|
Post by Mira on Aug 2, 2006 16:57:02 GMT -5
Okay, I'm going to venture into the debate forum and start the first topic for discussion. While feminism may not seem like a current issue, I think it's a daily controversy that affects many women, despite the progress that's been made through various women's movements. I'm a women's studies student, and I'm curious to know... what does feminism mean to all of you? Is your first reaction to shudder and think of burning bras and unshaved legs, or do you think of the Seneca Falls Convention back in the late nineteenth century? (I hope I'm opening things up right; everyone's ideas and opinions are welcome!) Do you yourself admit to being a feminist (and I believe that can apply to guys) or do you reject the idea all together? I'd just like to get some ideas out there before any real debate starts, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Tiki-Torch on Aug 2, 2006 19:39:51 GMT -5
Thanks for starting us off with the first topic. But what exactly is the idea of feminism? Yes, I fully agree with equal rights and so forth and agree that women have suffered many injustices in the past but I think many today are taking things too far. Yes, women should have equal opportunities and all that. Don't get me wrong. But is that really what women want?Think about it. Fifty years ago men respected women. They held doors open, they tipped thier hats, they let women go first, all of that good old stuff. Men used to be gentlemen. But now, with women being equal there really isn't any reason for men to treat women like, is there? Don't misunderstand me. I still hold doors open for ladies and let them go first and so forth. I'm not saying women should not be equal, because they are equal. Let's just remember that there are those involved with the feminism movement that think that women are better than men. I think it's about trying to find the balance between equality and respect. Men didn't respect women in the past and so now women have begun to disrespect men, so to speak. And now that I've thrown my two cents in, which is probably completely different than what you were looking for, but hey, that's my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Aug 2, 2006 20:04:09 GMT -5
- And now that I've thrown my two cents in, which is probably completely different than what you were looking for, but hey, that's my thoughts.
Not in the slightest! This is exactly what I wanted to hear. I love getting a fresh perspective on feminism. It's really exciting for me because it's a topic that I've studied thoroughly and that I hope to teach someday (I'm an aspiring educator!) I think if there's one important detail in my definition of feminism it's that women are not superior to men, or vice versa. Feminism is about breaking social prejudices and barriers that have prevented women in the past from seeking jobs in the workplace, creating their own identities, and developing into unique individuals. I certainly think women are equal to men and capable of equal success, but women also have to make the choice to be independent and motivated. For example, I think part of the reason that the feminist movement has not progressed as quickly as some would like is because a lot of women are comfortable in their servile positions. A lot of women enjoy the feeling of protection that docility brings. They prefer to submit to husbands, boyfriends, employers, etcetera in order to gain favor and admirers instead of pursue their own interests. I think it's interesting that you mentioned the whole "opening the door for the lady" scenario, Tiki. That brings up a really interesting topic of discussion. If women are equal to men, then it shouldn't be awkward for women to hold doors open for men and to pay for dinner. I suppose that's looking at it from a totally single-minded perspective, though. Considering a more personal side to the matter, if I were on a date, I'd be thrilled if a guy held the door open for me and paid for dinner. I wouldn't consider it sexism; I would consider it kindness and, perhaps, a display of affection. Then again, it makes me wonder if perhaps this is just promoting that "male provider/protector image" that many women have come to detest. I think you're right Tiki about what you said in the first paragraph. A key part of feminism is defining "what [it is] women want." We seem to be conflicted currently. Do we prefer to be submissive and docile, or do we want to be independent and free thinkers? I think women may want a little bit of both, but don't know how to describe it. There's been a double standard for women for so long that it's difficult for us now to decide which way to go. Society expects women to be successful, but not to the point where we're arrogant or shadow men. Double standards create ambiguous feelings in women. Trying to sort through them is a part of the feminist movement. I have lots more to say, but I don't want to ramble either. (I feel like my ideas are starting to get a little disorganized now. Then again, this isn't for one of my classes. lol) I'm looking forward to hearing everybody's reflections and new ideas!
|
|
|
Post by Tiki-Torch on Aug 3, 2006 15:25:42 GMT -5
The way it sounds is that women can be equal and successful and seek after thier own goals provided that they no longer rely on any help from men. They can only become their own person, do their own thing, etc. by becoming completely independant from men. Whilst I don't think this is what you were trying to convey this is how it sounds, to me anyway. I believe women can be their own person and develope thier own character and interest and still, in your words, be submitted to a husband, boyfriend, whatever. But where does it all stop? Does this mean that women should run for the presidency of the United States? Not saying that women couldn't do a good job but I don't think that women are cut out for such a job.
Now, now, before you yell at me, let me explain. You have to admit that women are far more emotional than men. I don't think that could cope with the stress of making such important choices. Yes, they can. Yes, they could do just as well as men. But I don't think most women wouldn't be able to handle it as well. Women and men are different. That is a fact. Whilst this may seem to contradict itself, they are still equal. Woman are better at some things and men are better at other things. I think a big step could be taken if we, as a whole, would come to realize what strengths women have and what strengths men have. We could then exploit them to achieve a truly effective culture and lifestyle.
As I said, I think women can be docile and submissive and still be independant and free thinkers. It may seem to go against itself but just because a woman submits to some male authority does not mean that she must give up her free will and own ideas. It may have been so in the past, but I would like to think that we have come to get past all of that. This, I feel, is one of the bigger problems of society today. Trying to find the balance of what roles the man and the woman play in society. Who should do what, in a manner of speaking.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Aug 3, 2006 17:00:29 GMT -5
Hmm... I'm not sure I completely agree with your first assertions. I think that women can become independent and self-reliant even if they rely on help from men. Both of my independent studies in feminism were supervised by male teachers and they were wonderful in helping me realize my potential as an individual and learning about my rights and history. Not to mention that men and women do share the same world, so it is very difficult for them to avoid one another completely (though I'm not sure that this is what you were stating). Just like men rely on women to gain strength and develop into strong thinkers (b/c I do believe this is true), women also rely on men to gain support, strength, and development. It's a mutual growth.
You are right; men and women are different. Chemically, physically, mentally--we are wired differently... but I don't think that makes a women incapable of running the presidency as well as a man. Without going too far off topic, I offer my less than positive opinion on George W. Bush. I think a great number of women could be doing a better job than he is doing currently. I also think, however, that women would run the presidency much differently than men. As for other jobs, well, perhaps men are suited to army work better than women. But would war even be a problem if women were in charge of politics? For more information on this, read "Women as Equal to Men in the State" which is written by Socrates.
I think we are mistaking docility and submissiveness for femininity. I, myself, hate being docile and submissive. When I feel like I give in to either a man or a woman, I feel week and inferior. Yet, when I express my opinions and ardently declare my beliefs in the equality of the sexes, I'm viewed as unfeminine. So are docility and submissiveness the key factors in determining femininity. And, here, I reach my point. I don't think docility and submissiveness should be factors for femininity. I think society needs to recreate what's feminine, and--also--what's masculine. I think gender roles have their place in society, but I think that as they are currently they are preventing some girls from feeling feminine because of the strict, and ambiguous, guidelines.
Thanks so much for responding Tiki! This is really getting interesting! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tiki-Torch on Aug 3, 2006 21:09:30 GMT -5
Grrr . . . I was almost finished with my post and because of my spastic mouse I clicked out of the window. Bleh, let's try it again, now that I've lost my thought train. I wasn't completely clear on what I meant in my previous post. I think women can develope their own ideas, become their own person, and so forth and still rely on help from men. But in your post before some of the points made it sound like that isn't the case. Whilst I do not think that's what you meant, it kind of came across in that manner. I do agree with you, though. It is a mutual growth that I don't think we've quite understood yet. This could be the stem of some of the problems. So much has it become a 'battle of the sexes' that it seems like both men and women are vying for supremacy when neither one could, or should, have it. As far as the presidency goes, I did not intend to make sound as if women were incapable. I agree with what you said. Women would handle the job much differently. But women are involved in politics. There are women senators, representatives, etc., correct? I think this is a good example of how the two sexes could coexist. Even though there is still some quarreling. But there will always be quarreling. No one is perfect and so faults will constantly be found. Both in men and women. I agree with your last set of thoughts as well. Society needs to redefine what is feminine and masculine. Things have gotten so far off base that men act like women and women act like men. The roles of each gender have dissolved and whilst much has been gained in the past, I think we are starting to lose ground. We, as a society, need to find a balance amongst docility, submission, femininity/masculinity, and so on. Not just for women but for everyone. I think that should be the next step. I don't think anyone else is brave enough to venture into the debate section just yet. Heh, we'll save G.W. for another thread.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Aug 11, 2006 19:42:45 GMT -5
