Feminism and the emasculation of men

PopePalpatine

willfarmerman wrote: »

Mcdonalds ad sums it up the way society is heading

We'll become food?! :eek:

B0jangles

Pug160 wrote: »

The colour pink is an interesting one: is it really an innately feminine colour? I've read articles that state pink was the colour for baby boys in America a couple of hundred years ago. But then again, pink is a warm colour and it has been said that girls are drawn to warm colours more than boys. Then there was the pink triangle in the Nazi prison camps. I remember wearing a pink shirt years ago and it got a few laughs, even from a girl.

Apparently the whole girl = pink, boy = blue wasn't settled upon until the 1940's:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/

From the article:

For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl...

....In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago...."

Aineoil

lufties wrote: »

when did I once say they shouldn't be

I think you said you'd prefer a son some day that would want to play with GI Joe over Barbie. That is confusing if your child wants to play with Barbie.

Ok it's a preference..............but ultimately do you think you can dictate what your child plays with?

I'm not getting at you. But when a child is born they have their unique personality and individuality. Toys don't change that.

Obliq

Well, in just about every photo of my eldest under the age of 6 months, he's wearing a bright pink baby gro/vest/socks as I made the classic mistake of leaving in a red sock in a boil wash and nearly every item of his clothing was in it. Sigh. I was NOT an efficient mother for a very long time.

The King of Moo

willfarmerman wrote: »

Mcdonalds ad sums it up the way society is heading

Obesity epidemic?

willfarmerman

No I am referring to the tv advertisement. Young lad talkin about shaving his chest.. His friends are shocked.. Not at at his femininity but that he doesn't get it waxed..

hatrickpatrick

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Clairefontaine, you're a real renegade the way you're always moaning about even moderate feminism yet are a woman yourself. So edgy.

Clairefontaine I'll leave this one for you, but just want to point out that woman =/= "feminist". I know guys who consider themselves feminists, and I know women who very definitely do not. Just throwing that out there.
Furthermore, insulting those who do not ("so edgy" etc) really isn't the best way to win people over to your side.

Stuff like... all women being blamed, all with feminist views being lumped in with the crazies.

I'm not blaming all women, hell I'm not even blaming all feminists. However... As a nationalist, I will condemn the violence of the dissidents at every opportunity. Most moderate Muslims, since you bring them up, go to great lengths to condemn extremists.
To distance yourself from aspects of feminism you don't approve of, you have to actually speak out against them. I haven't seen any feminists vocally condemning the pro-censorship brigade, except in the case of those who simply object to the side effects of Cameron's Internet filters rather than the intended consequences of them.

On the other hand, some MRAs have started reporting Facebook pages they believe are equivalent sexism agains men to that which this advertiser boycott was aimed at with regard to pages that are sexist against women, and whenever I've encountered these movements I've written to them telling them that fighting censorship with censorship is an appalling way to try and deal with this situation. I have no problem saying that here.

It's not enough to simply not agree with extremists.

Bannasidhe

RDM_83 again wrote: »

True but (keeping in mind I have no kids) aren't younger children fairly independently minded in that their "roles" aren't deeply associated. My other point in that post was that "if a toy tool set is pink or blue does it make a difference" meaning that even if the colouration is "gender specific" if the toys are available in pink I can't see how that implies those toys and the role-playing for careers/activities aren't gender exclusive.

I presume the apparent changes with toys becoming more gendered must be led by (adult) consumer choice because one thing we haven't got worse at in the last 20 years is consumer modeling/marketing and I don't see some "evil patriachal conspiracy" ever coming before profit margins.

Nope - the if it's blue it is for boys/pink for girl thing is insidious. I was shocked at how pernicious it is and how quickly small children take it as a given.

I was also horrified at the restricted range of toys available to each gender - and nearly as horrified at how it is mostly all just pure merchandising.

I don't think any one claimed it was the evil patriarchy at play though?

I consider it as harmful to boys as to girls but in the context of this thread which is about Feminism and the emasculation of men the fact that the toys for girls are still mainly to enable them to role play a traditional woman role (mammy/homemaker/nurse) indicates we still need feminism and that far from boys being emasculated they are being led into a very narrow, macho, definition of masculinity which excludes them being nurturing.

Ironically, here we have seen the same men who complain about feminism emasculating men also complaining that men are often excluded from performing a parenting role...but it is feminists who compaign against gender specific toys dominating the market and want boys to be able to role play being a parent by caring for a replica baby without being called a sissy...

lufties

Aineoil wrote: »

I think you said you'd prefer a son some day that would want to play with GI Joe over Barbie. That is confusing if your child wants to play with Barbie.

