Why do I get so irrationally angry at all these "poor men" threads?

[ImSoNotTelling]

In the last couple of days there have been a few threads about how difficult life is for boys, how our whole society is weighted against them, how they are set up to fail academically by a system weighted against them, how they are victims of violence, how no-one takes them seriously.

I understand that a lot of the protagonists on these threads have sons and are naturally worried about how things will play out for them in their lives, That is a given when you have children I think. You also want the best for them, for them to have all the advantages in life.

However this business about men being done down all the time, I just don;t see it.

For every one ad on teh telly with a man being incompetent at cleaning, I see 10 with a man in a sharp suit being successful, with loads of adoring women gazing at him.

I see images of men doing exciting physical activities, being powerful, swishing out of expensive cars, glanching at their expensive watches, exuding authority as they sweep down the road.

Most of our politicians are men, in the papers the vast majority of "experts" consulted are men.

Men will on average earn a lot more money than women over the course of their lifetime, even if the fact that many women go part time is factored out (sorry I've got no links). In fact women on average are earning less than men, in the same jobs, before they have even started their families. In my old industry the women earned 40% less than men.

So are boys and men in our society really having a terrible time, and we need to redress the balance? If we redress the balance, what does that actually mean? What do people who call for this want? For men to earn even more money than women in the same job? For more men to be decision makers?

I just get when I think about just how shit it is for women and girls, still, here and around the world, and yet we are all supposed to ignore that and accept that yes, men have it worse, let's forget abotu the girls (again) and concentrate on making everything even better for men.

When this topic was first created (the Feminism topic, not this thread) I was going to suggest a Feminism 101 thread but thought it might sound patronising.

I know that I have spent years watching conversations at feminist blogs bfore getting a lot of these concepts. And obviously there are ongoing differences of opinion even amongst those of us who consider ourselves well educated, but my point is that it takes flippin' years. Largely, at least in my case, those years weren't spent doing the academic reading (I have done some, it wasn't the time consuming part) but overcoming all of my own objections to feminism.

I was brought up as a feminist, called myself one as a teenager, see nothing in the title to be ashamed of. And yet, it took so damn long (and I'm not yet there) to see the details. To stop thinking 'you can't say that, it's not nice' when women put their own interests first. Etc.

Dittany, I don't know if this is a topic for another thread, but I'm not sure we're all using gender the same way? When I read that gender isn't a singular concept, I immediately think of transgender issues, and the idea that gender exists on a spectrum. That doesn't mean that masculinities don't always oppress femininities, of course - as pointed out above, one of the quickest ways to oppress a male-sexed person is to attribute feminine gender traits to him - but I can't quite reconcile that with your claim that gender is singular and knowable.

Unless you are defining gender as 'the exent to which one is masculine/dominant and feminine/submissive'? But can one individual have both gender traits?

I think a Feminism 101 thread is a really good idea.

Dittany, in response to your post about gender being singular, I'll have to come back to that one when my thoughts are more coherent (if that ever happens ). I think, as tortoise suggested, I may be using the term 'gender' to talk about more than one thing (and confusing myself in the process). Of course I agree that 'men up and women down is a constant', that women continue to be oppressed the world over and that nothing should be allowed to obscure that reality and thus get in the way of the important business of fighting that oppression. I also agree that gender is a normative social construct, a power relation and not the natural, commonsense category it's dressed up to be.

"I'm using gender in the way feminists have always used it, to describe the stereotyped male sex role and the female sex role, where men are supposed to dominate women and women are supposed to submit to the domination."

Right. But I'm a feminist too, and my understanding of the term is not the same as yours, and I could do without the implication that feminists, that monolithic group, all understand the same things by the same terminology. As far as I know, we've not agreed on what gender is, exactly.

I'm understanding that your usage is in line with MacKinnon's, right? Gender difference is not a matter of having a particular psychological orientation or behavioural pattern but is a function of sexuality that is hierarchal in patriarchal societies.

When I talk about a spectrum, I'm only really saying that masculine and feminine traits coexist in the bodies of men and women. And yes, that male supremacy codifies and rewards/punishes people according to how well they conform. I don't think we're disagreeing. I do think it's worthwhile discussing the terminology.

Ah, well that sentence ("Gender difference is not...") is a very close paraphrase of an essay I was reading which summarised MacKinnon's argument thus. So I was trying to establish a definition that I thought you'd agree with by stealing it rather than extrapolating directly from your posts.

I understand the rest of your post and yes I agree that pre-mid-nineties the term was used that way. I was feeling defensive because 'I use the term in the way feminists use it' read to me like 'and if you don't use it the same way/don't already know that, well, I don't know what to tell you...'. I'm arrogant enough that I don't get particularly defensive about my feminist credentials, but that did strike me as a fairly bald statement.

"The way feminists have always used it" is not the same as "...until the mid nineties", of course. I studied in the 00s, and maybe it prevents me having the same courage in my convictions, because although I incline to the same views and definitions as you, I always have this niggling "...but of course the concept of gender is not codified" thing going on in th back of my head.

So in conclusion, I hereby declare that both dittany and Molesworth are correct.

I am grinning at tortoiseonthehalfshell's final judgement

At the risk of sounding unbearably kum-by-a, I'm SO glad MNHQ created this section.
I've been lurking on mumsnet for a few months, and posting a tiny bit in the pregnancy section But I wasn't inspired to really join in a conversation until these posts came up. I have a lot to learn, and it's going to be a really interesting time. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and righteous ire of all posters, and I'm looking forward to more. I'm not a feminist academic, but I'm an academic in my work life and a feminist in my activist life, and I often feel like I don't know a damned thing and I could just give up.
I love that 'pink stinks' exists, and I love that 'Object' exists, and me and DH are hoping to be feminist parents - but damn, decent conversations here will help!

