The discussion of alpha romance heroes in marriage has taken a rather interesting turn into “feminism is a dirty word” territory, and my comment became so unwieldy, I decided it needed to become its own post. Such are the privileges of being a blog owner.
So, some disclaimers:
1. I’m a feminist, and I’m proud of the fact.
2. It bugs me when people treat the word “feminist” as an insult—especially when these are women who enjoy the benefits of what previous feminists have fought for, such as the right to vote, the right to initiate the dissolution of marriages, the freedom to work outside the home without being viewed as some sort of freak of nature, or the freedom to enjoy love and sex on their own terms.
3. It also bugs me when people use “radical man-hating separatist” synonymously with “feminist.” It’s akin to conflating “Christian” with “homophobic asshole,” or “Muslim” with “suicide bomber.” Sure, these splinter factions exist, but for the love of Baby Ganesh, these are huge, heterogenous movements, with significant doctrinal and philosophical differences between the many different sects, and the people you’re talking about constitute a minority. Stop defining something solely by its distasteful extremes. It does no honor to the people being discussed, AND it makes you look like an ignorant douchebag.
4. I love men. Oh boy, do I ever. Y’all don’t need any more TMI than I’ve dished out already over the past couple of years on this site, so I’m afraid I’m just going to have to leave it at that. I love men. Yesss I do, precious.
5. I love all sorts of dudes, but the ones I’m most attracted to, sexually and emotionally, are slim, androgynous and geeky to the point of dorkiness. To be frank: I love the girly men. (The same applies to the women I’m most attracted to, as well: I love the tomboyish girls with dyke-tastic haircuts and a swagger. I think androgyny and genderfuck are hot. And I can totally respect and understand that many people don’t. Chacun à son goût.)
I’m going to quote a particular commenter in particular extensively in this post. I won’t refer to her by name; those of you who’ve followed the discussion will recognize who I’m quoting anyway, and I’m honestly not attempting to kick her into the ground, because she’s being disagreed with vigorously as it is, and I can tell she’s feeling attacked; it’s just that her arguments seem representative a certain type of discourse that bugs the hell out off me, and I want to poke at these sorts of arguments in general, not necessarily at her in particular. So apologies for the lack of attribution.
So, here’s the bit of commentary that inspired all this blathering in the first place:
What concerns me is that the ‘ideal’ world that some women want would have boys for men or at least those with teeny weenies, no chest hair, no muscles and itty itty schlongs that would never mess up or bother a delicate female HooHoo. And men who aren’t men, just beaten down creatures allowed to live in the presence of the Princesses.
And sex would be this vapid, super quiet thing with the woman totally in control at all times, because if the man dares get passionate, she’s being victimized.
(And in a different a little ways down…)
Even deeper, it’s now bad for a romance hero to rescue the heroine. How dare he be protective, or the least bit dominant! How dare he be stronger. How dare he be her superior occasionally! How dare he be better at anything than the heroine! It’s bad if he’s truly male, because that’s suddenly ‘alpha’, which is why I find myself shaking my head when what I consider just plain ‘ole men labled “alphasâ€. That is what I mean by boys versus men.
Holy flaming metrosexuals, Batman. Where do I even begin?
First of all, I’m fascinated by what we’re being presented with as the image of what constitutes REAL manhood. Skinniness seems to be a no-no. Also, lack of body hair. Also, sexual submission. And penis size was mentioned twice—which, in my opinion, presents an eerily accurate reflection of our cultural perceptions of where manhood lies.
I have to admit that I don’t buy into this manly man malarkey, and that men who don’t conform are somehow less or diminished. I’d almost say something like “Look, they have a Y chromosome and a cock and balls; as far as I’m concerned, that’s all a dude needs to get into the Boys’ Club,” but then I realized that my transgender friends would pummel me into the ground for displaying that much essentialist bias. Gender identity is tricky and fascinating, and I’m not going to propose to figure it out on a fuckin’ blog, of all places, but I just want us to ponder why we so strongly associate certain traits with manhood, and why they are desirable in and of themselves, and why we hold them up as some sort of requirement for membership.
