Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Femininity is irrelevant to the larger political issues. I'm a sexy feminist, but the fact that I'm sexy doesn't matter one iota beyond my marriage. What matters is my larger contribution to society. If all you're doing is being feminine, yes, I look down on that.

Where does care giving to the children fit into that analysis? Care giving has traditionally been seen as a feminine quality, but raising your child contributes to society far more than does, say, being the accounts receivable manager for some mid-sized business.

God, can we please put this tired trope to rest? I think it's perfectly grand if people want to have children and I don't care a whit if they stay home or work out of the home, but raising children is NOT some massive gift to the world. There are PLENTY of people in the world; creating more people really should be low on the list of "ways to contribute to society."

Reproducing isn't a gift to the world. Neither is pushing paper as a middle manager somewhere. Raising a child *well* is a tremendous contribution to the world.

Anonymous wrote:
I can think of a few ways.

Not mocking sensitivity in men. Teaching our children - male and female - not to mock sensitivity in men. Teaching men to value women based on something other than their looks, such that "the pretty girl" is not always the best catch and so that girls who are less "pretty" do not develop shitty self esteem based on their appearance and the rejections they experience because of their appearance.

But it really begins with accepting and vocalizing that the dynamic you describe is not positive or something that SHOULD be perpetuated. Just because something "is" a particular way does not mean that it "should be" that way.

I have a son who is a sweet and gentle boy. He is already describing the athletic boys in his class -- kids who are, in my opinion, by and large assholes -- as the "cool kids" and the "popular kids". I keep correcting him, telling him that athletics doesn't make a person cool or popular. I hope that's true. I hope even more that he finds a girl he likes who likes him back early on - and that he doesn't have to wait for "some day" until the girls his age grow up and recognize those things as good traits. Because I don't want him to internalize the message that being athletic is more attractive to women than being sweet and gentle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men act like tough guys because the girls aren't vying for the attention of the soft and gentle men. Go to the high school and colleges - what are the qualities of the guys the prettiest girls (who, generally speaking, have the most options when it comes to guys) are trying to date? Are those guys displaying traditionally masculine traits? Are those guys displaying soft and gentle traits? Or is it an even mix between those things?

Because men will, by and large, try to develop those traits that will get them laid by the prettiest women.

Are you suggesting that this standard is a good standard? That it is supportive and empowering to everyone? That these standards are positive for society?

Not putting normative values on it, I'm describing the process. You get what's rewarded. If you can figure out a way to cause pretty girls to be sexually excited by soft and gentle men, I think societal gender dynamics will change pretty quickly.

Only pretty girls? Why would feminists only care about what pretty girls want? Feminists care about all girls, and all boys, too. Pretty, athletic, tough, soft, in shape, out of shape, tall, short, etc. I don't think feminism exists so that men get rewarded by a pretty girl for acting a certain way. Girls are not a reward. Girls are human beings. Girls and boys should have a choice in who they are and what they do. Who they are attracted to is part of that choice, but it's not any movement's fault if pretty girls aren't choosing you personally. Understand?

What I'm telling you is what men respond to. If you tell boys, as they're growing up, that some day, maybe when he's 30, if he's soft and gentle, a plain looking woman with good credentials will want to enter into a mutually beneficial family arrangement, he's not going to aspire to those traits. Meanwhile, *right now* the hottest girls in school are flirting outrageously with the strong, fast, loud, aggressive guy. And if you don't think that's who is getting the most attention from women (plain and attractive alike) during the years in and around puberty when a lot of gender-dynamics are being formed, you're kidding yourself.

Oh, please. Have you been paying attention? Nerds are what's hot now, both male and female. Thank God we've moved beyond "strong, fast, loud and aggressive" and "pretty" as our metrics for desirable mates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Femininity is irrelevant to the larger political issues. I'm a sexy feminist, but the fact that I'm sexy doesn't matter one iota beyond my marriage. What matters is my larger contribution to society. If all you're doing is being feminine, yes, I look down on that.

Where does care giving to the children fit into that analysis? Care giving has traditionally been seen as a feminine quality, but raising your child contributes to society far more than does, say, being the accounts receivable manager for some mid-sized business.

