buying this whole “women are locked out of low caste work”.
Women managed to break down all kinds of chauvinist barriers to become doctors and lawyers, within a couple of generations. Women are now the majority of med students in the UK*. No problem for them to acheive that in well paid, high-social value careers… and yet, oh there are these insurmountable “barriers” to low caste work? Yeah right.
(*Hence the brain-drain from the 3rd world. Women retire or go part-time at a higher % much earlier than men, often when they decide to become mothers. The holes in the health service are then filled by recruiting doctors from poorer countries. Thus, poor countries health systems effectively subsidise middle class 1st world feminist ambitions to “have it all”.)
@Argenti – my point was. Yes, it was Victorian paternalism that got women out of the mines.
So, IF feminism did what it said on the tin, i.e. “equality” then feminists should be focussed on getting women back into the mines.
After all, there are always far more miners than there are CEOs.
If these dirty, difficult, dangerous jobs are so fuckin’ desirable – why aren’t feminists trying to get back in en masse? Why aren’t there newspaper articles about it every five minutes? like there are about the glass ceiling?
Simple: It’s a Red Herring. Feminists don’t want those jobs, they don’t want to work down a mine (unless technology has made it safe and clean). It’s just another thing to complain about, so as to be able to beg more power and privelege.
I don’t even know if you can qualify for military benefits if you’ve never been on active duty… Apparently, you can request a discharge if you become pregnant, but each veteran’s benefit for those discharged have their own requirements for how much service is required to qualify.
This is a result of light googling, I don’t actually know much about the matter. But even a cursory search reveals that Joe’s imaginary soldier’s plan is probably doomed at the outset…
@Cassandra – of course I don’t talk about my life on here!
ANYthing I’ve ever said about me personally has been used to attack me, by manboobzers.
So I don’t say anything about my personal life, other than in the most general terms.
Duh.
Ah, can you feel the joy that comes from a happy life just pouring out of Joe? Let’s bask, everyone.
I was out for a while. What the hell is Joe talking about now?
“When people assume that others are that calculating and ethics-free, ie would join the army with no intention of ever fighting, I always wonder if they’re describing themselves, and if they’re honestly unaware that most people aren’t that unethical”
Ahahahhahahahahahaaa!!
Apparently you live under a rock and are completely oblivious to the rip-off merchants of every stripe in every walk of life, from:
benefits fraudsters (including lottery winners), to MPs claiming for a duck house in their moat on expenses to that fella who just went to jail for selling fake detectors to the armed forces of several nations recently.
But ooooh, women soldiers are the exception to the rule, right? / sarcasm
XD
Biggest lawl ever! But Joe, what happens when those readers see that you’re just making a colossal ass of yourself, and that you make about as much sense as a bag of farts?
Ah, so you do think everyone is as amoral as you are. No wonder you’re always in such a bad mood.
Joe: Your worldview is sad. You are sad. Go away.
@Joe:
You’re getting tiring.
My complaint about the miners was the sense that they were trying to advertise “appropriate” jobs for women in mining, my gripe in particular was the cleaning of facilities. It wasn’t really giving the sense that the whole field was open, but that the industry was sectioning off areas that would be approprate for women. It’d be nice to know if that feeling was wrong.
For the sewer workers, of course it was just two. It was a single case. I wasn’t providing statistics with that article, I was showing a case study of the kinds of discrimination women in “dirty” jobs.
I never said that the construction workers faced discrimination, in fact it was nice to know that they didn’t face harassment. I was commenting on the frame of the article as “women proving themselves in a mans world,” which plays into the mindset that individual women must be prove the competance of all women, that they must be representatives of their gender rather than themselves.
You’re getting confused. The fact that most men aren’t CEOs is just a fact of math. The 99% thing I mentioned wasn’t about wealthy women moving up… Your statement doesn’t even make sense in context because you were talking about the 1% moving on to the .01%, while my example was th 99% not being the 1%.
Anyway, it’s just math. Most men aren’t CEOs. Most women aren’t CEOs. Amongst CEOs, however, there aren’t a representitive number of women, indicating there is a barrier for women that doesn’t exist for men.
Like I said, it’s pretty simple.