Ok it's a preference..............but ultimately do you think you can dictate what your child plays with?

I'm not getting at you. But when a child is born they have their unique personality and individuality. Toys don't change that.

Not at all, my point is that boys generally play with boys toys and girls generally the opposite.

At the risk of repeating myself, Generally(because of course all we can do is generalize here with regard to this) if a boy chooses girls toys over boys toys at a certain age bracket, that would indicate an effeminate child. Again, nothing wrong with it. I'm just giving an opinion.

The King of Moo

willfarmerman wrote: »

No I am referring to the tv advertisement. Young lad talkin about shaving his chest.. His friends are shocked.. Not at at his femininity but that he doesn't get it waxed..

How is society going to get to the stage where men waxing their chests is a common occurrence?

And do you think that that would be a negative development?

(My opinion on the matter: I have no idea if there's been an increase in men waxing their chests, and I don't concern myself with what other men do with their chest hair)

jimgoose

I was right all along - the insects will win.

Pug160

Men are waxing more because they think a higher percentage of women (especially young women) prefer that. It's in vogue at the moment, along with tattoos.

Obliq

B0jangles wrote: »

Apparently the whole girl = pink, boy = blue wasn't settled upon until the 1940's:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/

Thanks for that link BO, really interesting. Worth quoting the second page, even if this is AH, so the TLDR rule applies! This is topical folks!

Gender-neutral clothing remained popular until about 1985. Paoletti remembers that year distinctly because it was between the births of her children, a girl in ’82 and a boy in ’86. “All of a sudden it wasn’t just a blue overall; it was a blue overall with a teddy bear holding a football,” she says. Disposable diapers were manufactured in pink and blue.

Prenatal testing was a big reason for the change. Expectant parents learned the sex of their unborn baby and then went shopping for “girl” or “boy” merchandise. (“The more you individualize clothing, the more you can sell,” Paoletti says.) The pink fad spread from sleepers and crib sheets to big-ticket items such as strollers, car seats and riding toys. Affluent parents could conceivably decorate for baby No. 1, a girl, and start all over when the next child was a boy.

Some young mothers who grew up in the 1980s deprived of pinks, lace, long hair and Barbies, Paoletti suggests, rejected the unisex look for their own daughters. “Even if they are still feminists, they are perceiving those things in a different light than the baby boomer feminists did,” she says. “They think even if they want their girl to be a surgeon, there’s nothing wrong if she is a very feminine surgeon.”

Another important factor has been the rise of consumerism among children in recent decades. According to child development experts, children are just becoming conscious of their gender between ages 3 and 4, and they do not realize it’s permanent until age 6 or 7. At the same time, however, they are the subjects of sophisticated and pervasive advertising that tends to reinforce social conventions. “So they think, for example, that what makes someone female is having long hair and a dress,’’ says Paoletti. “They are so interested—and they are so adamant in their likes and dislikes.”

In researching and writing her book, Paoletti says, she kept thinking about the parents of children who don’t conform to gender roles: Should they dress their children to conform, or allow them to express themselves in their dress? “One thing I can say now is that I’m not real keen on the gender binary—the idea that you have very masculine and very feminine things. The loss of neutral clothing is something that people should think more about. And there is a growing demand for neutral clothing for babies and toddlers now, too.”

“There is a whole community out there of parents and kids who are struggling with ‘My son really doesn’t want to wear boy clothes, prefers to wear girl clothes.’ ” She hopes one audience for her book will be people who study gender clinically. The fashion world may have divided children into pink and blue, but in the world of real individuals, not all is black and white.

willfarmerman

Would it be appropriate for a child to be allowed to play with a dildo? You wouldn't allow them play with every object that takes their interest. Nothing wrong with a little guidance..

The King of Moo

Pug160 wrote: »

Men are waxing more because they think a higher percentage of women (especially young women) prefer that. It's in vogue at the moment, along with tattoos.

Good for them.

Femme_Fatale

Pug160 wrote: »

Men are waxing more because they think a higher percentage of women (especially young women) prefer that. It's in vogue at the moment, along with tattoos.

Tattoos have been around a long, long time. Aren't some men waxing because they like the look of it themselves? Most women I encounter (myself included) seem to find it unattractive if a man waxes his chest hair.
Geordie Shore kinda gals aren't all women.

The King of Moo

willfarmerman wrote: »

Would it be appropriate for a child to be allowed to play with a dildo? You wouldn't allow them play with every object that takes their interest. Nothing wrong with a little guidance..

As long as it's a pink one, it's fine.

Obliq

Yuck. Hate the waxed look on men or women. Vile.

