Jump to content
Lefebvre

No matter what, men are pigs...

Recommended Posts

That's probably because your mother raised you well.  People who are prideful or were raise believing stuff like this: 'If you only do certain things for a certain gender, that does not tell me you're well-mannered. It tells me you've got something to prove' are killing beautiful culture.

 

Charmed, I'm sure.

 

Where I come from, we were raised well enough that if we're going to be insulting, it's going to be honestly and to someone's face. Not doing so is cowardice.  

 

Be polite, well-mannered, kind, good, friendly because those things are worth doing, regardless of who is on the receiving end. Be respectful, courteous, dignified and considerate because those things are of intrinsic value, regardless of whether you think the person receiving it is worth it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This.

 

If you only do certain things for a certain gender, that does not tell me you're well-mannered. It tells me you've got something to prove. 

 

Prove what exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prove what exactly?

 

It suggests to me the same thing that people only being polite to wealthy people would - there's an agenda going on here. I don't necessarily understand it, but it doesn't sit right. 

 

If I see someone being polite to everyone, being kind to everyone, being courteous to everyone - that tells me they respect the equal dignity of every person and strive to respect it in their actions and words. 

 

Just be nice, for goodness sake, it's not that hard. You don't need to box people up into "these people are naturally passive" to be polite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's probably because your mother raised you well.  People who are prideful or were raise believing stuff like this: 'If you only do certain things for a certain gender, that does not tell me you're well-mannered. It tells me you've got something to prove' are killing beautiful culture.

 

Well, more my high school youth group. We did a study of JPIIs theology of the body and for some reason I remember that idea sticking with the theme.... My mother never gave me much advice picking up men other than that I should consider bleaching my hair and that I should quit being so academic and go to more parties. XP 

 

 

It suggests to me the same thing that people only being polite to wealthy people would - there's an agenda going on here. I don't necessarily understand it, but it doesn't sit right. 

 

If I see someone being polite to everyone, being kind to everyone, being courteous to everyone - that tells me they respect the equal dignity of every person and strive to respect it in their actions and words. 

 

Just be nice, for goodness sake, it's not that hard. You don't need to box people up into "these people are naturally passive" to be polite. 

 

I guess I just don't see why you can't be kind to everyone while acknowledging their differences. This is sort of a "why not both?" situation to me. I mean, if a guy was chivalrous towards women but a jerk to his mates, the waiter, his brothers, old men... that would be a turnoff and a sign he's being dis-genuine but then... that's also not what I understand chivalry to be. It's a mindset. People focus about the treatment of women but it's also about noble conduct, fair play and courtesy. Or at least that's how I see it. 

 

Maybe I'm just old fashioned though. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

Men on this thread are whining that putting women first is anti-male because it puts males lower

 

Women on this thread are whining that putting women first is anti-female because it implies females need male help

 

And Therians on this thread don't give a sugar-frosted ****

 

Why don't we just accept that people can mean things differently? Not everyone who opens a door for a woman is or isn't a chauvinist. If you're a male and feel belittled about it, then don't. And if you're a woman and feel belittled about it, then thank a guy when he opens a door and motion for him to go first. Let other people live their lives; I doubt we'll be dumb enough to make chivalry mandatory or illegal any time soon

 

Or we can paint with absolutes. That's also an option, I suppose

Edited by Mike Spero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Men on this thread are whining that putting women first is anti-male because it puts males lower

 

Women on this thread are whining that putting women first is anti-female because it implies females need male help

What thread are you reading?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

It suggests to me the same thing that people only being polite to wealthy people would - there's an agenda going on here. I don't necessarily understand it, but it doesn't sit right. 

 

If I see someone being polite to everyone, being kind to everyone, being courteous to everyone - that tells me they respect the equal dignity of every person and strive to respect it in their actions and words. 

 

Just be nice, for goodness sake, it's not that hard. You don't need to box people up into "these people are naturally passive" to be polite. 