See, for me, what are typically seen as unmanly traits, such as swishiness, a willingness to play with gender identity markers such as make-up and dresses, or a tendency for displaying affection to other male friends with culturally uncomfortable physical gestures (in America, that usually constitutes close embraces, holding hands and kissing) are signs of something else entirely. I tend to read those men as being so secure in their masculinity that they have no problems flouting these conventions; they have absolutely nothing to prove, so why not act as or wear what they wish, or actively poke at cultural perceptions of masculinity and femininity? Many of these guys are as puzzled and amused as I am by the use of words like “fag” or “girl” as pejoratives. Even if people don’t find androgyny to be a turn-on, why is it so discomfiting—even repulsive—to so many? Why do people care, even, when health isn’t at stake?
And most interesting of all is the conflation of certain effeminate traits—lack of body hair, slimness—with sexual submission and/or lack of sexual vigor. What does this say about the way we see femininity and feminine sexuality, and how we view sexual submission as somehow being less than sexual domination?
(OK, so here’s a LITTLE bit of useless TMI: I’ve slept with more than my fair share of slim, clean-cut boys, and lemme tell you, vigor is not even remotely an issue, especially the ones who are athletic in ways that place a lot of emphasis on flexibility and movement—you know, the runners, the dancers, the swimmers, the ones who play a lot of soccer or tennis, or do a lot of yoga. Our vision of athleticism has been colored greatly by football, weight-lifting and wrestling, I think, where bulk has come to dominate. Why is bulk considered manly, by the way? If Ability To Fuck Yo Shit up is considered a manly trait, I imagine people who practice the martial arts would be tops, and they tend to be slim and mobile.)
And really, is lack of hero domination a problem in romance novels? I mean, seriously? I see a trending away from extreme alphas in some sub-genres, but even then, romance heroes are still plenty assertive. Even Demon Angel, which was the last romance novel I read with an unabashedly good-boy hero had him pinning the heroine against a closet door and fucking her six ways to Sunday.
So, readers, I want your thoughts on masculinity and femininity. Let’s talk about feminism, and where it’s taken us, and why it’s a dirty word. Why you think girly men are hot. Why you think girly men are repulsive. And something I don’t have time to go into right now, but that I’d love to hash out as well: gender roles and acceptable flaws and virtues for heroes and heroines in romance novels.
No accusations to anyone, Ginmar—several comments earlier, I had said I couldn’t remember what the law was and asked if anyone else did. Since I found it, I posted it. I don’t do the subliminal thing—I say what I mean rather than hinting at it. It just saves time in the end.
Now I’m really walking the dog and going to bed.
Oh, noes! Bad html strikes again! Won’t one of our neighborhood Smart Bitches ride in and rescue us from this horror?!
Hmm, gender politics …
Well, first, I actually see less and less of the typical “big brawny male” in the romances that I’ve been readng. I don’t think any Crusie heroes fit that physical type; Eloisa James has a few heroes who care more about their clothes than the women they wind up with; my favorites of Connie Brockway’s heroes are the long and lean types … I don’t know, I think there is more diversity in hero physical appearance than the covers may indicate.
Feminism – another, hmmm. Can you believe in equal but different? Does that make you a feminist? Can you apply a label because of the way you live your life rather than the rallies in which you take part? Am I a civil rights activist because I believe in civil rights, but have never marched on Montgomery? Am I Jewish because I believe in the same God? Am I Catholic even if I don’t attend Church every Sunday? If I embrace a concept, is it necessary to adopt a mainstream label of what that concept is in order for my opinion to count? or not count? I was a SAHM for five years – and then went back to work. Which camp should I be in there?
Do I have to be labelled to have my voice count? What entitles me to adopt my label? Can I respect ginmar for wearing the label proudly and Najida for choosing not to label herself? I hope so …
I’m trying to watch “300” and wondering how come so many naked men can’t make up for the sheer sucktasticness of this movie. Black Persians? What the fuck? They’re Persians!
Women who won’t admit to being feminist bother me. Don’t want to work for equality between the sexes- fine, go back to being your father and then your husband’s property, don’t vote, don’t own property, and have a dozen children.
ginmar, there’s this fantastic vid set to the song “Vogue” that pokes fun at that film. It’s technically kickass, and funny as hell.