RDM_83 again

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think the false gender differentiations are incredibly harmful and create a 'tunnel' of narrowed options. They close children's minds at the exact moment we should be encouraging them to be open. I have even had to intervene when grand kids are bickering about 'boy' music and 'girl' music - music is music - it has no bloody gender.

While I agree that creating the impression that certain roles aren't for males/females is harmful but aren't we operating on the viewpoint that 'gender' is a social construct in which case something like music can be gendered.

In relation to the point about Dolls I am sure back in the 60's or 70's people tried to be completely gender neutral in terms of toys I am curious about what the childrens preferences was, because while I am not a huge believer in biological determinism in the case of specifically baby dolls (rather than barbie or cooking sets etc) would there be an innate preference towards them by girls compared to boys because of some level of evolutionary "hard wiring" (in case you consider this point a bit dubious consider cuteness).

Obliq wrote: »

I definitely think we adults do this to ourselves by selling out the next generation though. For example, I'm the only woman I know whose father gave her lessons in power tools from age 8 or 10. Know any yourself? If we all want to change this notion that women are only good at/for some stuff, and men are only good at/for other stuff, and both genders are that defined, we have got to stop defining them that way ourselves. In every way -even the way we're generalising about feminism/masculinity on this thread.

I agree with all your points but one of my points is that if the toys are available in both colors does it make a difference as long as they are available. If the female child can have a woodworking set and its in pink I don't see how that acts as a barrier to her pursuing carpentry later in life or if a male can buy a blue stove and kitchen set it similarly doesn't create a barrier , my point being as long as a toy is available in both colours and not just one how does it create perceived barriers.

willfarmerman

We'll I think it's amazing that some people have babies that are born with developed fully rounded personalities.. Let them play with barbies or let them play grand theft auto and it won't confuse their development..

Pug160

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Tattoos have been around a long, long time. Aren't some men waxing because they like the look of it themselves? Most women I encounter (myself included) seem to find it unattractive if a man waxes his chest hair.
Geordie Shore kinda gals aren't all women.

A lot of men will just do whatever it takes to become attractive to the opposite sex. Obviously not all men, as some have a bit of self respect and have their own minds. But a lot of young women do like waxed men with tattoos these days and there are cynical guys out there who will exploit that.

The King of Moo

willfarmerman wrote: »

Let them play with barbies or let them play grand theft auto and it won't confuse their development..

Yes, exactly.

Femme_Fatale

Pug160 wrote: »

A lot of men will just do whatever it takes to become attractive to the opposite sex. Obviously not all men, as some have a bit of self respect and have their own minds.

As do a lot of women. Hardly means a lack of self respect. It's pretty normal to want to make people of the opposite sex fancy you as much as possible.

Btw, I like tattoos on men, but there is no way I'd expect a guy to get a tattoo just because I like them.

Weird stuff being said on this thread. Very very weird, projecting stuff.

willfarmerman

Boy named sue..

lufties

Obliq wrote: »

Thanks for that link BO, really interesting. Worth quoting the second page, even if this is AH, so the TLDR rule applies! This is topical folks!

Gender-neutral clothing remained popular until about 1985. Paoletti remembers that year distinctly because it was between the births of her children, a girl in ’82 and a boy in ’86. “All of a sudden it wasn’t just a blue overall; it was a blue overall with a teddy bear holding a football,” she says. Disposable diapers were manufactured in pink and blue.

Prenatal testing was a big reason for the change. Expectant parents learned the sex of their unborn baby and then went shopping for “girl” or “boy” merchandise. (“The more you individualize clothing, the more you can sell,” Paoletti says.) The pink fad spread from sleepers and crib sheets to big-ticket items such as strollers, car seats and riding toys. Affluent parents could conceivably decorate for baby No. 1, a girl, and start all over when the next child was a boy.

Some young mothers who grew up in the 1980s deprived of pinks, lace, long hair and Barbies, Paoletti suggests, rejected the unisex look for their own daughters. “Even if they are still feminists, they are perceiving those things in a different light than the baby boomer feminists did,” she says. “They think even if they want their girl to be a surgeon, there’s nothing wrong if she is a very feminine surgeon.”

Another important factor has been the rise of consumerism among children in recent decades. According to child development experts, children are just becoming conscious of their gender between ages 3 and 4, and they do not realize it’s permanent until age 6 or 7. At the same time, however, they are the subjects of sophisticated and pervasive advertising that tends to reinforce social conventions. “So they think, for example, that what makes someone female is having long hair and a dress,’’ says Paoletti. “They are so interested—and they are so adamant in their likes and dislikes.”