 

"There's an agenda going on here" - you sound paranoid (Is that to your face enough - no really, I don't actually want to upset you or insult you, but you're literally trying to reprogram a beautiful part about western culture and it's saddening).

 

A gentleman is, likewise, polite to other men - but in different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It suggests to me the same thing that people only being polite to wealthy people would - there's an agenda going on here. I don't necessarily understand it, but it doesn't sit right. 

 

If I see someone being polite to everyone, being kind to everyone, being courteous to everyone - that tells me they respect the equal dignity of every person and strive to respect it in their actions and words. 

 

Just be nice, for goodness sake, it's not that hard. You don't need to box people up into "these people are naturally passive" to be polite. 

 

Firstly, one can be chivalrous towards women and polite to everyone. The two are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, it is absurd to say that everybody who practices some small chivalrous acts has an alternate agenda. I do not only practice chivalry with those females who I am sexually interested in. I have done it for friends whom I have no interest in whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I just don't see why you can't be kind to everyone while acknowledging their differences. This is sort of a "why not both?" situation to me. I mean, if a guy was chivalrous towards women but a jerk to his mates, the waiter, his brothers, old men... that would be a turnoff and a sign he's being dis-genuine but then... that's also not what I understand chivalry to be. It's a mindset. People focus about the treatment of women but it's also about noble conduct, fair play and courtesy. Or at least that's how I see it. 

 

Maybe I'm just old fashioned though. XD

 

 

The difficulty is that this is begging the question.

 

Niceness isn't a universalizable program because different people have different needs. Treating a shy introvert nicely is not the same as treating an outgoing extrovert nicely. Niceness needs to be particularized.

 

Anyone who believes chivalry is a good system implicitly thinks there's some social or essential difference between men and women worth celebrating. You may deny that, but I think it's unfair to claim that all such people only have that belief because they have small dicks. I'm perfectly happy to believe that the knights among us are generally genuine in their chivalric beliefs.

 

Maybe I'm biased, here. I'm a feminist and an egalitarian. I spend a large amount of time invested in two organisations: one supports the potential of adolescent girls in tackling poverty; the other combats human trafficking, the vast majority of victims of which are female. Engaging with female issues matters to me. It causes me celebration and it causes concern. 

 

What I worry about is not that acts of "chivalry" are inherently intended as malicious acts of sexism; not at all. It's about the message they send. When you insist on committing to dominant-male, passive/submissive-female roles even from the outset of any relationship (and I mean that broadly, not just romantically), you very rigidly define what masculine and feminine mean. I spoke earlier about acts of "chivalry" having an agenda or something to prove: that has nothing to do with penis size. The agenda or point is exactly what I've described: that we must conform to certain gender expectations. What I worry about is that it's actually denying us of authentic interactions with people. 

 

I actually don't deny that there are differences between genders. The example I often use in discussions like this (and this is anecdotal) is my group of girlfriends. There are eight of us. We come from countries spread across the globe, with multiple and mixed heritages and ethnicities. We have different backgrounds and different aspirations and different experiences. We range from tomboy to girly girl, confident to shy, loud to quiet and so on. We study neuroscience, psychology, biology, maths, physics, history, international relations, social anthropology, French, Arabic, English, opera, film. We are a diverse group of young women. But, one consistent thing is our understanding of ourselves as women. Our identity as women is inherently important; our ​femininity is intrinsic. But those female experiences and identities are not all the same. 

 

My experience of femininity is very much relational. I feel like my innate and very deep desire to be a mother is a very important part of my femininity; I am very much the parent of our friendship group. It might surprise all of you that I would give up my career in an instant for my babies. That's not contradictory to my feminism; my appreciation for my femininity is an intrinsic part of that worldview. This is very different to my best friend. To her, a fundamental part of who she is as a woman is about her self-sufficiency. She is whole, she is complete and she is beautiful for it. To her, a very important part of being feminine is understanding her distinctness from being masculine; she is not some other half, or some part of a whole, she is her own entity. 