((hopes and prays link will work this time))
Dammit, I forgot to *feed* the dog, so I can’t walk her until she finishes eating, and I can’t go to bed until I walk her, so I might as well hang out here until she’s done snarfing her food. Sigh.
Ginmar, my friend’s son was watching 300 with her and said, “Those men need more armor—they’re fighting war in man-panties!”
I’m more worried about the fact that the Persians don’t look like…Persians. Dude, Persians are Iranians. I know what those look like. What the hell?
And even Gerard Butler can’t redeem this overwrought piece of shit.
OMG. That vid was better than the movie!
I never think of myself as a lowest common demoniator sorta gal, but I’ve spent the last 20 minutes looking for naked pictures of David Tennant.
No luck.
Instead, I found a clip from the December episode of “The Friday Night Project” where David mentions the “Ten-Inch” nickname. It’s about 2:55 in. Also features Amy Winehouse pre (public) breakdown.
I’ve now forwarded that link to all my friends, because such deliciously remixed eye-candy just must be shared. (Hmm, speaking of sexism, I think I’m a bit guilty there… but you KNOW those guys were aware that this was not a Great Work of Film, it was an eye-candy-fest!) And on that note, I really am off to bed now. I know I’ve said it before, but this time I mean it. Really!
*all hail the man-panties!*
Yeah, fifth century Persians came from a big empire, but that many of them being black that were sent to one battle in Greece would be a level of coincidence that would require an Infinite Improbability Drive. I actually think most of the other weird things about the movie would fit pretty well with the way a Spartan narrator would be likely to tell the story, though. Which isn’t to say that I’m interested in seeing it a second time, just that I was able to have fun seeing it once.
I’ll take a cinnamon roll too, please. And can we turn this conversation back to its most important (or at least entertaining) question: any further comment on naked Ian McKellen?
That’s ok, lovelysalome, I’m on the verge of looking for naked pictures of Ian McKellen, so I think I’m at least as close to the lowest common denominater in this case, and probably much stranger. (Hey, they’d preferably MacBeth, Scarlet Pimpernel-era Ian McKellen. Rowr.)
And can we turn this conversation back to its most important (or at least entertaining) question: any further comment on naked Ian McKellen?
Naked Sir Ian makes me want to be a better man!
Er. That is, he makes me want to be a man at all, but particularly a gay man of the type he finds attractive.
Verification: girls66
Sixty-six lurkers told me in email that Sir Ian makes them sad that they’re girls! 😉
<
>
The tango part was verra, verra good. Thanks for that.
Amy, I don’t think it’s sexism unless you’d discriminate against them for being hot in their panties.
OMG. That vid was better than the movie!
*g* YES! Vids are marvelous about condensing down the best aspects of a film and then delivering them to you straight; they’re like mainlining for media addicts and scopophiliacs.
Verification word: york56
56 ginger headed men in manpanties, marching for the town of York…
In case anybody is wondering, googling “Ian McKellen naked pictures” does not seem to produce anything of the sort, just articles about King Lear, and, inexplicably, Daniel Radcliff in Equus. Inexplicable since I don’t think they’ve worked together since Radcliff’s David Copperfield.
Also, Alan Rickman decidedly belongs in the Sex Pantheon. Something about theater roots encourages sex god qualities, I think. Even in men that I can’t for a second describe one visual quality to account for their hotness (Willem DaFoe- simultaneously unappealing and kind of hot). Maybe it’s confidence, again, as simple as that- but that would require an explanation for why not actors who just do movies or television, too. Difference between always performing for a camera vs. often having a live audience?
Lots and lots of thoughts here:
1. It doesn’t take any “work” to have political, social, cultural and religious equality. That is something to which human beings are ENTITLED. I should not have to do anything in order to be considered equal to men. (Not “the same as,” but “equal to.” Like five pennies versus a nickel. Worth the same.) I should be considered a full human being REGARDLESS. That baseline respect for my humanity is all I am asking to be given, as is my birthright—anything more than that, sure, OK, I’ll earn it. You don’t have to like me, you don’t have to agree with everything I say, just accept that I deserve to be treated as a full human being. Not decoration, not slave labor, not sex toy.
2. Just because someone does not want to attach the label “feminism” to the concept of seeing women as full human beings does not mean that is not what it is. Words mean things. If you don’t want to claim the label of feminist but you think women should have the right to vote, should be able to make choices for their own lives and so on, well, maybe you should change your beliefs. Otherwise maybe it’s time to consider that OMFG, feminism ISN’T evil!
3. SAHM vs work outside home: I don’t like the extreme dichotomy between work and home. I don’t like that people have to go so far from home that their kids can’t be around them, just to make a paycheck. That’s true regardless of which parent is doing it. It’s been said that children benefit from seeing their mothers work, especially girl children—but those kids AREN’T actually seeing you work. They’re seeing you leave, then they see you come home. In between, you are not there to be seen. That’s not being any kind of influence on them at all, plus it divorces money and work from their immediate lives and makes them non-relevant. No wonder so many of us grow up with warped perspectives on work and money. I think WAHMs and WAHDs do more to teach their kids about reality, frankly. I also think most daycare sucks, and that kids should not be institutionalized, and that if you have not had kids yet and when you think about having them you plan for the daycare and the school, just don’t bother. You don’t have to have kids if the idea of raising them bugs you that much. It’s OK. There are already six billion-plus of us. This is not sarcasm. I’m serious.
I’ve done both the working-outside mom and the SAHM rackets so I know whereof I speak here. I have a way better relationship with my younger child than I ever had with my older.
4. I don’t love anybody that I don’t personally know. I don’t love most men, I don’t love most women. Any man who needs me to validate his existence after affirming my feminism when I’ve never met him in my life is beyond pathetic. My default emotion about most people is indifference, as I can only contemplate them in the abstract. I look upon anyone’s claim that they love this group or that group when they can’t possibly know that group or everyone in it as suspect and think they’re protesting a tad too much.
I love people who are lovable. People who view me as less than human are not lovable. I’ve seen way too many men saying nasty things about women on the Internet where they’re anonymous to believe that most men are worthy of my love. And that’s perfectly OK, because one’s all I need. I’m not greedy.
Oh, and the guy-build thing? I don’t do bone-skinny anymore. They leave bruises on my inner thighs.
WTMI! Way Too Much! All The Time! 😛
We have two running topics here. What makes men sexy and feminism. Gotta love this site!
<
>
I have a friend who wrote an excellent article on what makes a man attractive whether he’s considered conventionally handsome or not. Must find that!
To me, Willem DaFoe is smoken’. But I don’t know if it’s more his looks or personality. Most of the time, I go for personality over anything, but occasionally, I’m attacked by my girl hormonies.
I made one of those silly Friend’s Lists one day on my blog—got teased in email a LOT about some of my choices. Unfortunately, I spoke too soon. In reality, John Cusack would have tied for first with John Stewart… okay, Cusack would have bumped him to second. (Hey, I grew those hormonies around the Say Anything time.)
Since my thirteen is too valuable (all of them together), I’d have to bump Mr. Pitch Black, I guess.
Since I’m obviously tired and rambling, I’ll link to that silly post.
http://relliott4.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/needed-silliness/
Man, I gotta get off here and go read or something. My verification is hand45. Snort.
Wow, missed the debate. Just spent an hour catching up. Things are never calm for long here.
I remember wanting to wear make up and shave my legs as a sign of maturity. Then shortly after that I rejected both and wearing dresses for about a decade while I finished a degree and worked in a non-traditional job. Back to school and I discovered the fun of lipstick. Now I’m just enjoying comfort over fixyness as my career matures. It’s all been fun.
And I’ve been a feminist through it all.
Also I like clever men, especially if they are witty.
One last random post before I really have to go to sleep: I find it strange and inaccurate that every time somebody expresses a dislike for the Schlong of Death (as in mistakable-for-his-broadsword; not to be confused with Boner Death) in Romance, there’s an assumption that we want, either in our fiction or our bedrooms, Lord Pencil Dick. There’s a choice in between huge and small: it’s called average. Which, in case you were wondering, is approximately the same length as a Starbucks Grande, with sippy lid:
http://media.www.studlife.com/media/storage/paper337/news/2003/10/17/Cadenza/What-Is.The.Average.Size.Of.A.Penis-531511.shtml
(And “penis size starbucks grande” is the last weird thing that I’m going to google tonight. That article cracks me up, and I’ve been citing it whenever I have an excuse since it was published.)
Just because I don’t want a Venti doesn’t mean that I dream of espresso shots. If I read a description of a hero’s physical assets that made no mention of penis size, I’d probably assume he was within a standard deviation of a Grande, and if the sex was good, orgasms for all ensued, and the heroine didn’t ask “Is it in?”, I’d assume that it was at least as much as was required for the job at, um, hand. And sometime’s it’s possible to have too much coffee. 😉
Which, in case you were wondering, is approximately the same length as a Starbucks Grande, with sippy lid:
The implausible virgin says ‘meep.’
The implausible virgin says ‘meep.’
…wait, you’re one, too? (Or are you joking?)
Implausible virgin feminist Romance readers rule!
Well, it seems that the idea of femininity and masculinity are just socially constructed concepts. Several other cultures mix up the Western idea of both these characteristics, attributing masculinity with our perceptions of feminine traits.
As for alphas—well, it’s all in the personality, not necessarily the physical for me. I don’t really go for the beefcakes, either, and being a martial artist, I’m definitely attracted to the leaner bodies…it’s all condensed muscle, baby! 😉 And my ex? Well, he was sooo not who I pictured myself with: on the shorter side, long hair, skinny/lean muscle (definite effeminate traits)…but the dude in no way seemed less masculine. It’s all in the attitude and the confidence, in my opinion, that made him such a man.
Just watched the vid (still won’t watch the whole film) & if those guys could fight so well in cloaks and manties, I guess SF&F chicks could do it in onesies or bustier-bikinis bottoms and heels 😀
Since the very slender & hot Optimus Prime 2007 probably doesn’t count, Tim Curry in Rocky Horror is my strangest attractor. My general preference is taller, brawny/husky types, but Frank is mesmerizing as the amalgam of a libidinous bi guy with deep, deep voice wearing corsets, hose and eye shadow. And really, it’s ultimately Tim’s comfort with himself that allows Frank shine through.
I’m not saying that advocating for women is a bad thing. In fact, I think a hell of a lot more of it should be done, especially in places like Africa and the Middle East. But “feminist” is not the term that defines me. That has more to do with the bare-bones etymology of the word itself than any bad connotations that might have been placed on it by the ignorant. I think there is a notable difference in literal annotation between the “equal rights movement” and the “feminist movement.”
And I will say, every minute I have spent inadvertently listening to that fuckhead Jerry Falwell while searching desperately for the remote is a minute of my life I’ll never get back. Men like Rush Limbaugh and him *are* woman-haters, as are a helluva lot of men out there, and I would have no problem at all calling them as I see them.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the basic definition of the word feminism is “for women.” If I must wear a label, I’d rather it be one that indicates an attitude of inclusiveness for everyone, regardless of gender. This doesn’t mean that I would find the term feminist insulting—just not entirely accurate for me.
I don’t have time to go back and search the whole freaking comment stream to find the quote, but anyone who would imply that those who choose not to label themselves ought not to have a right to vote or use birth control only confirm the appearance of strident intolerance within a segment of the movement.
“I’m Canadian too and I have to say that there as far as equal rights go, if one were to include birth control and the like, things are not quite so rosy for women here, specifically in the Atlantic provinces.”
I can’t speak for Atlantic provinces, but I live out west in a town that makes Mayberry look like Gotham City, and I have no problem at all accessing the pill, tubal ligation, the morning after pill, or abortion. And for the poster who claimed that my rights are under constant attack, many Yankees might not be aware that, because Canada has no abortion law at all, I am legally entitled to get an abortion right up to the day I’m due to give birth. Having an aunt who worked as a maternity nurse in a large hospital, I can vouch for the fact that this does indeed happen.