In researching and writing her book, Paoletti says, she kept thinking about the parents of children who don’t conform to gender roles: Should they dress their children to conform, or allow them to express themselves in their dress? “One thing I can say now is that I’m not real keen on the gender binary—the idea that you have very masculine and very feminine things. The loss of neutral clothing is something that people should think more about. And there is a growing demand for neutral clothing for babies and toddlers now, too.”

“There is a whole community out there of parents and kids who are struggling with ‘My son really doesn’t want to wear boy clothes, prefers to wear girl clothes.’ ” She hopes one audience for her book will be people who study gender clinically. The fashion world may have divided children into pink and blue, but in the world of real individuals, not all is black and white.

I used to wear pink t-shirts and shirts up to a few years ago, granted that was just to indicate how 'comfortable i was with my sexuality' also to 'stand out' and hopefully pull more women. Nowadays I don't wear pink because I don't feel it doesn't suit me or my style these days.

On the other hand if my mother had me trotting around in pink outfits as a child, it prob would have been met with strange reactions :pac:

The King of Moo

willfarmerman wrote: »

Boy named sue..

It worked out fine for him, didn't it?

RDM_83 again

Damn my slow replies

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't think any one claimed it was the evil patriarchy at play though?

That was because I am confused about why the situation would be becoming more gender binary when the people having children now (born in the 70's /80's) are those brought up with more gender neutral toys and living in a more egalitarian society so the opposite should be expected (and because for certain feminists everything can be blamed on 'the patriachy'). Obliq's quoted paragraph does give a good incite though.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I consider it as harmful to boys as to girls but in the context of this thread which is about Feminism and the emasculation of men the fact that the toys for girls are still mainly to enable them to role play a traditional woman role (mammy/homemaker/nurse) indicates we still need feminism and that far from boys being emasculated they are being led into a very narrow, macho, definition of masculinity which excludes them being nurturing.

Ironically, here we have seen the same men who complain about feminism emasculating men also complaining that men are often excluded from performing a parenting role...but it is feminists who compaign against gender specific toys dominating the market and want boys to be able to role play being a parent by caring for a replica baby without being called a sissy...

Lets be clear I don't agree with the feminisation argument put forward by the OP, and from my reading of it most of the people that have issues with aspects of modern feminism aren't agreeing with that point. I've absolutely no problem with a more gender neutral society but in the same way that feminism is a broad church and I am sure you would be annoyed if you were compared to a SCUM manifesto feminist those that have issues with 4th wave (it is 4th wave now isn;t it ) are coming from a very wide spectrum of views so its annoying when its staed that if you belive X you must believe Y.

Obliq

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I agree with all your points but one of my points is that if the toys are available in both colors does it make a difference as long as they are available. If the female child can have a woodworking set and its in pink I don't see how that acts as a barrier to her pursuing carpentry later in life or if a male can buy a blue stove and kitchen set it similarly doesn't create a barrier , my point being as long as a toy is available in both colours and not just one how does it create perceived barriers.

Oh right - I didn't get that bit. No, shouldn't then restrict the use of those toys by one gender or the other, but it still will woefully restrict their colour palettes. Nasty colours. I am thoroughly sick of them. I like orange and red and I want them back, dammit!

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Oh right - I didn't get that bit. No, shouldn't then restrict the use of those toys by one gender or the other, but it still will woefully restrict their colour palettes. Nasty colours. I am thoroughly sick of them. I like orange and red and I want them back, dammit!

One of my fondest memories is watching a group of children aged from 4-6 spend the day happily playing with some sticks while we were camping...in Ireland...which meant all the children were in waterproofs and were mad swapping jackets and hats so they had each customised and personalised their outfits, but no one knew which kids was which any more or the genders of any of them. The sticks became horses and they galloped, they became swords and they fenced, they became walking sticks and they tottered, the sticks became what ever they wanted. And as we watched pure imagination at work - we still couldn't tell who was what gender or work out by what the stick became whether is was a boy or girl who imagined it to becoming that thing...

That is what toys should do...

clairefontaine

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Clairefontaine, you're a real renegade the way you're always moaning about even moderate feminism yet are a woman yourself. So edgy.

Stuff like... all women being blamed, all with feminist views being lumped in with the crazies.

You're... "not allowed"?

It always gets funny when lies are resorted to.

Still don't know how argue without an ad hominem...or should I say ad feminem and yet have several times criticized others on this thread for their bad form.

So what if I'm a woman. I don't have to subscribe to every crackpot ideology that thinks it has the right to tell me what I should want rather than actually respecting what I do want. And then has the audacity to presume to speak for me.