 

One isolated incident of a man insisting on acts of "chivalry" isn't going to be an issue. That's not what I'm saying when I talk about agenda. When we have this attempt to push a single gender narrative, are we actually preventing the true diversity of relationships? Does it not seem audacious to dictate to someone what their femininity or masculinity must be? Does it not sound boring to have every relationship be the same, cookie-cutter mould? Starting with a basic level of treating everyone with equal respect allows relationships to develop from there with authenticity and diversity and the beauty that comes with that. What are we teaching our sons and daughters: are our girls failures as women if they're uncomfortable being paid for or coddled? Doesn't that disrespect the diversity of femininity? 

 

I don't think that's a hard concept to wrap my head around. Potentially it's hard to put aside prejudices and preconceptions and misconceptions in order to allow that diversity and difference to blossom, but I don't think that's impossible to get over. 

 

N.B. putting chivalry in inverted commas isn't meant as a pas-ag dig; I don't like the phrasing but I can't really work out how else to write it and it's late so we're running with it whilst also registering my discomfort. 

 

 

 

"There's an agenda going on here" - you sound paranoid (Is that to your face enough - no really, I don't actually want to upset you or insult you, but you're literally trying to reprogram a beautiful part about western culture and it's saddening).

 

A gentleman is, likewise, polite to other men - but in different ways.

 

Yes, much better than passively-agressively doing it in a post to someone else. 

 

You see beauty in homogeny, I see beauty in diversity. See above why I think respecting that diversity means starting from a base level of equality. My mention of agenda isn't about paranoia; it's about assessing social attitudes. 

 

Firstly, one can be chivalrous towards women and polite to everyone. The two are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, it is absurd to say that everybody who practices some small chivalrous acts has an alternate agenda. I do not only practice chivalry with those females who I am sexually interested in. I have done it for friends whom I have no interest in whatsoever.

 

 

Again, see above: the agenda isn't about sexual interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG
You see beauty in homogeny, I see beauty in diversity. See above why I think respecting that diversity means starting from a base level of equality. My mention of agenda isn't about paranoia; it's about assessing social attitudes.

 

 

What? Seeing distinction between the sexes is diversity. That's some interesting double-think you got going on there.

 

What do you mean by equality if not 'the same'?

 

I believe in fairness, and I believe in the equal value of the sexes, but BIBLICALLY God made them 'male' and 'female' and inherently we are not only given feminine and masculine reflections of God - but roles to fulfill to reflect His love more perfectly.  This culminates in the union of marriage - husband as the representation of Christ and wife as the representation of the Church.

 

That's getting way ahead of chivalry though, but I'm pretty sure the reason you dislike the notion is rooted in your disbelief in Christian marriage.

Edited by JAG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Is that to your face enough - no really, I don't actually want to upset you or insult you, but you're literally trying to reprogram a beautiful part about western culture and it's saddening).

 

I'm not trying to be that person who brings up something unrelated to a topic. But chivalry is originally Middle Eastern. And the whole men doing nice little things for women is pretty much a thing in all cultures. But the concept of chivalry is more obviously in Western culture because of Medieval Western Europe, knights, and courtly manners and love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

I'm not trying to be that person who brings up something unrelated to a topic. But chivalry is originally Middle Eastern. And the whole men doing nice little things for women is pretty much a thing in all cultures. But the concept of chivalry is more obviously in Western culture because of Medieval Western Europe, knights, and courtly manners and love.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry#Chivalry_before_1170:_The_Noble_Habitus

 

Middle Eastern where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Seeing distinction between the sexes is diversity. That's some interesting double-think you got going on there.

 

What do you mean by equality if not 'the same'?

 

I believe in fairness, and I believe in the equal value of the sexes, but BIBLICALLY God made them 'male' and 'female' and inherently we are not only given feminine and masculine reflections of God - but roles to fulfill to reflect His love more perfectly.  This culminates in the union of marriage - husband as the representation of Christ and wife as the representation of the Church.