And for the poster who asked whether changes would be made to accomodate men on natal leave, the answer is, I don’t know. But I do know that if a mother were to make the same choice the father typically does—take a week off, then back to the grind—she would likely face similar opportunities for advancement. When my sister, high up in the Canadian Forces, was passed over for promotion in favor of another woman, it was for precisely that reason. She didn’t put as high a priority on her career as the other woman did.
Is it fair to ask a woman to choose between family and career? Fuck, no. But see, the thing is, it’s not the men who give birth to the babies. It’s us. That means that, at the very heart of things, we can never be treated exactly the same as men. And because women are generally reluctant to make their career their 100% top priority, only the exceptional will make it to the top.
As for loving men(or women), well, I don’t love everyone, naturally. Some men don’t just have dicks, they are them. And some women, well, you get my drift…
Both have equal opportunity in my fantasies.
P.S. What I find more annoying than the black Persians in 300 is that every time Gerard Butler (hot, hot, hot) opens his mouth to bellow, I can see his fillings. Gah!
First, because thinking about it is distracting, Alan Rickman is sex personafied. Which makes seeing Harry Potter that much more rewarding.
If we’re talking heroes, we must be talking sexual attraction. Intelligence, strength of character, wit, and kindness have to be there. If he makes me feel feminine and protected by virtue of his size, it’s that much better. I’m smart, driven, and outspoken, and want a man who matches me in that and then some.
And I’m chubby, so I hate feeling giant and fat (who doesn’t?). Those >6’/200lbs. guys just feel so nice and solid. Cliched that I’m attracted to decisive, strong men? Yeah, but I can’t help that biology is driving me to find someone to help me breed giant smarty pants children. 😉
And now onto feminism, which I will not delve into since I am woefully under-read.
Ginmar—
Thank you for bringing up the class aspect of our individual experiences of what feminism means. It has an undeniably huge impact on how we see it in our day-to-day and in the trajectories of our lives.
I’ve been reading Class Matters, and haven’t been off analyzing my motivations and ideals for weeks now. That factor determines so much and isn’t really addressed much in American culture.
Wow. I don’t even want to give an estimate on how long it took me to read over all these comments. And now… time for me to throw in my own two cents. (Anyone have change for a nickel?)
1. There’s been some really interesting discussion about the various ideas people have about what exactly it means to be a feminist. And I’d like to state for the record, that I think there’s a difference between a feminist and a feminazi. And yes, feminazis do exist. (Bear in mind, I am decidedly NOT trying to infer anyone here is a feminazi. Just sayin’ they’re out there is all.)
A couple of women here have very succintly summed up where I put myself, as far as labels go, so thanks, ladies, for making my post here a little bit smoother:
“Feminism – another, hmmm. Can you believe in equal but different? Does that make you a feminist?”
Also “But that doesn’t change the fact that the basic definition of the word feminism is “for women.†If I must wear a label, I’d rather it be one that indicates an attitude of inclusiveness for everyone, regardless of gender.” (kis, this is a brilliant way of expressing it. Will you marry me? ;))
2. “The mentality of frat boys and sorority girls doesn’t emerge out of nowhere at 16 or 18. It’s being programmed from day one.”
I’d just like to point out that this isn’t always strictly true. Yes, I do think this is a valid point a lot of the time, possibly even the majority of the time. But not always. I have a son and a daughter, and I’ve always ensured they each had dolls and trucks of their own. My daughter used her dump trucks as a carriage for her dolls, and my son used his dolls as speed bumps for his trucks. And these are kids who have never been to preschool or had any of those sorts of influences.
3. “Women who won’t admit to being feminist bother me. Don’t want to work for equality between the sexes- fine, go back to being your father and then your husband’s property, don’t vote, don’t own property, and have a dozen children.”
Okay, I know I’m going to get flamed for touching this one, but I can’t help it. I’m a married woman (I wouldn’t consider myself property, and it’s likely not what was meant by the comment, but I know there are people who would tell me that’s what I’m doing to myself as a woman choosing to marry), a SAHM, and I don’t own any property (we live in a two-bedroom apartment). I don’t think there’s anything wrong or degrading about the life that I lead. I love being a mom, and I would have a dozen kids if my body could handle it (it can’t; kudos to any woman who can).
