May. 18th, 2017

dmilewski: (Default)
How do males argue to gain dominance? This is an important question in sexism, because it's something that males do among themselves.

In my observation, males often use a "nullification" argument against each other, especially in situations or cultures where knowledge is important. Your goal is not merely assert that you are right, but to tear down the other person.

For example:
Man1: "Star Trek went off the air in 1970."
Man2: "Totally wrong. Not even close. It was 1969."

An objective observer would see that 1969 and 1970 are very close, so the tear down of Man1 was pretty meaningless. However, Man1 still has to stand up for himself. His social standing has been called into question. 

Now, take this same cultural habit and expand out to women, who presumably have a different cultural rhythm to argument. Do you see how a cultural difference between the two genders would result in issues. As far as the woman is concerned, she gets to air her concern and get heard. (I presume. I'm not an expert in female arguing.) The man nullifies her, which is normal for him. She then gets mad, because he's not talking right. He gets annoyed, because she's not arguing by the rules.

I can't say that the above is right, but I do think I'm onto the right line of thinking. This communication problems between men and women in society are too widespread to just label it as "sexism." I think that this issue relates fundamentally to how each group argues, seeks redress, and handles conflict, because the goals of each gender fundamentally differ in such situations.

I think that any question of sexism should a simplistic yes/no, because each side will get entrenched. If you include, "Is this something else?", you aren't forced into a binary answer, so each side will be less likely to dig in and more likely to explore the phenomena. Giving the question an opening means that the conversation can seek a more nuanced answer.
dmilewski: (Default)
Much of this discussion of sexims exists as a response to Feminist Frequency, the YouTube channel run by Anita Sarkeesian.

Before I saw her channel, I knew nothing of either Feminist Frequency or Sarkeesian. Indeed, I went into her videos with an utter open mind, as I'm rather used to feminists and usually adore them. The videos usually began well, by explaining what a particular form of sexism was, which I rather enjoyed, but then she went further, and that's where she lost me. By the end of the first video, I was upset, and by the third, screaming mad at how utterly bad and sloppy her feminist analysis was. She used loaded insults frequently, even when she didn't need to, demeaning the wants and needs of others. She missed major facets of story and story construction. She overlooked obvious reasons for works existing as they do, and failed to account for the underlying complexities (or simplicities) of each work. She rarely placed her analysis within context.

Fortunately, there's a far wider net of feminist criticism out there. I just happened to have started with the worst example.

I'm of the religious belief that feminism is an enabling school of thought, that women are human beings, that their gender isn't superior or inferior, and that women contain all the human flaws that everyone else does. Women have a fundamental ability to be bold, generous, disgusting, lustful, heedless, unfair, confused, absent minded, and bull headed, no apologies. In no way is their literature or culture superior. They have equal rights within society, but as females in a sexually dimorphic species, need rights specific to their gender, and recognize that other genders need their unique rights as well.

Any feminism that tears down others isn't feminism. 

Each gender (in all forms) has right to media that caters to its wants and needs, each gender has an obligation to let other genders have their own media, and to the maximum extent possible, each gender should understand that when they tread into someone else's media, they're in someone else's safe space, and they may find the preferences of other genders to their own distaste. In addition, each gender has a right to a common media, inclusive in nature, that serves the broader culture rather than any single niche.

Easily talked about, but not so easily achieved.

September 2017

34 5 6 7 89
10 1112 13 141516
17 181920 212223

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 04:30 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios