Advanced search

To feel a bit bereft now that the Reasonable Feminism thread is full?

(42 Posts)

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FasterStronger Fri 05-Jul-13 14:02:12

but arent men are attracted to women with money because of their money?

isn't the problem that men have most of the money....

Technotropic Fri 05-Jul-13 13:59:47


Indeed, but his relative wealth is a good starting point. I very much doubt he would even get a look-in if he was a road sweeper - irrespective of how charismatic he is.

Technotropic Fri 05-Jul-13 13:57:28


But that's the big question IMHO, whether women look for a mate with status because of what he can offer (protection, security, strong genes etc) and whether men look for looks, youth, child rearing ability etc.

How much of this is biological and how much is constructed?

FasterStronger Fri 05-Jul-13 13:47:05

techno ^ She has just started seeing a man and all she can talk about is how much he earns, what car he drives and how big his house is. Never about his moral qualities or what a great character he has.^

but surely survival of offspring is related to the choice of both parents to care for them? a man with lots of resources who dumps you is of little value in offspring survival terms.

particularly for such a slow developing species. if we were deer, the stags genes would be most important as we need to run in the first few hours/days.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Technotropic Fri 05-Jul-13 13:21:59

Interesting here:

A glimpse at the magazine rack in any supermarket checkout line will tell you that women are frequently the focus of sexual objectification. Now, new research finds that the brain actually processes images of women differently than those of men, contributing to this trend.

On the flip side though, do women not measure a man based on utility, what he can do and what he has?

I appreciate not all women are like this i.e. gold diggaz, but I have a friend that is currently single. She has just started seeing a man and all she can talk about is how much he earns, what car he drives and how big his house is. Never about his moral qualities or what a great character he has. She is incredibly shallow but is there an evolutionary link to this kind of behaviour?

We are decended from primates after all and many have societies where the female chooses to mate with higher status males. This is a trend that is also exhibited in most animals/species.

Thus women marry up/men marry down as they say and if you are looking for a suitable mate then maybe being objectified by a male increases one's chances of bagging the man with the right attributes. After all, is the point of evolution not to ensure the strongest gene pool?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SigmundFraude Fri 05-Jul-13 12:14:12

I will say this though. Re. attractiveness. Women seem to have a somewhat eclectic taste when it comes to age related attractiveness. Men seem to prefer younger women (although I'm sure there are some men who prefer older). Is that some kind of instinctual thing in response to fertility? Just musing, I could well be completely wrong. I do feel sometimes that a lot of feminists expect us to completely renounce our biology, as I mentioned before.

When did it become OK to 'objectify' men, but not women.

SigmundFraude Fri 05-Jul-13 12:03:53

Hello Buffy smile

Please don't think I'm being evasive but I have 10 minutes before I have to go out. I will attempt to find such an article in the course of the day..

Thom Evans apparently models as well as rugbies, so his attractiveness in pants is pre-requisite, I'd have thought. I'd imagine his fitness levels had a bearing on his ability to play, but that women's reaction to his physical attractiveness didn't, no. However, women's reaction to his ability to model a pair of pants would have a bearing on his ability to model.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SigmundFraude Fri 05-Jul-13 11:49:02

'Ya don't see articles discussing how much nippleage or bulge it is "appropriate" to see in males in the public eye, now do you? 'cause they are judged primarily on what they do and say not what they wear or what their bodies look like.'

I'm sure these articles exist somewhere if went dredging around for them. I'm guessing you missed the pics of Thom Evans doing the rounds recently! The comments underneath the pics were very enlightening. Almost all from women, many stating that they wished their DH's looked like that, quite crude. How many people do you think came on and told them to stop objectifying Thom Evan's?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

rubyanddiamond Fri 05-Jul-13 11:32:23

Thanks wilson blush glad to hear some of my words make sense!

Is the problem that we are so many?

I think it might be a problem, because it means that feminism has to cover so many different things. The issues facing me are very different from those facing poorer women, or women in less liberal countries. And, to be honest, just the fact that I'm a woman too doesn't give me any particularly good insight into issues that other women might face.

Then there's the fact that women in particular come under a lot of criticism for speaking out, because it's assumed that feminists are, or should be, talking about all women. Just look at, for example, the criticism Sheryl Sandberg got for daring to write a book aimed at a particular class of women, even when she explicitly said that's what she was doing. Similar books written by men get called inspirational and insightful.

"Sure! Great! I'd welcome any woman of colour from a poor background who is willing to work as hard as I have had to work to get here." Thus totally and utterly missing the point, in my view.

Exactly! But replace 'woman of colour from a poor background' with any other category of person, and I'm sure almost anyone could happily utter that statement. Everyone likes to think they've worked hard to get where they are in life, and they don't want to be blamed for keeping others down.

So I think a better way is to convince those in charge using other arguments that it's also in their favour. For example, a lot of current articles about women in the boardroom/high-powered positions etc. contain stats about how diverse teams/boards perform x% better, which is an argument that convinces many (but not all) of those in power. The language used tends to be different, it's less about how much harder it is for the little women to get to the top because they're being kept down by the men, and more about how companies would benefit from a more diverse workforce at all levels. There's a lot more positive language, talk about solutions and some attempt at identifying reasons and barriers without placing blame at the feet of those (men) currently at the top.

I do see your point though about some issues being purely women's issues and what do you do when it's not necessarily in men's favour to change the status quo?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WilsonFrickett Thu 04-Jul-13 23:45:43

I think I'm far more fortunate than much of the population (although that doesn't stop me noticing that the men in my position are more fortunate than me).

Just the perfect definition of privilege, something I have really struggled to define in terms of my own privilege. Thread ended before I could say thanks

WilsonFrickett Thu 04-Jul-13 23:35:58


I didn't get back to the original thread but you said that thing, hang on...

rubyanddiamond Thu 04-Jul-13 23:21:34

I hope you can carry on the discussion here - the other thread was making me think a lot about my position on the feminist-nonfeminist scale smile

Another thing that bugs me about feminism is that it's portrayed as a women's issue, and hence not something that concerns men. In the press, articles about feminism are normally in the "women and lifestyle" section - where's the "men's" section?? It leads to a mainstream of subjects that affect men, and the side topic of women's issues. I don't know how this comes about - is it that the press is run by men who relegate feminism to the sidelines, or that feminists are reluctant to engage with men? Whatever the underlying reason, the effect is to make me reluctant to say that I'm feminist because, being female, I don't want to sound like I'm only out for myself at the expense of others.

In fact, I think that many sectors of society would benefit from more diversity (not just gender, but different background/class/race etc). But I think too much is made of the obstacles that particular groups face, rather than the benefits to everyone of diversity. For example, I think that the country would benefit hugely from more working-class in government (which is easier for me to say as I'm not personally involved!). But telling the current government all about the obstacles that the working-class face in getting there does nothing to persuade them that they should do something about it. And things won't change unless they are on board! The same with feminism - I don't believe that anything will change until the issues are seen as men's issues too.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now