4. I consider myself part of the equality movement. If I come across injustice, I will fight it, regardless of who’s being discrimated against. Race, gender, age, sexual orientation, whatever. We all have rights as human beings. It’s very difficult to state anything across the board as being fair to everyone, though; while we’re all equal, we’re all very different. Just look at the opinions represented in this thread.
—Feminism isn’t dirty in and of itself. It’s been demonized by crazy feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, who think that sex with men is inherently bad and sex that involves anything kinky is bad…
I posted a link in the other thread debunking most of the myths about Dworkin, so I’ll continue with MacKinnon.
Catharine MacKinnon worked with with women during the Bosnian/Serbian conflict and was instrumental in having rape made a war crime. She was also a fundamental advocate for sexual harassment laws being instituted in the workplace. That brand of crazy works for me.
Off to work. Have fun.
I didn’t read the alpha debates. I was at the beach for a week with the family, and that was enough fun for me. Also, I don’t think about alpha/beta/whateva when I’m crafting character. He is what he is.
I was fortunate enough to be able to stay at home with my kids and earn a living doing something I loved. Not many people are able to do both, so I’ve always been grateful. It comes down to, and always should, to choices. A lot of people worked very hard to see that we had choices. Some work very hard to try to take those choices away.
Feminism does not mean man-hater. Equality does not mean we must all have balls or must all lack them. It’s not about the way our skin stretches or sexual orientation. It’s about human rights.
I had four brothers and raised two sons. I married a really tall, really skinny guy with gawky tendencies. I find men appealing, fascinating and baffling as a species. Being a feminist doesn’t negate my great appreciation for men, or my daily admiration, adoration and irritation with the men in my life.
Since the very slender & hot Optimus Prime 2007 probably doesn’t count…
Oh, he absolutely counts! I want to marry him and have his robotic babies.
Can I suggest that we bring it back out of the personal, people, and get
back to the topic. Personal attacks don’t advance the debate or result in knowledge for anyone. (Sarah, Candy, if I’m out of line for trying to toss some water on this
fire, slap me!)
Not out of line at all. Well said.
Well, speaking as a big butch lesbian who is a feminist (since I appear to be the boogey monster to some), I’m fairly indifferent to 98% of men. But there are some I like. They look like men, they often have (some) hair on their chests… and they have long hair, generally. It’s obvious men are not my natural type, since I have such a narrow range of manliness that I fancy.
Do I want less gender diversity? Most certainly not. I want there to be big butch men, slim androgenous men, nellie men, butch women (and yes, they can be het too) and femme women (since I prefer the latter as my girlfriends). I personally don’t go for the androgenous type, whether male or female, but that’s because I’m somewhere in that range myself.
What I do want – being a feminist – is for gender to be no consideration at all in anyone’s life, politically or economically. Why do we have gender on our birth certificates? Why bother? What function does that information provide? Why is women’s pay in general 70% of men’s? Why do so few women sit on the boards of corporations? Why aren’t 50% of politicians women either?
Regarding the Dworkin and Mackinnon straw men (oops), if anyone thinks that their more outré views represents what most feminists think most of the time, they’re sadly mistaken. We could point at Falwell, and say that there is a man that stands for “family values”, so therefore all religious people are borderline fascists. It helps if you get a broad overview of the range of opinion in feminism (heard of “sex-positive feminism”?) before tarring all of us with some spurious brush.
I sort of want to chime in with a comment, but I don’t want to offend or continue a fight, so if this comes across wrong, I apologise in advance.
I never thought of myself as a feminist, in any way that you want to take that word, until recently, when I decided on the definition that suits me. I am 27 years old, 2 weeks away from submitting my PhD (and what an excellent source of procrastination this site is) and I am a lecturer at an IT faculty in an Australian university. I am one of a few females working in my area, let alone teaching or researching it. I have never had to think about what it means to be a woman in a male dominated environment, simply because it hasn’t been an issue for me. I have never had a problem working with the men around me, never been treated differently by them … until recently.