 

That's getting way ahead of chivalry though, but I'm pretty sure the reason you dislike the notion is rooted in your disbelief in Christian marriage.

 

I just view Biblical literature differently to you. The same way I view it differently about Holy Communion, Holy Baptism, and multiple other things. I don't "disbelieve" in Christian marriage; that's laughable. I view Christian marriage as something different to you. That doesn't make me a dreadful Godless heathen. 

 

Consider the examples of this list: open doors for people; give up your seat for others; say please and thank you; bring hostess gifts to events; help people into their seats if they need it; fill others' glasses before your own; offer to pay for meals; be generous; allow others to walk on the inside of the pavement to prevent them being splashed by cars; help carry heavy loads or groceries for other people. Those are basic manners, surely? I don't even consider those to be chivalric; I consider that to be base-level, non-ape behaviour. They're a base level that you can apply to everyone and then allow relationships to develop uniquely from, surely? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mod edit: picture deleted for bad language (rule #10).

 

Originally Arab. But the Moors in Spain influenced the Spanish and the French with the concept. And the French gave it a Medieval Western European flavor. In Western culture we have a word for the concept and it is a more ingrained part of our culture because of the Feudal System, knights, courtly love, etc. But it seems there are practices in other cultures that we would call chivalry. I don't know if it was originally a Arab thing, before European, but a prince rescuing a princess was a theme that was popular in Arab culture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

I just view Biblical literature differently to you. The same way I view it differently about Holy Communion, Holy Baptism, and multiple other things. I don't "disbelieve" in Christian marriage; that's laughable. I view Christian marriage as something different to you. That doesn't make me a dreadful Godless heathen. 

 

Consider the examples of this list: open doors for people; give up your seat for others; say please and thank you; bring hostess gifts to events; help people into their seats if they need it; fill others' glasses before your own; offer to pay for meals; be generous; allow others to walk on the inside of the pavement to prevent them being splashed by cars; help carry heavy loads or groceries for other people. Those are basic manners, surely? I don't even consider those to be chivalric; I consider that to be base-level, non-ape behaviour. They're a base level that you can apply to everyone and then allow relationships to develop uniquely from, surely? 

 

1.  How clear can this passage be?

 

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,  that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,  so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

 

I mean, I get it, it's sort of a mystery - but Paul goes on to make it bright as day, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”  This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."

 

2.  A man and woman are walking down the sidewalk - the man closest to the road.  In the old'n days, this was to prevent the woman from getting horse dung on her, or from being hit by a carriage. Today we do this to protect her from being hit by a car or getting splashed by a puddle.  The man and the woman can not both protect the other from these dangers, right?  They can't both walk on the closest side to the street?  Is your main problem, "why does the man automatically walk on the inside then?"

 

Another scenario: A man and a woman are walking up the stairs. The man walks in front of or the side of the woman.  Why? Because the woman may be wearing a skirt or dress and might be self-conscious about showing her underwear (you're English, right? so pants?).  Or, she might be afraid the gentleman would stare at her butt.  Is your main problem, "why does the man automatically not walk behind the woman up the stairs?"

 

Another scenario: A man and a woman just went shopping together and are about to take the groceries in.  The man grabs the heavier items and the woman grabs the lighter items.  Why? Because the man is better fit to carry heavy loads.  Is your main problem, "why does the man automatically grab the heavier items?"

 

:(

Edited by JAG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Some comments about the article from Facebook: doorss.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Originally Arab. But the Moors in Spain influenced the Spanish and the French with the concept. And the French gave it a Medieval Western European flavor. In Western culture we have a word for the concept and it is a more ingrained part of our culture because of the Feudal System, knights, courtly love, etc. But it seems there are practices in other cultures that we would call chivalry. I don't know if it was originally a Arab thing, before European, but a prince rescuing a princess was a theme that was popular in Arab culture. 

