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.)
@becausescience – google Japan. Grass Eaters. Economy.
Duh.
For someone who hates Manboobzers so much, Joe sure spends an awful lot of time hanging out here. It’s almost like he’s desperate for any attention at all, from anyone who will give it to him.
Joe, why do you post here so much?
@Cassandra – you’ll excuse me if I don’t pay any attention to the opinion of someone who spent exactly SIX MONTHS in the state system as to what is or isn’t wrong with it.
Seriously, wtf.
Yay for beagley homecomings!
@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.