It started with one of my students telling me that he knew I was talented, but that he didn’t think it was fair that I would be offered the hot jobs in my area before him, simply because I was a woman. Putting aside the idiocy of saying this to the person who was grading you, it told me that he thought feminism, and my role as a female in a male dominated field, was about getting favourable treatment solely because of my plumbing. After I calmed down, I tried to explain that if I ever thought I was offered a job simply because I was a woman, you wouldn’t see me because I would be running away so fast.
The second thing that really got me thinking about this was more complex and has to do with how teaching vs research is regarded at my uni, i.e. teaching = woman’s job and doesn’t get you promoted, research = man’s job and gets you promoted. Teaching = caring (which is apparently a bad thing), Research = ego (a good thing). I like both and I like to think I’m relatively good at both. But the fact that I pay as much attention to teaching as research has made a number of my male colleagues question why I am on staff as a lecturer when I don’t have the research qualifications, including hints that they need more women to take care of the teaching.
I finally arrive at my point. Given these incidents and some thought, I’ve decided what feminism means to me/has given me in my life:
1. When I’m going for a job, I want to stand next to the guys and be given exactly the same consideration. If my qualifications are better, I get the job. If his are better, he gets the job.
2. When I’m being evaluated on my ability to do the job, I’m evaluated on the same criteria as the guy next to me. I might have different methods, but if my results are good, that’s what I want to be evaluated on.
This definition is probably pretty simplistic, but this is what it has come down to for me. I didn’t mean to rant for this long, so I’ll sign off now.
1. When I’m going for a job, I want to stand next to the guys and be given exactly the same consideration. If my qualifications are better, I get the job. If his are better, he gets the job.
2. When I’m being evaluated on my ability to do the job, I’m evaluated on the same criteria as the guy next to me. I might have different methods, but if my results are good, that’s what I want to be evaluated on.
Pennifer: I think your comment rocked and I really like your definition, especially because in your field, it works for you.
I think that a lot of the time, the practical falls to the side of the sweeping need for One Definition that encompasses everyone, particularly when one is attempting to unify an entire gender/sex group. Your personal approach makes total sense, and it’s a dang shame that it had to be articulated.
Pennifer, this isn’t a rant—it’s great! This is exactly what some of us are trying to get across and you did it succinctly.
Sarah is right, it is sad that we have to reiterate that we love what makes men and women different—but we want fair treatment regardless of our gender.
But we all have different opinions and experiences and that, too, is what makes these conversations so darned addictive. I’ve learned a few things so that means my loss of most of a writing day isn’t all bad. 🙂
Word is growing87—how cool.
On men (gave this a lot of thought last night).
a. In my history, both personal and professional; thin, small, slender men have usually = sick, frail, malnourished and needing me to take care of them. So care giver kicks in.
b. OR they are boys, like all my brothers and male cousins, so maternal kicks in, no matter how cute.
c. I’ve always been a caregiver, by birth, by circumstance and sometimes by choice.
d. Like others have said about themselves, I too am not a dainty female. And I’ve got a back like a gorilla and I can dead lift a 50 pound sack of feed straight to my shoulder and carry it up stairs.
e. SO, the men I’m attracted to in both RL and books are truly men in the old world way. With hair on their faces, chests and butts, some muscles. And strong, in all ways…. and maybe even a little bit take charge (hell, I’d kill for just one day with someone else in charge—the car note is due). Again, to be around me, they’d have to be tough.
f. When it comes to penis size, the best-most mindblowing sex ever was with BF/Husbands that were erm, larger, and the biggest jerks/abusers have had small ones. I know that it’s totally a coinky-dink. However a friend and I, who’ve had similiar experiences have called it the NLDS (Napolean Little Dick Syndrome).
PS,
Everyone I talked to yesterday, in RL and on line echoed with Pennifer said.
You can’t advocate equally for unequals. That just preserves the inequality. Women are not equal in law, in religion, in justice, or in society. Men control these things. I just hate it when people say feminism is about female superiority or some shit like that, because what it means is, they haven’t taken a look at the world and noticed honestly that women in every country in the world are beaten, raped, murdered, held down, controlled. and hated by men. If you think men need help equal to that provided by feminists to women, I need to see hwere you’re getting your opinions from.