I think I need to address some of the assertions you made in your last post in regard to my own arguments. When I stated that I thought we needed to redefine femininity and masculinity, I didn't intend to convey the message that we need to reverse back to original roles or create more distinct roles. I don't see the need for so much separation; in fact, I am fond of the idea of some overlap. For centuries now, beauty has been the prime factor of femininity. If a woman isn't beautiful, then she simply isn't feminine. A woman can be talented, accomplished, witty, and charming, but without a dazzling appearance, femininity is beyond her reach. For men, on the other hand, appearance is of less consequence. Masculinity doesn't stem solely from appearance. On the contrary, stereotypical masculinity requires sternness, strong leadership, a seeming nonchalance toward all emotions, and independence. Here's what I think: I don't think beauty should be a requirement for femininity, and I don't think stoic, cold behavior should be a requirement for masculinity. I think independence, free will, courage, honesty, the general traits of integrity should define both femininity and masculinity. Are the lines a bit blurred when this occurs? Yes, but now the progress of each individual, despite their sex, isn't stunted. This means a lot of women will be less confused about what they want from life. That seems to be a typical question among men: "What is it that women want?" The truth of the matter is, it's hard to know in an ambiguous society like ours. With the media tugging at women to be beautiful and objectified and parents, teachers, friends tugging at women to be unique and strong the way they are, it's very hard to choose. (I know firsthand growing up with the American mass media and a fairly liberal family). The dramatic increase in bulimia, anorexia, depression, and other diseases (see Reviving Ophelia by Dr. Mary Pipher and Where the Girls Are by Susan Douglas for more info) in recent years is no mystery. It's the direct result of the double standard in society. There is another point I would like to address from your last post. You think that women and men can peacefully coexist in politics so long as women are senators, representatives, judges, etc... you, however, specifically left out the presidency, and I take serious note of this. These are all posts that, to some degree, can be considered inferior to the presidency. While the Founding Fathers of our nation originally intended for the government branches to balance each other, in recent years the executive branch has gained significant power because of the media. Television has created a spotlight for the presidency which can and does make it in some ways superior to the other branches. What makes you think that a woman is incapable of doing an equally competent (or better) job than a male president? I'm not pushing for specific candidates, but I can see strong women leading our country equally as well as presidents of the past. I will digress from the topic of the presidency now and address another statement you made in one of your previous posts. - I believe women can be their own person and develope thier own character and interest and still, in your words, be submitted to a husband, boyfriend, whatever.
I take issue with this. Do you think that women and men can't coexist in relationships on an equal level? Do you think it is impossible for a man and a woman to be intimate and yet still be on the same level with one another? I will not assert that there aren't certain factors of sexuality that shift the balance of equality in a relationship (i.e. man=protector, woman=provider) but I think that even with these factors, women and men can still maintain a companionship, an intimacy, and ultimately a love on the same level. Before I argue more, I'll wait for your thoughts. It seems like it will be just the two of us arguing here then. Not a problem for me, though. We're keeping the debate fresh fine by ourselves. In future posts, I think I would like to discuss the strengths of sisterhood versus the growth of the individual as well as the influence of the American media on today's young women. I look forward to hearing your next arguments!
|
|
|
Post by Hopeless Maiden on Aug 11, 2006 23:37:32 GMT -5
I hope I'm not unwelcome from interrupting and putting myself out there in this debate. I've read over all the posts. Personally, I view feminism as a way of advocating equal rights - for women AND men. I don't believe that a woman has to be submissive, docile, and beautiful to be feminine. In fact, I do not believe that a woman has to be feminine at all to be beautiful! Also, I do not believe that men must be strong to prove that they are masculine. We must remember that this is a fairly recent development in history - or it is in Australia, at least (where I live). As far as i know, women only seemed to break away from their 'traditional' roles in the 20's and 30's, during the Great Depression. There was one comment that I would like to address for myself. - They held doors open, they tipped thier hats, they let women go first, all of that good old stuff. Men used to be gentlemen.
