Sexism and Men's Issues

Although I've said similar comments before, why is it so hard for society to work together to stop problems for everyone and try to help as many people as possible?

I know I'm a Wide-Eyed Idealist, but seriously, is it that hard? If you're going to talk about DV against women, why not talk about DV against men as well? Or if you're going to address male expendability, why not address female objectification as well? Why not address problems that affect everyone as well, like the economy...but not gender the help?

And as for statistics...they're so biased and easily manipulated, that I think people need to stop looking at them as excuses for "this group has it so much worse" or whatever. Why not just try to help people regardless?

...I'm sure my Wide-Eyed Idealist tendencies will be shot down here, but I figured I'd post anyways.

edited 25th Sep '12 12:09:25 PM by darkclaw

To be fair, the rise in divorce may have largely been from people (from both genders) who wanted out of the marriage, but would have been out on the street if they had gone through with it. It's one of those things where there's simply not enough information to draw a conclusion from.

I tend to agree. Even if only one person out of hundreds is being marginalized for things outside their control, that's too many.

edited 25th Sep '12 12:12:00 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

I'm aware of those cases, but 50% or higher divorce rates in western countries seem rather high to me. I would like to believe that the majority of marriages aren't that unhappy.

Speaking of idealism, it's not like there aren't people who want the world to be a better place. Liars are just way more successful than them.

I'd like to think that as well, but I'd probably be wrong.

I actually think there are some pretty big cultural issues in terms of marriage and romance in our society that result in this. Maybe that's too far OT. (Thought experiment. Don't respond as it's OT: How many couples in Western media do you see that actively do things together, most depictions are of "satellite relationships", or the idea that opposites attract is attractive. Myself? I'm married to a fellow geek/gamer that I can share pretty much everything with. It makes me happy)

And Re: German divorce rates, I think DG nails it, that it allowed people who wouldn't have the resources to get out to get out.

I don't think that's quite right. From what I'm seeing, the actual rate is closer a third of married couples, with the majority of that being because of adultery.

Edit: Okay, I got some hard numbers here. Nevermind, it looks like it is closer to half.

edited 25th Sep '12 12:22:43 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

Remember that the divorce rate statistics are misleading. They are inflated upward by serial marry-and-divorce people. First-marriage divorce rates are in the low 40 percent range. It's subsequent marriages that are significantly more likely to end in divorce.

Also, I'd question the idea that a divorce is ultimately a failure while not divorcing is a success. There's plenty of cases in which both people are happier after divorce, and plenty of couples who stay together yet are miserable.

Also what Morven said. I know several people who are divorced, and much happier for it.

There is also some correlation between the divorce rate and the age at which they marry. Those who marry later in life tend to last longer than those who marry in their early to mid twenties. And that I can understand. People change a lot in their early 20s, and what you think is good and right at 20, you'll probably look back on in ten years and go "Why did I ever think that?"

edited 25th Sep '12 12:28:55 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

Gone back to its roots, then, has it? You must be aware that companionate marriage as the ideal is a comparatively recent thing. Humans have always been prone to falling in love and hooking up on that basis, but as soon as the concept of property was invented, that instinct was hijacked by financial interests.

Maybe you're onto something.

Also slight OT: I find it very interesting that the divorce rate goes up as women's rights increase. It suggests to me that women are poorly served by the institution of marriage (in comparison with men) and only put up with it when society conspires to make the alternatives even worse.

I don't think that it's because marriage is bad for women, honestly. I think that it's more like women feel pressured into settling down and are more likely to jump into a bad relationship. Maybe we should move this train of thought to the other thread on sexism?

How are the alternatives worse?

edited 25th Sep '12 12:33:18 PM by Guest1001

I see the reason for the increasing divorce rates correlating with the progress of feminism in an entirely different light. Marriage has always been about bringing women into a economically safe (if dependant) situation. Nowadays they can get into the same situation with alimony and child support without staying with a man. There are of course a lot of other factors you have to take into account, but ideally I want a world where people stay together because they want to and suffer no repercussions if they either never enter a long-time relationship, stay in it or end it.

edited 25th Sep '12 12:38:24 PM by Besserwisser

Historically speaking, women had a lot more trouble being financially independent than men did. Most jobs that would take a woman were jobs not intended to be a sole income, but rather for a married woman or single-living-with-parents woman to earn a little extra for the household.