 

Can you shoot me some reading on this? Thanks! Chivalry, to my knowledge, refers to a code that was developed in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with Katy's argument is that I do not understand how my acting chivalrous is forcing others to do anything. I am not saying that chivalry should be demanded of every person in society. I have no problem if men do not act chivalrous. Yet, In fact, trying to force men not to be chivalrous could be violence against their gendered dispositions. If I want to act chivalrous, who are you to tell me I should not? You talk about this love of diversity, but where is the space for chivalry?

Edited by Wesker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I'm a feminist and an egalitarian. 

 

Feminism is very different from egalitarianism. 

 

 the other combats human trafficking, the vast majority of victims of which are female. 

 

Not true. In the case of labor trafficking the majority or even the vast majority of victims are male. In the case of rape trafficking it seems that males and females make up about an equal amount of the victims. In a sample done in New York 50% of victims were boys and 50% were girls. In some countries there seem to be more female victims. While in other countries (for example Afghanistan and Sri Lanka) there seem to be more male victims. But even if globally more female are victim of rape trafficking then males it is still not true that the vast majority of victims of this form trafficking are females, let alone when all types of trafficking. Here an article on male victims from the U.S. Department of State.

 

http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/fs/2013/211624.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  How clear can this passage be?

 

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,  that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,  so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

 

I mean, I get it, it's sort of a mystery - but Paul goes on to make it bright as day, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”  This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."

 

2.  A man and woman are walking down the sidewalk - the man closest to the road.  In the old'n days, this was to prevent the woman from getting horse dung on her, or from being hit by a carriage. Today we do this to protect her from being hit by a car or getting splashed by a puddle.  The man and the woman can not both protect the other from these dangers, right?  They can't both walk on the closest side to the street?  Is your main problem, "why does the man automatically walk on the inside then?"

 

Another scenario: A man and a woman are walking up the stairs. The man walks in front of or the side of the woman.  Why? Because the woman may be wearing a skirt or dress and might be self-conscious about showing her underwear (you're English, right? so pants?).  Or, she might be afraid the gentleman would stare at her butt.  Is your main problem, "why does the man automatically not walk behind the woman up the stairs?"

 

Another scenario: A man and a woman just went shopping together and are about to take the groceries in.  The man grabs the heavier items and the woman grabs the lighter items.  Why? Because the man is better fit to carry heavy loads.  Is your main problem, "why does the man automatically grab the heavier items?"

 

:(

 

1. Not the place for this discussion, but context? Audience? Social attitudes of the time? There's a difference between what the Bible reads and what the Bible says. There are multiple egalitarian theologians you can investigate if you're really that interested. 

 

2.

Who's wearing the lighter coloured clothing? That should logically dictate who walks on the inside, surely? Or the person who's less steady on their feet (is the man elderly? Is the lady in heels?)?

 

I live in Scotland, yeah? Guys wear kilt. The kilt is traditionally worn with no underwear. Does that mean we're going to do this dance where I can't go first because I'm in a skirt but he can't go first because he's in a kilt etc.? Or are we going to get on with life and pull ourselves together by just not looking up one another's respective clothing?  

 

That makes sense if the guy is stronger. But there have been multiple times when I have helped an elderly man lift or carry something because I am stronger. That's about practicality, not about gender. 

 

 

Feminism is very different from egalitarianism. 

 

 

Not true. In the case of labor trafficking the majority or even the vast majority of victims are male. In the case of rape trafficking it seems that males and females make up about an equal amount of the victims. In a sample done in New York 50% of victims were boys and 50% were girls. In some countries there seem to be more female victims. While in other countries (for example Afghanistan and Sri Lanka) there seem to be more male victims. But even if globally more female are victim of rape trafficking then males it is still not true that the vast majority of victims of this form trafficking are females, let alone when all types of trafficking. Here an article on male victims from the U.S. Department of State.

 

http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/fs/2013/211624.htm

 

I'm really not willing to debate the validity of being both an egalitarian and a feminist. I just don't see how anyone can't be a feminist, so that's like talking to a brick wall with me and just not something I'd encourage. 

