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.)
@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.