Which is why women got a raw deal when they decided not to marry. Marriage was great for women back in the day, compared to what they had to go through without it. The problem clearly wasn't marriage in and off itself but rather the alternative to it.

Also, I'd question the idea that a divorce is ultimately a failure while not divorcing is a success. There's plenty of cases in which both people are happier after divorce, and plenty of couples who stay together yet are miserable.

Particularly since one of the most basic elements of domestic abuse is increasing your partner's dependency on you and making it impossible for them to leave.

There's another issue I'd like to throw in for a moment. It's the issue of chivalry, particularly how it is misunderstood by modern women and men.

I sometimes hear women complain that chivalry is dead, and I often hear "nice guy finishes last" types claiming that they are chivalrous men upholding some bygone code of honor that can only be understood by a select few. Both interpretations are incorrect mainly due to the overstating of certain aspects of chivalry such as courtly love and protecting those who cannot protect themselves, and the understating of certain negative aspects such as levying taxes, land ownership, and trial by combat.

Chivalry was not originally conceived as a how-to guide for men to better treat women. It was first and foremost a military code designed to employ diplomacy as well as ensuring the continuation of the line of succession. For example, opening doors for women derives from the long dresses worn by the ladies in waiting and other female nobility so they wouldn't get caught on the frame. Opening the carriage door for a lady and giving her your hand wasn't just meant to be polite. Knights were tasked with checking the perimeter for assassins and traitors. Indoor heating systems in the castle were limited to lower quarters up until the 10th century or so (correct me if my dates are wrong), so giving the lady your cape or coat was a way to literally keep her from freezing to death.

Protecting the female nobility set to marry the prince or king (and thus give the lordship an heir) was a way for knights to maintain job security. A knight swore allegiance to his lord because his lord acted as a conduit to lands acquired through taxation or war reparations settled after concessions. If the line of succession is disturbed in any way (e.g. the wife of the lord is rendered ill, barren or killed), the lordship's influence will wane and the knight may find himself under new management. When this occurred, many knights found themselves without employment and forced into criminal activity, vagrancy, or exile. In other words, you protected the lady of the castle because your job and life depended on it, not simply because of some preconceived notion that "well, women are dainty, so we're supposed to look after them and it's cool and romantic to be a protector."

The lovey-dovey aspect of chivalry was a reality, but many people - both stuck-up women with entitlement issues and men with "nice guy" complexes - get it in their heads that knights just sat around courting the ladies of the castle all day. Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte Darthur and the Gawain Poet's Sir Gawain and the Green Knight do a wonderful job of explaining just how much that was the ideal and not the reality. When Gawain is seduced by Lady Bertilak, he is entangled between the choice of rejecting her advances and protecting his terms of honesty with Lord Bertilak (which would insult her hospitality); or accepting her advances and causing him to be dishonest with Bertilak. Read it if you haven't already. Great poem.

Anyway, Gawain later complains about women throughout history such as Eve and Delilah who were supposedly these wily creatures with ulterior motives who set out to ruin men, and Morgan le Fey basically calls him out on his sexist bullshit. That is, she and Bertilak explain to him that a good knight attempts to be honorable toward women, yet he should do so out of genuine appreciate for the code of chivalry and for the women for which he cares. In other words, we can interpret Gawain as the original "nice guy" trying way too hard to follow a rigid system of conduct that itself is fundamentally flawed and can actually encourage misogyny rather than curtail it. At least I think that might have been one of the Gawain Poet's points.

Le Morte Darthur has several excellent examples of this whole paradigm that demonstrates how inflexible the code of chivalry really was, and there is some debate among scholars as to how and to what extent these works can be interpreted from a feminist or masculinist scope. I actually did a lot of grad work on this issue, particularly how these rigid value systems have influenced modern gender norms and social institutions and activities such as marriage, adultery, the value of women relative to men and vice versa. Sir Thomas Malory himself was accused of rape a few times in his life, and there is speculation as to whether or not he wrote Le Morte Darthur in exile as a result of sexual assault and perhaps as a way of making amends for his initial views on women. I think Malory's work is one of the first English literary tales to simultaneously explore both feminism and masculinism from a fully fleshed-out framework.