[/i][/li][/ul] This got me thinking. Was this because they actually respected women? Or was it because we were viewed as the 'fairer sex'? Personally, I view respect as treating a woman as an equal. Not objectifying her. Not treating her as some delicate china doll. I've been treated like that, and it's very cute for the first few weeks. But, when a friend/boyfriend/huband/lover begins to offer to do little things for a woman that she could easily do herself that it begins to get annoying. Again, sorry to barge on you like this, but I had to put myself out there. I would say more, but I'm afraid I have been rather one minded about the issue. I would like to see the different sides in a little deeper depth before I go ahead and humiliate myself.
|
|
|
Post by Tiki-Torch on Aug 13, 2006 22:53:39 GMT -5
First, I'll address your post, Mira. I'm sorry if my post made it seem like men and women could both be in politics under that condition. That isn't what I was trying to say. And, I thought I said it before, I do not think that a woman couldn't do just as well, if not better, than a man in the presidency. Perhaps the examples I gave (senators, representatives, etc) weren't the best ones. Look, for instance, at the Queen of England or France. Perfect example of a woman leading the nation. And let's not forget about Nero's mother (ancient Roman leader, forget her name now). You also forget that some of America's greatest presidents had great wives who, I'm sure, influenced their husbands. Again, I do not think that a woman couldn't do just as well in the presidency. I myself have seen plenty of women that are capable of leading far better than some of the men I know. As far as the submission thing goes, I guess the thought behind my statement was unclear. I did not intend for it to sound as such. What it sounded like you said was that women can only develope their own ideas, personalities, etc. provided that they 'throw of the shackles' to the man in the relationship. I was simply trying to say this wasn't really true. As far as a balance in the relationship we should take a look again about the differences between men and women. They are different and that fact cannot be ignored. It is pretty clear to me that men, on the whole, are stronger physically whilst women, on the whole, are stonger mentally, emotionally, and so forth. That is where the balance, in my opinion, should be based. The man provides and protects for the woman whilst she provides and protects for the man. May seem a bit strange but let me explain. The man physically protects the woman (from harm, not that she couldn't herself) and also provides, through a job, the money for food, bills, and whatnot. The woman mentally protects the man from himself. I'm a guy and I'll be the first to admit, men are pretty stupid with emotions, feelings, etc., and the general stupidity that we enjoy. Heh. Anyway, the woman can also provide for the man, through a job, to help pay for the bills and such. Let me interject a little something here. When a man cannot, himself, pay for the care of his family, he feels pretty usless. He feels like a failure. It has nothing to do with the woman's ability to provide for herself. We, as men, feel like it's our duty to provide for you so you do not have to work. It does not mean that we think you are incapable or inferior or anything like that. It is in the man's nature to want to provide for and protect his wife, girlfriend, whatever. I myself would have no problem if my girlfriend/wife had a job/career and could provide for herself. If she can doesn't mean she has to provide. Don't get wrong here. There are some guys that view women as objects and this does not apply to them (and they are the ones I'd like to meet so I can floor them). This does, however, apply to most men. Anyway, both the man and woman protect and provide for each other, as I said. Another way that the woman provide for the man is through, well, intimate relations. Hold it. Don't get mad and think that I am objectifying women. I think we're all old enough to understand about this type of relationship between a man and woman. What's more, woman could say the same thing about men. They need each other to satisfy their desires. The man completes the woman and the woman completes the man. You cannot have one without the other in a relationship. I did not mean that we should go back to the original gender roles either. In the past, it was the woman's job to clean the house, cook, do laundry, and so on. However, I do my own laundry, I cook and bake (see the cookie post ), and clean. Today there are many occasions where overlap can be seen. I am in favour of this too. Just, not to the point that it has come to. I think the roles should be distinct yet together. Can't really explain it. You've talked about beauty and femininity and I agree with you on this issue. It is the people of today, the media for the most part, that have falsified the facts. But really, who determines beauty anyway? How does that old saying go, 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?' Society has set this ridiculous standard for beauty and that's where all of these disorders and dieseases that you mentioned have come from. But we do have to realize that men, too, suffer from these things. It just happens that men don't suffer from them as often and it isn't as publisized. I couldn't agree more with that! Now, Hopeless, I suppose I have already addressed some of your points earier this post. Anyway . . . Women are the fairer sex. Generally, women have better skin, hair, teeth, and so on (probably from better hygiene). Typically, women do not develope fat bellys (ignoring pregnancy) and bald-headedness. Woman are also generally shorter and weaker physically. That doesn't mean they are weak physically!! I just mean that most men are stronger physically than most women. I guess I already covered this, though. And yes, in the days past most men did it out of respect and not because they objectified women. When I do it, I do it because I respect women more than I do men. It has nothing to do with appearance, physical prowess, etc. And it's not because she could not easily do it herself. When a man offer to do little things for woman it is because he wants to feel important. See above where I talked about the man providing. This follows the same principle. Trust me on this, when a man offers to do something it is because he wants to do it for the woman. It makes him feel important and needed. Uh, I think I covered everything. And now, you're both going to tear me to pieces. I am, after all, out numbered here. I should get Nova in here. Heh. It's actually great that you joined in, Hopeless. More people make the debates more interesting. Feel free to jump right in and post whatever you want (within the guidelines).