God, can we please put this tired trope to rest? I think it's perfectly grand if people want to have children and I don't care a whit if they stay home or work out of the home, but raising children is NOT some massive gift to the world. There are PLENTY of people in the world; creating more people really should be low on the list of "ways to contribute to society."

Anonymous wrote:
I married an Asian man whose favorite color is purple, speaks softly and is in tune with my unspoken needs, and who loves show tunes. He's not the American concept of masculine but he's the man for me.

Is this the sort of guy you were chasing in your teens/early twenties, or did you have an epiphany of sorts as you matured?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men act like tough guys because the girls aren't vying for the attention of the soft and gentle men. Go to the high school and colleges - what are the qualities of the guys the prettiest girls (who, generally speaking, have the most options when it comes to guys) are trying to date? Are those guys displaying traditionally masculine traits? Are those guys displaying soft and gentle traits? Or is it an even mix between those things?

Because men will, by and large, try to develop those traits that will get them laid by the prettiest women.

Are you suggesting that this standard is a good standard? That it is supportive and empowering to everyone? That these standards are positive for society?

Not putting normative values on it, I'm describing the process. You get what's rewarded. If you can figure out a way to cause pretty girls to be sexually excited by soft and gentle men, I think societal gender dynamics will change pretty quickly.

Only pretty girls? Why would feminists only care about what pretty girls want? Feminists care about all girls, and all boys, too. Pretty, athletic, tough, soft, in shape, out of shape, tall, short, etc. I don't think feminism exists so that men get rewarded by a pretty girl for acting a certain way. Girls are not a reward. Girls are human beings. Girls and boys should have a choice in who they are and what they do. Who they are attracted to is part of that choice, but it's not any movement's fault if pretty girls aren't choosing you personally. Understand?

What I'm telling you is what men respond to. If you tell boys, as they're growing up, that some day, maybe when he's 30, if he's soft and gentle, a plain looking woman with good credentials will want to enter into a mutually beneficial family arrangement, he's not going to aspire to those traits. Meanwhile, *right now* the hottest girls in school are flirting outrageously with the strong, fast, loud, aggressive guy. And if you don't think that's who is getting the most attention from women (plain and attractive alike) during the years in and around puberty when a lot of gender-dynamics are being formed, you're kidding yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men act like tough guys because the girls aren't vying for the attention of the soft and gentle men. Go to the high school and colleges - what are the qualities of the guys the prettiest girls (who, generally speaking, have the most options when it comes to guys) are trying to date? Are those guys displaying traditionally masculine traits? Are those guys displaying soft and gentle traits? Or is it an even mix between those things?

Because men will, by and large, try to develop those traits that will get them laid by the prettiest women.

Are you suggesting that this standard is a good standard? That it is supportive and empowering to everyone? That these standards are positive for society?

Not putting normative values on it, I'm describing the process. You get what's rewarded. If you can figure out a way to cause pretty girls to be sexually excited by soft and gentle men, I think societal gender dynamics will change pretty quickly.

I can think of a few ways.

Not mocking sensitivity in men. Teaching our children - male and female - not to mock sensitivity in men. Teaching men to value women based on something other than their looks, such that "the pretty girl" is not always the best catch and so that girls who are less "pretty" do not develop shitty self esteem based on their appearance and the rejections they experience because of their appearance.

But it really begins with accepting and vocalizing that the dynamic you describe is not positive or something that SHOULD be perpetuated. Just because something "is" a particular way does not mean that it "should be" that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men act like tough guys because the girls aren't vying for the attention of the soft and gentle men. Go to the high school and colleges - what are the qualities of the guys the prettiest girls (who, generally speaking, have the most options when it comes to guys) are trying to date? Are those guys displaying traditionally masculine traits? Are those guys displaying soft and gentle traits? Or is it an even mix between those things?

Because men will, by and large, try to develop those traits that will get them laid by the prettiest women.

Are you suggesting that this standard is a good standard? That it is supportive and empowering to everyone? That these standards are positive for society?

Not putting normative values on it, I'm describing the process. You get what's rewarded. If you can figure out a way to cause pretty girls to be sexually excited by soft and gentle men, I think societal gender dynamics will change pretty quickly.