At latter points in the poem, some of the knights get fed up with the love affair between Lancelot and Gwenivere, and it gets to the point where Gwenivere is largely blamed for the unraveling that ultimately leads to Arthur's death. However, Gwenivere herself tacitly explains that the men should look into themselves (while not taking blame away from herself) to see the source of all the misfortune that has befallen them. In fact, everybody was more or less complacent with the affair on romantic and sexual grounds, but rather discontent with the affair because it was considered an act of treason (Lancelot is interfering with Arthur's chances of producing an heir and therefore a stable line to the throne).

Scholars have said the same about Homer's Iliad and the occasional misogynistic interpretations of Helen as an airhead who couldn't comprehend what diplomatic damage Paris had caused by kidnapping her. She was actually quite shrewd in the poem (the movie butchers her characterization), and she even calls Paris out on being so fickle while his countrymen are being slaughtered by Achilles.

EDIT: I broke down this post to make it less of an eye sore.

edited 25th Sep '12 10:28:32 PM by Aprilla

Thank you for clarifying that.

@Karalora, a few posts back: You seem to be cherry-picking through my posts a bit. I personally don't believe that either gender is going to have any sort of intrinsic advantage when trying to force themselves into activities traditionally dominated by the other gender. I do, however, feel that no activity should be forced to lower its standards because some people (and I say "people" for a very good reason here) are unfamiliar. They can become familiar if they want to compete. Lowering of standards (or the creation of a second set of standards for a different gender) I think is insulting to everyone involved.

If women want to get into traditionally male activities, good for them. But the standards governing those activities are under no obligation to change...unless of course feminists are willing to concede that women need a special set of rules to compete in a "man's world", in which case the "special rights" argument actually holds some water.

Equality is the abolishment of artificial barriers. The natural barriers regarding work ethic and determination ought to remain intact.

My pleasure.

I also recommend Chaucer's "Wife of Bath's Tale" from The Canterbury Tales. It demonstrates a disconnect between masculine values and feminine values that leads to misunderstandings about both men and women.

My general point from a historical and literary standpoint is that men's rights and the treatment of men has a complex history of power dynamics and ideological superstructures that go far beyond simple gender norms and deep into a foundation of hierarchies, social contract theory, and the semblance of innate values that are anything but.

Morven actually pointed this out in the thread on Anita Sarkeesian's video game trope project. "Kyriarchy" is the better term here, and I think part of the reason why feminism and masculinism are such vitriolic philosophies has a lot to do with the notion that they are both derivatives of a sort of Marxist conflict theory in sociological understanding. That is, we identity gender norms by virtue of their history and presence of conflict, and we then seek to restructure the social value systems to either better accommodate those gender norms, or we discard those gender norms entirely. The enmity between the former and the latter is often what separates the moderates from the radicals.

I've been following this thread for a while now, and while I haven't really agreed with much of anything Guest and Besserwisser have been saying, there are some underlying problems both in contemporary feminism and, more specifically, how men interpret contemporary feminism. The latter was basically my point when I used Gawain as an example of this confusion. Better yet, the knight in the Wife of Bath's Tale is a great example because he really doesn't get that, in his quest to figure out what women want most in life, the central problem is that this question is being treated as if it can be rectified with a single, objectively right answer. I for one believe that the tale drives home the point that if men want to be treated like human beings, they'd better start doing the same for women.