|
|
|
Post by Hopeless Maiden on Aug 14, 2006 2:07:37 GMT -5
Ok, lemme clarify what I meant before; I was not arguing that women are not the fairer sex - that, I've accepted long ago. I was simply trying to bring light to the fact that men may not have done any of that "good old stuff" out of respect, but out of what society expected of them. I think that there are many different ways that this topic could have been looked at. I will bring your attention to a comment you made: Look, for instance, at the Queen of England or France. Perfect example of a woman leading the nation.The Queen of England does not actually run the country, but rather employs people to do it for her. In this example, it is the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who runs the country. A man. So, this doesn't show a woman running a country. It's probably the same with the Queen of France. Most monarchs today are just figureheads. The Queen of England is also technically, like Britain, the Queen of Australia. She is our Head of State, but does not actually run our country. That falls to our Prime Minister, John Howard (grumbles... and recently it looks like G.W.B is influencing him... but that's another deabte entirely...), who is yet another man. In fact, the highest-ranking person in this country is the Govnenor-General. But, again, another section. So, how can you say you're sure that a woman could do well if we haven't been given the chance to prove it recently? Don't get me wrong - Queen Elizabeth Tudor (Daughter of King Henry VIII) was a great ruler. I know I'm probably not helping out my arguments, but I had to make that known. I'm not sure if our system of government is understood over there. (Just as a precaution. Sorry for any offence.) Women do depend on men, yes. That much is true; but how long until that dependence goes too far? It's good for a man to feel important; also true. But, with a man doing little things for a woman, it makes her feel inferior and weak. Something that no one likes, man or woman. I think that (again, mentioned in a post before) that the boundaries need to be established.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Aug 14, 2006 13:51:41 GMT -5
Well, I must say that hopelessmaiden makes an excellent point… the Queen of England is a figurehead. Tony Blair is the prime minister, the elected official, whose role in politics is much greater than the queen’s. I knew little to nothing about the Queen of France (didn’t even know France had one!) when I read your post, so I did a little research online. I really struggled to find any information on her, no matter what I typed in the search engine. When I looked up “French politics” in Wikipedia, I found pages and pages about the semi-presidential structure of government in France but nothing about the queen. (Keep in mind this was a brief scroll, but if the queen of France was truly as important as you make her out to be, she would be a key highlight in these articles). I also took a cursory look at the article titled “politics of France” and found more and more study on revolutionary men in France’s history but nothing about its women… I see where you are coming from, though, Tiki, and I don’t want to sound like I’m attacking you. (I’m not trying to tear you to pieces. ;D I respect your views, and I’m really glad you’re not backing down in this argument.) I know you are trying to present examples of successful women in politics. I think, perhaps, it is harder to cite better examples of these kinds of women because, up until recently, there has been a dearth supply of them. You are right when you say that there have been some excellent first ladies. Disregarding all opinions on GWB, I actually admire Mrs. Laura Bush. (Often, I wonder if she should be in charge…) I know many women also respect Hilary Clinton for her devoted work in politics. Eleanor Roosevelt was an extraordinary first lady and receives too little credit for all her hard work during her husband’s presidency and illness. I hesitate to mention Jackie Kennedy because the media focused on her appearance more than her ideas, which ended up turning her into the president’s arm candy rather than his trusted aide. In actuality, Jackie Kennedy assisted John quite frequently in his work. If you don’t mind, I’d like to cite a quote from a book I’ve recently read on women in the media: “I remember vividly the time she [Jackie Kennedy] went to France with the president and did something he couldn’t do at all: addressed the crowds who flocked to see them in French. The adulation she received—hordes who yelled ‘Vive Jackie! Vive Jackie!’—prompted one of her husband’s famous quips, ‘I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris’ ” (Douglas 39). Jackie also spoke the native tongue of Indians and many Spanish-speakers in their own countries, obtaining worldwide respect for the American presidency. Then again, all the media could talk about in the sixties was the large size of Jackie’s feet (size 10) and her meek voice, rather than her outstanding accomplishments. What is missing here, though, is the fact that none of these women were recognized as being in charge. At this point in history, can we really name many women who have been acknowledged as running and leading their countries? I’m really hemming and hawing to come up with a single name—at least any name with equal prominence to that of a man’s. This is what I mean when I say there’s a lot more gravel to cover on the road to equality than people think today. We