Only pretty girls? Why would feminists only care about what pretty girls want? Feminists care about all girls, and all boys, too. Pretty, athletic, tough, soft, in shape, out of shape, tall, short, etc. I don't think feminism exists so that men get rewarded by a pretty girl for acting a certain way. Girls are not a reward. Girls are human beings. Girls and boys should have a choice in who they are and what they do. Who they are attracted to is part of that choice, but it's not any movement's fault if pretty girls aren't choosing you personally. Understand?

Anonymous wrote:Men act like tough guys because the girls aren't vying for the attention of the soft and gentle men. Go to the high school and colleges - what are the qualities of the guys the prettiest girls (who, generally speaking, have the most options when it comes to guys) are trying to date? Are those guys displaying traditionally masculine traits? Are those guys displaying soft and gentle traits? Or is it an even mix between those things?

Because men will, by and large, try to develop those traits that will get them laid by the prettiest women.

A few boys getting laid in high school and college and men and women of all types getting married and building a life together are two separate things, though.

I married an Asian man whose favorite color is purple, speaks softly and is in tune with my unspoken needs, and who loves show tunes. He's not the American concept of masculine but he's the man for me. I don't need a high school bad boy for my husband and I'm guessing most women (especially educated women in the DC area) feel the same.

P.S. I've noticed that men complaining about feminism seem to be hung up on the "prettiest girls" like you mention in your post. There are a lot of fish in the sea, maybe the prettiest girls in your high school weren't the right person for you, and maybe that's not society's fault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men act like tough guys because the girls aren't vying for the attention of the soft and gentle men. Go to the high school and colleges - what are the qualities of the guys the prettiest girls (who, generally speaking, have the most options when it comes to guys) are trying to date? Are those guys displaying traditionally masculine traits? Are those guys displaying soft and gentle traits? Or is it an even mix between those things?

Because men will, by and large, try to develop those traits that will get them laid by the prettiest women.

Are you suggesting that this standard is a good standard? That it is supportive and empowering to everyone? That these standards are positive for society?

Not putting normative values on it, I'm describing the process. You get what's rewarded. If you can figure out a way to cause pretty girls to be sexually excited by soft and gentle men, I think societal gender dynamics will change pretty quickly.

Anonymous wrote:Men act like tough guys because the girls aren't vying for the attention of the soft and gentle men. Go to the high school and colleges - what are the qualities of the guys the prettiest girls (who, generally speaking, have the most options when it comes to guys) are trying to date? Are those guys displaying traditionally masculine traits? Are those guys displaying soft and gentle traits? Or is it an even mix between those things?

Because men will, by and large, try to develop those traits that will get them laid by the prettiest women.

Are you suggesting that this standard is a good standard? That it is supportive and empowering to everyone? That these standards are positive for society?

Men act like tough guys because the girls aren't vying for the attention of the soft and gentle men. Go to the high school and colleges - what are the qualities of the guys the prettiest girls (who, generally speaking, have the most options when it comes to guys) are trying to date? Are those guys displaying traditionally masculine traits? Are those guys displaying soft and gentle traits? Or is it an even mix between those things?

Because men will, by and large, try to develop those traits that will get them laid by the prettiest women.

Anonymous wrote:
Femininity is irrelevant to the larger political issues. I'm a sexy feminist, but the fact that I'm sexy doesn't matter one iota beyond my marriage. What matters is my larger contribution to society. If all you're doing is being feminine, yes, I look down on that.

Where does care giving to the children fit into that analysis? Care giving has traditionally been seen as a feminine quality, but raising your child contributes to society far more than does, say, being the accounts receivable manager for some mid-sized business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want a woman to stay home with the kids and cook, there are plenty of women who enjoy that out there, who have made the choice to do that instead of a career (but the choice is thanks to feminism).

One of the allegations in the post is that there is social pressure by feminists against women who are content with running a family.

