Follow TV Tropes
I believe he means that even for women a society as sexist Pakistan it's possible for women to rise to the top. As seen by Bhutto.
edited 29th May '15 11:48:44 AM by Silasw
Yeah, I know. Just wanted to know if this is a zero-sum game or not, in his own words.
edited 29th May '15 12:04:48 PM by Quag15
Ok, the whole minority-majority....what? I go for a while and everyone goes insane, but anyway
"I'd prefer promoting the idea that women can be manly, men can be feminine, and that's okay."
It depends, are really the feminine ideas bad? men are still deciding that being feminine is still usless so we have to see value in feminity as manliness
It would naturally depend on what you mean by "feminine". If you're just talking about stuff like being weak and so, not really, but then you're also cherry-picking what it means for the sake of making a point.
My point is rather the opposite. It's not so important exactly what's considered feminine (because that changes all the time anyway), as long as what's considered feminine isn't so because it's considered bad (or bad because it's feminine). Does that make sense?
The thug discussion is off-topic, so I'll put my reply in the race thread instead of the sexism one.
I don't think there's anyone who consciously thinks that it's a zero-sum game, except in the loosest sense that a woman candidate will likely have to step on a man candidate somewhere in her political career. Again, political realism tends to trump that, as we can see with women and racial minorities in my country who find careers with the Republicans, and the racist and sexist voters who will back them.
The question we have to ask is what it means to be feminine. Masculinity seems to have a monopoly on important things, femininity as would be traditionally defined seems to focus upon small and individual things, like child-rearing. Do we need to increase the value of the traditionally feminine in order to upend the patriarchy? Do we need to reach the point where we can look at someone who is focused on parenting, and say that their work is just as valuable to us all as a doctor or lawyer?
On the topic of child-rearing, here in Sweden it's increasingly seen as manly. Without diminishing how feminine it is. That's what I meant about how what exactly is manly and feminine changes all the time.
By the way, is there a difference between manly, masculine, womanly, and feminine? I use the words interchangeably, mostly manly and feminine as counterparts, even if they're not grammatical counterparts as such.
The statistics I've seen, the higher up you get in the leadership, the fewer women you find relative to men.
I think feminine and masculine are broader terms that include both womanly and girly and manly and boyish respectively. For humans. They can also be used to describe animal behaviour in addition to that.
On the women as minorities topic
Boy, that sure is an awful lot of discussing the semantic issue we're not supposed to be discussing after the angry red mod post told us to drop it.
I'd say the opposite; we need to upend the patriarchy to increase the value of the traditionally feminine. A recurring trend is that as a traditionally male-dominated field becomes populated with women, its value - both socially and monetarily - decays. For instance, nursing and teaching were once considered valuable, well-compensated roles before they were flooded with women; then they became "women's work" and people stopped respecting them as careers.
Once a thing becomes associated with femininity, it gets devalued. That's a consequence of Patriarchal values.
edited 29th May '15 2:53:29 PM by Victin
Recall though that due to the different ways some words are taken between here and the US that the data to US eyes might be screwed.
Again folks, the minority-majority discussion is of topic. If we want to discuss semantics, terminology and their usage we can start a new topic, but we can't use this one.
It's hard to overstate my frustration with this outcome.
That is acceptable.
edited 29th May '15 7:43:06 PM by TheHandle
Hey if we want to continue the discussion we can start a new topic specifically for it.
do we need to? its a silly argument, I really dont know how it get like that
"Once a thing becomes associated with femininity, it gets devalued. That's a consequence of Patriarchal values."
More than devalued is "other" as something men cant do anymore, a cultural bagge about how some things are for men and they live after everything is done
A lot of the time, when someone mentions not liking the over-emphasis placed on male abusers over non-abusers, they get told something along the lines of "Drawing attention to men who don't abuse women won't erase the ones who do."
And I see that, and I think: Okay. What should I do instead?
"You could do your part to call out misogyny where you see it."
Okay. Considering I live in a peaceful household with happily married parents and have crippling social anxiety that limits my exposure to the world outside that peaceful household, and generally don't frequent the parts of the internet that promote misogyny on account of I'm a decent human being, how do you propose I do that?
edited 30th May '15 3:15:20 AM by Midna
I find a lot of the time in these kinds of discussions, someone inevitably says "what about the men". It's so common, there should be an internet law. I propose:
"In the longer a discussion on feminism, sexism and/or misogyny the chances of someone asking 'what about the men' approaches one."
edited 30th May '15 4:35:15 AM by bazer63
I'd say no, now a "what about the [group not being discussed here]" rule could work. But that applies equally if it's people bringing up women in the men's issues topic as to people bringing up men in the women's issues topic.
There is already a similar term for that: Whataboutism. Could easily be used in gender and race discussions.
edited 30th May '15 6:26:06 AM by Antiteilchen
This is extremely interesting and we should have it in Logical Fallacies.
But still, whataboutery is kinda appropriate when the accuser takes a Holier Than Thou, sanctimonious approach, and the criticism is largely an attempt to assert relative moral standing rather than one to actually address the real problem.
The difference is that you need to wait for someone to bring up men's issues in a discussion of women's.
Well, when it comes to discussing sexism, the default is to discuss women's problems.
A propos of nothing...
edited 30th May '15 9:18:24 AM by TheHandle
But abuse and rape is something that happen to both women and men and here in a thread of sexism both goes, dosent it?
edited 30th May '15 9:22:14 AM by unknowing
X4 Except we've had people bring up women's issues in discussion of men's, for a long time the men's issues thread was a joke that consisted of nothing but men being told that their issues weren't important and that they should focus on how said issues were really about women.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?