To that end, I think a large portion of the "men getting screwed over by feminism" mentality is, to put it bluntly, our sex essentially reaping what we've sown. Yes, I know I didn't go back in time and suggest that women be treated like incubators and sex objects. I find that argument just as annoying as the "I didn't have slaves" argument when it comes to discussions about racism. The fact of the matter is that human beings continue to adhere to vestiges of ancient and not-so-ancient traditions. The misinterpretation of chivalry has led to this "nice guy" culture of men, some (but not all, to be fair) who make themselves out to be victims of a society that doesn't understand how they're great gentlemen who just need to be given a fighting chance. The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Hitch do a good job of portraying the pitfalls of this mentality in terms of how it reflects poorly both on the men who adopt that line of thinking as well as the sort of women who will take advantage of that mentality.

A few guys accuse the protagonist of 40-Year-Old Virgin of "putting the pussy on a pedestal", and I was immediately reminded of Gloria Steinem's famous statement that a pedestal is an area of confinement just like many other forms of confinement. We've talked about this before in that old thread about pick-up artists and nice guys. I've had a few colleagues go on that "nice guy" streak for years with big chips on their shoulders. Many nice guys go after women who represent an idealized concept, so they don't see them for who they are. When reality sets in and the men realize that the woman in question isn't perfect, blame is often shifted towards the woman rather than inward towards the man himself. This is essentially Gawain's problem with Bertilak and Morgan la Fey, and it has been demonstrated more recently in movies such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and (500) Days of Summer. Hell, I was that way in high school. But I grew up. Some guys don't.

On the other hand, I'm seeing a lot of movies, books and TV shows that encourage women to embrace the notion that men are here to protect them and give them material possessions. The developers for the new Tomb Raider game are often cited as saying that they wanted to make the player feel a strong desire to protect Lara, but many people, myself included, just find that a bit creepy, misguided, and harmful to both male gamers and Lara Croft as a character. The whole concept doesn't sound heroic to me. It sounds voyeuristic and invasive, and it also presumes that someone of Croft's caliber (yes, I know it's a prequel and she's coming into her own) needs so much protection to begin with. I suspect this is similar to the backlash behind Metroid Other M. Both sexes suffer from this pandering. Yeah, I like staring at Lara Croft's butt. I won't lie about that. But when I hold the controller, I feel like she's in charge of her own story, and I'm just along for the ride. I've heard that this is the same reason why Bayonetta was so popular with male gamers although the irony of her Fanservice is contentious.

There is a line between protection and condescendingly objectifying a woman, and there is a line between seeking affection and help from a man and using him as an economic crutch. We have many labels for people like this. I've already listed the "nice guy" stereotype. There's also the base bunny or badge bunny, women who seek out military and law enforcement personnel for marriage so they can get housing and medical benefits. There's also the psycho-chip-on-her-shoulder-possible-domestic-violence-victim martial arts student, the woman who bought into those infomercials and posters that every other man is a potential rapist. I've had people like that as students, and it's...not fun for me...or my testicles....Yeah. There's also the "bay boy" stereotype, which itself is related to the "nice guy" concept in the sense that the kind of women who get their feelings hurt by "bad boys" is similar to men who find out that the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is actually a multi-dimensional human being with her own issues, something that Spotless Mind points out brilliantly.

edited 25th Sep '12 10:45:14 PM by Aprilla

@Aprilla: So do you think those who wish to toss out gender roles are the moderates or the radicals? Sorry if I missed it but your post did not make the distinction clear.

Radical, I'd say, which isn't a bad thing in and of itself.

I was reading comments on one of Sarkeesian's videos the other day, and I liked the point someone made. We ought to recognize the positive aspects of all gender values instead of trying to reinvent them. Our gender values will inevitably change over time as the LGBTQ movement gains more momentum, divorce rates fluctuate, cohabitation becomes more commonplace, and single parenthood and homosexual parenthood normalize.

Masculinity, as a social construct, has benefits such as bravery, assertiveness, determination and leadership. Feminine values have benefits such as cooperation, understanding, introspection and diplomacy. None of these traits are objectively masculine or feminine, and it should be charged that most people follow some degree of both sets. Cooperation and leadership can lead to efficiency. Bravery and introspection can lead to better conflict resolution. Determination and diplomacy can lead to friendship and honesty. Of course, these gender values have their dark sides, too, and it's up to masculinists and feminists to highlight both the good and the bad and sociologically, psychologically and historically identify trends that perpetuate these values.

edited 25th Sep '12 10:53:14 PM by Aprilla

If I ever meet you, I'm buying you a drink.