This is my takeaway as well. I'm a feminist, but I think the feminist movement in it's current incarnation rewards women for developing traditionally masculine traits (ambition and competitiveness come to mind) while distancing itself from the "softer, gentler" feminine image. It encourages women to do well and to strive mightily in the public sphere, but seems to dismiss (or just ignore) the call of the domestic.

See, as a feminist and the mother of a girl child, it just breaks my heart that we are still considering ambition and competitiveness to be "masculine" traits while "soft" and "gentle" are feminine traits. This is not good for girls OR boys. I actually think that the pressure that ambitious, competitive (read: professional) women face is that they are expected to demonstrate ambition and competition at work, are expected to be nurturing and mothering and loving and intimate at home and are also expected to take care of the house. The pendulum has not swung from "women stay home, do all work" to "women avoid home, do not marry." It's swung from "women stay home, do all work" to "women do all work, while also being out of the house for 8-10 hours per day." It's exhausting!

Is it wrong to identify certain traits as masculine or feminine? The genders are distinct.

The genders are distinct largely because of cultural markers like assigning gender to traits that are clearly expressed by people of all genders. My husband cries at sad movies. Does that make him "feminine"? I am the one who brought the power tools into the marriage and put together all the furniture. Does that make me "masculine"?

These things have the meaning that we assign to them. The problem comes not by the assignation of meaning but by the value judgments applied to it. You'll note that women's ambition is often described as "ball busting" while men who are not athletically talents are described as "throwing like a girl." Those are negative valuations on the traits, based on the perception that one gender is better suited to those traits than the other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want a woman to stay home with the kids and cook, there are plenty of women who enjoy that out there, who have made the choice to do that instead of a career (but the choice is thanks to feminism).

One of the allegations in the post is that there is social pressure by feminists against women who are content with running a family.

This is my takeaway as well. I'm a feminist, but I think the feminist movement in it's current incarnation rewards women for developing traditionally masculine traits (ambition and competitiveness come to mind) while distancing itself from the "softer, gentler" feminine image. It encourages women to do well and to strive mightily in the public sphere, but seems to dismiss (or just ignore) the call of the domestic.

See, as a feminist and the mother of a girl child, it just breaks my heart that we are still considering ambition and competitiveness to be "masculine" traits while "soft" and "gentle" are feminine traits. This is not good for girls OR boys. I actually think that the pressure that ambitious, competitive (read: professional) women face is that they are expected to demonstrate ambition and competition at work, are expected to be nurturing and mothering and loving and intimate at home and are also expected to take care of the house. The pendulum has not swung from "women stay home, do all work" to "women avoid home, do not marry." It's swung from "women stay home, do all work" to "women do all work, while also being out of the house for 8-10 hours per day." It's exhausting!

Notice I said "traditionally." My point is that feminism does not seem to embrace women who embody traditionally feminine traits, which I think shows that despite the earnestness of the movement, the patriarchy prevails. It is not enough to be a woman, you have to have professional ambitions above all else to be considered a true feminist. Feminist culture marginalizes/discounts women who don't fit it's mold of the ideal woman. (Kim Kardashian, Sarah Palin, etc). Femininity is considered frivolous, trite, or weak.

I guess my experience has just been different. I am a girly girl. I have about 30 lipsticks and I wear eyeliner pretty much every day. I color my hair and it takes me quite a while to style it. I have a closet full of dresses, which hang right about my collection of shoes. I am married to a man, with whom I have a lot of amazing, enjoyable sex. We have a little girl, and I don't object to her love of Frozen, My Little Pony or Barbie. I got her a pink bike and let her listen to all the Katy Perry she can handle. I have never felt unsupported by feminism because of these things. I have never felt that I was being looked down on because of them. I have never felt like less of a feminist because I'm wearing high heels instead of combat boots.

I don't think that to be "a feminist" one must like all other women or agree with their choices. I don't like Sarah Palin - not because she's a mother or because she has nice hair and wears lipstick, but because her beliefs and political positions are opposed to my own. I don't really have an opinion on Kim Kardashian. I think she's pretty but I don't really understand why she's famous because she does not seem to have done much to become famous. Both of the women you cited are very skilled at self-promotion, and I fail to see how they have been marginalized. Sarah Palin at least has feminism to thank for being able to hold political office at all.