 

Actually, very much the case. I recommend the UN Global report on human trafficking and EuroStat paper on trafficking of human beings, both 2014 editions. Freedom4Innocence uses the statistic of 66% of trafficking victims being female, as do UNICEF and UNODC. UKHTC uses 55%. Girls and boys also need to be treated as independent data fields and not lumped together as 'children'; this prevents the addressing of the issue in an effective way. In regards to child trafficking, I recommend the charity Love146 for understanding child trafficking problems. 

 

But, again, not really the point of this discussion.  

 

***

 

John - I don't have a problem with chivalry in a relationship. I just have every problem with this insistence that femininity is one thing and masculinity is another and that there's absolutely no leeway or diversity to it, and that anyone who's not naturally male-dominant, female-submissive is somehow destroying gender. Like I said, not considering the beauty in diversity that is femininity and masculinity seems dreadfully boring. 

 

This is the same as my attitude to 90% of things - you do you. Just don't try and dictate me, for the love of all that's holy. 

 

***

 

And with that, I'm out, because I've been reminded why CTF debates hurt my soul. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG
And with that, I'm out, because I've been reminded why CTF debates hurt my soul.

 

 

I'm sorry to have put you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that Katy's leaving the debate, but I'm going to respond to her ideas independent from their author.

 

What's being attacked here is ambiguous. Is this John, who offers pay for dinner and politely accepts a refusal, or is this someone who brings incredibly rigid "dominance" rules to every concievable interaction?

 

The extreme sounds (and is) unattractive. But I think the egalitarian extreme is similarly undesirable because it eliminates the possibility of interacting meaningfully with the vast majority of people in my life.

 

To really get to know any woman (or any person) on a deep, personal level would require me to spend a lot of time wining and dining her and learning about who she is as a person. I'd need rapport, comfort, intimacy--and I don't have time for that with 95% of people.

 

With most folks, I have to work on the basis of tentative assumptions based on the broad pattern of what "most people" are like. This is true even for my friends, if they're not my closest friends.

 

What strict egalitarianism requires me to do is to remove any kind of gendered assumption from my system of assumptions--which is to say it requires me to eliminate gender from all but my most intimate relationships.

 

This is a sadder, grayer world than the one I live in. I have gendered assumptions about what people are generally like. They usually work for me, and they allow me to relate to people on a deeper level than I would absent those assumptions.

 

At the same time, I leave it open to individuals to prove to me that they're different from the norm, and I'm perfectly happy to have relationships with "deviants." In fact, I often prefer people who are different because they're more interesting. My girlfriend is one of the most masculine people I know--so masculine that she wouldn't get angry with me for saying that :)

 

I'm not "pushing a single gender narrative." I'm just rejecting the narrative that there is no gender in the non-intimate world.

 

 

 

 

People should be generally considerate. I'm not going to say, "never help a man carry groceries." But this ignores the point that there are more subtle ways in which people tend to treat men and women differently. For example, With men, I tend to be more serious and straightforward; with women, I take a more playful and oblique tact. This is because I assume that men tend to find play condescending while women tend to think it's fun and flirtatious.

 

Am I really oppressing anyone's individuality by maintaining these tentative sexist assumptions?

 

 

 

 

Finally, I'd like to end with a note on diversity:

 

I don't believe that I can define my identity autonomously. People define themselves socially. For example, I want to get married and have children. And I don't want to be just any husband or any father; I want to be what I have in mind to be a good father and a good husband, and much of my self-respect relies on my ability to slowly realize that goal, right now as a student, young professional, and boyfriend.

 

I cannot, however, accomplish that goal alone. To be a good husband is to be a good husband to a wife. Suppose there is no woman in the world who wants to be a wife to my version of a "good" husband. It is ipso facto impossible for me to realize the masculinity I want to realize. If this is the case, it is my responsibility to change my identity to be something more attractive; it is not women's responsibility to accomodate me.