assume because women have jobs in fields like nuclear engineering and legislative politics, because women have the right to vote, because women have the opportunity to own, trade, and sell land properties that they are now equal. The truth of the matter, however, is that there is still de facto segregation and attitudes that need serious changing. I’m afraid at this point; we’re going to have to start arguing semantics, Tiki. “ What it sounded like you said was that women can only develope their own ideas, personalities, etc. provided that they 'throw of the shackles' to the man in the relationship.” That’s exactly what I’m saying. There is no reason for any woman to be chained to any other human being (or any man chained to any other for that matter). Like I said before, I think that a woman relies on both men and women to support her in her growth and development. This is especially true for young girls who, like male adolescents, are tender to influence; my father never served as an adequate role model for me, so I often had to turn to teachers and other relatives to find strong paternal men who I could admire and respect. We agreed before that it is a mutual growth. Therefore, there is no need of shackles. Once a woman has the respect of her lover in a relationship, she willingly stays with him. The bonds, the links, the chains are non-existent. I have also agreed before that men and women are different. You are right, Tiki. Men are physically stronger than women. This is a scientific fact of nature, and it plays out throughout the entire world. I think it is interesting that you state that women are emotionally stronger than men. That has always been a notion that I’ve relied on in times of struggle; when I’m sobbing or deeply hurt, I remind myself that my passion for my life and my heartfelt emotions are what make me strong. I have never asked any other girls if they feel the same way, though. What do you think hopelessmaiden? Is this a trait that stretches across womankind or is it a trait unique to me and perhaps a few other intense girls? That leads me to my next statement. There is a certain, hidden strength in sisterhood. Up until this point, I have focused on the talents, abilities, and natures of individual women, like Jackie Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt. There is something to be said for the emotional bond shared between all women. I think, for example, that motherhood is a link between the sisters of this world. This is true no matter where you go in the world; a mother’s love for a son or daughter in China will be tantamount in affection and devotion to the love a mother has for a child in the United States, or in Africa, or in Russia… etc. When the idea of strength in sisterhood was introduced in the seventies, however, it was automatically mocked. Newscasters went out of their way to degrade the unified image of women, in my opinion, out of fear of a true revolution. To this day, the idea of a banded group of feminists or any kind of union of women is intimidating. Another part of today’s feminist movement will be breaking down these barriers. Now, I will address another one of your points, Tiki: “Let me interject a little something here. When a man cannot, himself, pay for the care of his family, he feels pretty usless. He feels like a failure.”I can understand this to a certain degree. Not being a man, I have to take your word that this is just part of man’s nature. There have to be certain elements of protecting/providing that arise in all men, simply because that’s how men were created. It is also good that you recognize that women are capable of protecting and providing for themselves. I can respect the fact that a man feels it part of his duty to care for his loved ones and express his affection by providing for them. That, I think, is an excellent trait of true masculinity. Understand this, as well. Many women feel pretty useless when they cannot provide for themselves. The feeling may cross over into the opposite sex less frequently, but it does exist there. When a woman feels dependent on a man for help (especially if she’s a feminist like me), she feels frustrated and disappointed in herself. A lot of women today feel the need to prove themselves in order to break the barriers of prejudice. When they find they actually do need the assistance of a man, they feel ashamed and defeated. Some women may be comfortable living without a care in the world under their husband’s income and shelter, but others face the same feelings of humiliation and hurt that you assert the majority of men feel. I think in a level relationship, a man and a woman have to respect these feelings in regard to one another. So, ultimately, what I’m trying to say here is that I agree with you Tiki… but I needed to add a little on to feel comfortable with the concurrence. Sex is a key factor in a relationship, and I certainly am not mad at you for mentioning it. You weren’t advocating the objectification of women’s bodies; you were making a valid point about the significant role intercourse plays in a relationship. In my opinion, sex is the final, physical vow between a man and a woman that expresses their love and devotion to one another. Certainly, you are right when you say: “They need each other to satisfy their desires. The man completes the woman and the woman completes the man. You cannot have one without the other in a relationship.” Then again, I tend to have more traditional views regarding sex and marriage; I’m a bit