Well, it was a mishmash between my thoughts and a paraphrasing of what someone else said online. The sentiment is definitely appreciated though. I fixed a typo, by the way.

I wouldn't put too much stock in Anita Sarkeesian's video game trope project. Not only is her analysis of sexism in video games very one-sided (to the point where other female vloggers have called her out with the simple "but men are objectified too" line and examples) but her research methods leave a lot to be desired. There's a fantastic two-part series on her on Youtube by a user called Investig8iveJournalism that highlights some of the flaws.

Anyway, while I agree that it's not a man's job to protect womankind — "White Knighting", as it's known — I disagree about the Tomb Raider example. Placing the main character in danger is pretty much the basis for all action games and the desire to protect the character has happened for male characters too. Ethan in Heavy Rain, Lester in Another World, various survival horror characters (Daniel from Amnesia being the one that sticks out in my mind, not being able to fight back). Besides, between all the calls for gaming to be treated as a more serious art form and how gaming needs to "grow up", why do people have such an immature attitude towards the idea that Lara Croft might actually feel threatened? It's been done in other forms of media, so why not games? Just because she's Lara and not, say, Fiona from Haunting Ground (a much better example, in my opinion)?

edited 26th Sep '12 6:45:16 AM by Guest1001

This is what I mean when I say there should be a dismantling of gender roles. Not that the virtues* traditionally associated with each gender should be discarded, but that the specific gender associations should. Men shouldn't be brave because it's manly, but because people should be brave. Women should be brave too. And so on for the others.

Sometimes, when I explain this, it helps. Other times it doesn't, and those times really baffle me. It's not enough for some people to be valorized for demonstrating X set of positive traits; they want it explicitly tied to their gender. I don't get it.

* Strangely enough, the etymology of the word ''virtue'' demonstrates that its original meaning was "manliness." It has the same root as ''virile.'' Going by strict etymology, "feminine virtue" is an oxymoron.

edited 26th Sep '12 7:02:10 AM by Karalora

What I find in a lot of these cases is that the tribal identity to them is very important and not something they want to discard. And yes, this goes for both genders. (It's especially upsetting to me when self-proclaimed feminists do this as its a case of You Fail Feminism Forever)

Re:Criticism of sexism in video games, personally I find that these criticisms tend to be pretty bad. Not that there's not things to criticize, it's just that there tends to be a distinct lack of perspective and objectivity. For example, people talk about the "White Knighting" trope in the new Tomb Raider, maybe, it's a game designed to be a strong, visceral emotional experience, but Naughty Dog's (I believe) The Story of Us I actually think does that MUCH more so, and hasn't really been criticized (at least I haven't seen any).

In terms of content, things are getting much better in gaming. A lot of it, to be honest, is as narratives and characters have expanded out (to make a sort of pun) from 2-d to 3-d over the years, portrayal of women in games has gotten leaps and bounds better. And why wouldn't it? They've gone from being the oft-reward for winning to having actual personalities and motivations.

edited 26th Sep '12 7:19:58 AM by Karmakin

There is a big difference between being a playable character in a very specific horror context and the intentional physical and/or sexual abuse of a character. Very much like the Girlfriend in the Refridgerator, why does Lara Croft as a young girl need the shit beat out of her to be a badass? Short answer, she doesn't. And it's a very sexist and dangerous path to take for both genders.

I am a Silent Hill freak. So when the movie was announced I was thrilled until I found out that they turned it into a mother story. (Especially since it's a psycho mom that destroys Alessa in the first place.)

Harry Mason is one of video games beloved characters because of his reinterpretation of gender roles. He's brave and steady but he's nurturing and paternal towards his adoptive daughter! It gave credit to the paternal instinct everyone cherry picks.

Now Cybil was also a great reinterpretation of gender roles. She wasn't just a cop, she was a motorcycle cop who was strong enough physically and mentally to face her duty but maternal enough to have a special dedication to children. And then the game beautifully showed how these two characters could work together against amazing odds.