Ok, ok, kum-by-aaaah moment over. Now sleep, and please feel free to eviscerate my touchy-feely pg-related mutterings by morning!
I just love a decent conversation

Thanks molesworth I forgot to add links..

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/931215-Shitty-days-global-women-39-s-rights

This takes you to my original thread with links to tell you about manual scavenging.

I'm sure many of you are actively engaged in fighting female oppression as well as shooting the breeze on Foucault but if you have a chance to take a look it would be great. It can change lives.

sorry forgot to add this link
this talks about water aid's efforts, manual scavenging and dealing with menstruation in south Asian slums

as you were

"The best student I have ever taught I disagreed with entirely. I rewarded him with fantastic marks because I had to admit that while his arguments didn't seem right to me, they had as much evidence to back them up as mine did. He has gone on to be a stellar figure in his field, deservedly so. Now he makes his cases better and he has changed my views.

I take your point that academia has marginalised feminism and I hugely respect the work you do raising feminist consciousness on mumsnet, but you are the only person on this thread sneering at views different from your own."

Certainly, my experience in terms of my own studies was similar. The day I got my undergraduate results, the professor who had second marked my dissertation stopped me by the boards and told me he had completely and utterly disagreed with everything I had written but that I had made my argument well.

With any debate or discussion, it is not enough to say 'but this is how it is/always has been' and 'you are wrong'. If statements aren't evidenced, then they will be misunderstood, and in an essay, marked down. I still don't understand some of your arguments. Why? Because you have reserved your energy for reacting to each and every statement made contrary to your own opinion with ire and vitriol instead of expanding your original assertions.

Can't you see that telling me - or anyone elseon this thread - that I think 'x' because of my education instead of sharing your own opinion treats me like a Silly Little Girl who only believes what the Big Bad Men tell her? How is that a feminist position to take? You saw the fact that my opinions and thoughts changed in the discussion as some sort of 'victory' over me.. 'oh you only changed when I challenged you'. What's worse, you couched this in terms that suggest you think it is a bad thing to change your thinking/argument even though I explicitly said I was open to thinking differently.

Can you not see how in your elite ownership of feminism you are being very exclusionary and - in fact - replicating what you accuse the academy of? You dismiss me out of hand, you react to me with scorn and derision as someone naive. You ignore anything I say that you can't deride and you've decided that nothing I say can have any merit as some of what I said irritated you. This, dittany, appears pretty oppressive to me.

Everyone else on this thread has taken the time to listen and accept where I am coming from with my understanding of things, and where I was unclear, they have been able to clarify because they haven't responded to areas of disagreement/misunderstanding by trying to make me feel stupid or misguided (like a silly little girl).

Think about it.

Ooops, clearly the 'you' above is dittany.. not referring to the quote.

While I am very pleased that this thread has turned into such a detailed debate,

I have to admit that I don't understand half of it

So yes to feminism for beginners thread from me as well. Maybe someone who has studied this or has a particular axe to grind topic close to their heart could start a thread each week for thickos people who are new to this to get to grips with the basics? We could have a different person each week or something?

Thanks for the link to the blog blackcurrants i will look at it

"I don't talk about gender difference, I talk about sex hierarchy"

OK so gender is a power relation which we want to get rid of. So what is 'sex' then?

These terms are problematic.

PS thanks for the link, probonbon, and glad you're not hiding the thread mrsbean.

I'm sorry but I'm going to throw a bit more petrol on the flames of the debate...

I also am an academic, researching and working in feminist theory. The term gender is commonly used in academia as referring to the construct of (usually social, although some would argue biological), masculinity and femininity. The hierarchy of men (by violence or whatever) and oppression of women is termed patriarchy.

The academy has firmly accepted this idea of gender, and courses and centers for Gender Studies abound. Including at some of the foremost universities for feminist debate/writing.

Dittany - I think at first for feminists, the pointing out of gender constructs was mainly about pointing out the oppression of women, but the actual term gender is about prescribed role of masculinity and femininity which goes beyond, but obviously includes, the oppression of women.

Hey ISNT.... glad it isn't just me. I am reading much of this, nodding sagely but thinking "? ?? ?"

So to answer molesworth...

Gender is not a hierarchy we want to get rid of, patriarchy is.

Gender is the construct or expectation of masculinity and femininity which men and women are brought up in, influenced by, controlled by, enjoy, partake in etc. If we were going to be really correct we would say masculinities and femininities in the plural. Analyzing gender is not easy as it is something within each of us, expressed through each of us in different ways. It is not something 'out there' that we can point out and look at.

Sex is a biological category - there are 5 indicators:
-chromosomes
-hormones
-gonads (testes/ovaries)
-genitals
-reproductive organs (prostate/womb)
In 1/100 people one of the 5 is out of alignment.

consider me tackled.

(I'm not sure that's a good phrase for a thread about men/women/gender etc...)

Just going back to an earlier post that I didn't have time to reply to last night.

Dittany said: "Yes well my singular objection to the antifeminism of postmodernism, redlentil, hardly rates compared to the legions of students currently exiting education, fully armed with postmodern criticisms of feminism and an iron belief in their rightness, but no understanding and little knowledge of the actual feminism itself that they criticise. I don't think it compares to the academics promoting that anti-feminism either."

As a student myself, this description of 'legions of students' leaving university with an 'iron belief in their rightness' is not one I recognise at all.

@FF, that is my understanding of gender/sex - I was trying to find out what dittany's understanding is.

Molesworth - aha I see. Sorry, have only skimmed through.