of a romanticist so I see intimacy as another step to a woman and a man becoming equal to one another. Many feminists would disagree with me. I understand what you mean when you say, “I think the roles should be distinct yet together.” It is difficult to explain. It’s a part of today’s feminism. It’s about drawing those lines so that they aren’t so defined that they leave no room for change, but also so that they aren’t so faded that men and women are confused about their roles. You also mentioned that men suffer from media images as well, if to a lesser degree. I find it necessary to emphasize to what a lesser degree, though. It is much easier to find a plethora of realistic male images than female ones. Hollywood has no problem displaying sixty-year-old men with wrinkles, sagging skin, and some extra paunch in movies. The media does not distress if a man who’s nearly 200 pounds overweight is featured on television. You find in popular programs like Law and Order, CSI, and West Wing, most of the women are young and beautiful, while it is not unusual to see older, less attractive looking men. The audience is not focused on these men’s appearances, however, because the show features their accomplishments and talents. When Roseanne, a witty, observant woman, debuted on television, however, all the media could talk about was how heavy she was. When a man has lines in his face, it’s considered character, whereas when a woman finally gets her creases, it’s considered a lack of care and tending to her appearance. That’s why ads for wrinkle creams, skin care products, and other beauty-enhancing products always focus on aging women. I have yet to see one Olay face cream product-marketing program featuring a male model. This isn’t to mention that most plotlines in today’s movies and stories feature men. Women are designed to sit in the background, cling to the hero’s arm, and lay on lounge chairs and recliners in revealing outfits or dazzling apparel solely to look good. They are objectified intentionally by movie producers, advertisers, and marketers (who assert this is the only way they can sell products and entertainment), and subconsciously millions of American girls receive the message that this is how they should behave. Even children’s stories tend to feature male characters more often than female ones. Often, when I baby-sit little girls, I find I have to change the pronouns from “he” to “she” in order to give my little girls something to aspire to be other than princesses whose sole goal in life is to be married to the handsome prince. Curse you Disney. So, yes, while men may feel the same stress to achieve a certain image in society, it is to a much, much lesser degree than what women feel. It’s hard for me to make a concluding argument as to whether men should hold doors open for women… Hopelessmaiden makes an excellent point that when it is done constantly for a girl, it starts to make her feel inferior and tends to annoy her. I think Tiki is also right, however, when he states that it is done in order to make a man feel important. Everybody wants to feel needed and loved in some way, and that may be one way a man gets that feeling. I know from personal experience that it really irritates me when my dad holds a door open for me because then I do feel inferior, but when a gentleman at the store or a friend from school does it, then I’m flattered. With less and less men doing little things like this these days, it’s a rare treat when a guy opens the door for you. I think perhaps it depends on the context of the relationship. You’re right, hopelessmaiden, when you say boundaries need to be established. I apologize for my longest post yet, but I hate leaving details out when I think they are significant to my argument and germane to the topic of discussion. Plus, it will leave more room for debate later. Oh, I’m sorry you feel outnumbered Tiki… I tried to stress the positive points in your arguments in this post so you wouldn’t feel so outmatched. We (meaning hopeless and I) both value your opinions, and many of your posts indicate that you are a respectful and thoughtful gentleman—the kind of men we need for progress in today’s society. Feminists don’t have to be just women, and a lot of your views coincide with the views of currently active feminists. Chances are you are contributing to the betterment of women in today’s society even if only subtly, and that’s terrific. The fact that you are even participating so enthusiastically in a discussion like this demonstrates that you have some value in women’s equality. I would hope that this continuing discussion encourages you to find out more about women’s rights. On a final note, August 26th is Women’s Equality Day. It commemorates the passage of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which granted American women, after centuries of repression, the right to vote. It is an obscure holiday, but one that should be marked noteworthy. Be sure to celebrate this upcoming event! Works Cited Douglas, Susan J. Where the Girls Are. New York: Random House, 1994. 39-41.
|
|
|
Post by Tiki-Torch on Aug 15, 2006 22:32:27 GMT -5
I have only the time to post this link, read it.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Aug 17, 2006 16:31:36 GMT -5
Definitely an interesting article. I learned some new things from it. Thanks for sharing the link, Tiki. I won't post anything further for now; I think I've said enough at this point. I'll wait for fresh arguments to be submitted before I respond.
|
|