 

I think something similar is true of every so-called "identity." Everyone asks in one way or another for others to accept them and participate with them in their identity performance. But it is a perfectly valid move to reject a performance. And frankly some performances are going to get rejected a lot. "No, I don't want to be friends with an otherkin." This puts limitations on diversity--and that's OK.

 

So yes, the man who insists on being hyper-chivalrous will probably be offering an identity a lot of women will reject. But it's as valid for him to reject "non-traditional" women as it is for them to reject him. It's not a matter of diversity. It's a matter of what sorts of persons people want to accept and how willing you are to endure rejection to "be yourself."

 

Of course I think generally tolerance is a better strategy. Those who reject everyone who deviates slightly from their preferences will soon be friendless. Still, I don't accept tolerance/diversity as some sort of moral virtue above and beyond other social goods, and any identity necessarily makes some sort of demand on someone somewhere that is in some way constraining.

 

Thank you for writing what I was too lazy to. I kneel before your magnificence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, very much the case. I recommend the UN Global report on human trafficking and EuroStat paper on trafficking of human beings, both 2014 editions. Freedom4Innocence uses the statistic of 66% of trafficking victims being female, as do UNICEF and UNODC. UKHTC uses 55%. Girls and boys also need to be treated as independent data fields and not lumped together as 'children'; this prevents the addressing of the issue in an effective way. In regards to child trafficking, I recommend the charity Love146 for understanding child trafficking problems. 

 

But, again, not really the point of this discussion.  

 

Agreed about this not being the point of this discussion. There's some things I could say about statistics, our response to male victims, and other things, but I'll save it.

 

I want to congratulate on being involved in an organization that is out there helping end a great injustice! If more people did that the world would be a better place. It's also great that Love146 is out helping victims of both genders.

 

 

I'm really not willing to debate the validity of being both an egalitarian and a feminist. 

 

Egalitarian ideology and feminist ideology are vastly different. Egalitarian ways of approaching issues varies and feminist ways of approaching issues varies even more. I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I believe it is very unlikely that someone would subscribe to feminist ideology and want to approach issues in an egalitarian way(s). There is really one thing that all of the many differences between feminism and egalitarianism boil down to.

 

Feminists believe men act and women are acted. As do tradcons (traditional-conservatives). This view comes from traditionally gender stereotypes. 

 

And egalitarians don't.

 

I find it ironic feminists have an issue with tradcons saying that men are usually active and women are usually passive. When feminist ideology teaches that very thing because of Patriarchy Theory. That men have been actively oppressing women for thousands of years and women have been passively being oppressed by men for thousands years. 

 

 I just don't see how anyone can't be a feminist, so that's like talking to a brick wall with me and just not something I'd encourage. 

 

It's easy enough for me not to be a feminist. I used to be one, but there are numerous reasons as to why I'm not one anymore. With me I have deep ideological reasons for not being a feminist as well as big issues with the way feminists handle different things. I'm not just someone who doesn't like the word.

 

But if you're going to get to know many American young women you'll have come to understand people not being feminists. Only about 1/5 young American women today identify as feminists. A good portion of non-feminist may subscribe to some feminist ways of viewing the world (they're not full egalitarians), but they don't label themselves as feminists or take things to the extent feminists take them. Honestly in all of my discussions with female friends or any friends the issue of feminism has never come up. I only have one friend who has called herself a feminist (or said feministy things). Recently I saw on in the comments of an article had posted on Facebook two college age girls, one I slightly know, going on and on talking about how feminism is not interested in real equality, etc. The one girl seems like a bit of a partier. And both have played "strong female roles" like Merry Murderesses in the "Cell Block Tango" in Chicago at their school. Neither are old fashioned "Ladies Against Feminism" types.

 

Again not trying to start a debate, just explaining myself and the mindset of those I know. But I would definitely like to sometime have a bit of discussion or friendly debate on this. But I understand you not wanting to have a debate now. And I'm going to be very busy this next week and probably won't be on CTF much if at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×