by Connie Chastain*
On the writers groups and blogs I visit, from time to time discussions ensue about the popularity of vampires as romance heroes. There seems to be an increase in these discussions now, probably because of the release of Eclipse, the latest film in the series based on the vampire novels of Stephanie Meyer.
For anyone who's been off-planet the last few years, Meyer's Twilight series chronicles the love story of Bella Swan, a teenage girl, and her relationship with Edward Cullen, a vampire, in the gloomy, great northwest.
I generally don't take part in such discussions because I'm pretty sure women who love to write and read about vampire heroes would not care for my explanation of their popularity -- misandry, brought to you by feminism.
I've noted in previous essays that women who may not consciously embrace feminist thought can nevertheless influenced by it, considering how pervasive it is in our culture. I've also put forth the opinion that feminism seeks to alter the most fundamental of human relationships--that between male and female. Women are drawn to men, especially those they perceive as strong and capable. Feminism has done its best to discourage that attraction.
The claims of thousands of years of evil patriarchy, which is nothing more than men oppressing and exploiting women...the complaints about men denying women education, careers, the vote...the bellyaching about the "imprisoning" of women in the "comfortable concentration camps" of brick ranch houses in the 'burbs...the charges that men long to keep women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen...the whining about the glass ceiling and paying her $.79 for every dollar he makes...the allegations of sexual harassment on the job...the pervasive showcasing of domestic violence (all committed by men, of course)...the accusation that every man is a potential rapist...the constant carping about rape culture....it's all designed to sow discord. To plant in women the fear and hatred of men and to bring about a "new" humanity, where the old rules no longer apply because the old roles no longer exist.
It's difficult to imagine this goal will ever be achieved. It goes against what humans are on the most basic level. However, at the very least, feminism's drive toward this unachievable goal has made it unpopular, even offensive, for a woman to admire and love a man, particularly a strong one. The problem is that women are drawn to strong men, and when that attraction is discouraged, it will find expression another way, up to and including admiration for -- or, in the case of the Twilight saga, obsession with -- entities that do not even exist.
Is it really coincidental, then, that the ascendency of sexy vampires in novels and movies coincides with the after-effects of second-wave feminism with its element of egregious man-hating?
In 1979, Stephen King's Salem's Lot was made into a TV miniseries, and the vampires looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TheMasterKurtBarlow1979.jpg
In 1994, Anne Rice's Interview With the Vampire was made into a theatrical movie, and the vampires looked like this: http://www.radio21.ro/files/uploads/editor/image/Vampiri/tom%20cruise.jpg
And in 2008, Stephanie Meyer's Twilight was made into a movie, and the vampires looked like this: http://cristinagrosu.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/edward-cullen-twilight-series-3897195-1280-102421.jpg
Interesting that they grow to look more and more like the loathsome men feminists would have us fear and hate but, paradoxically, emulate.
I haven't read Meyer's or Rice's books, or seen the movies based on them, nor have I read the profusion of vampire novels flooding the paperback racks. I'm not a feminist; I haven't bought into all the man-hating, so I don't need a substitute for human males as an object for admiration, even in light, escapist reading.
My admiration is reserved for the flesh-and-blood sons of Adam--the good, decent men who love their wives and children, who provide for their families, who make society work, and who strive to make the world a better place for all. These are my heroes.
I'm sure there are feminists who don't undestand that; they can be sure I don't lose sleep over it.
*Connie is a regular and valued contributor to FRS. Her personal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
35 comments:
Connie, the comparison between how vampires are portrayed between 1979 and today was PRICELESS.
Gee, can you imagine feminists 'deconstructing' THAT particular pop culture trend?
And yes, how interesting that women's desire for beings that DO NOT EVEN EXIST increases as feminism sows more hatred for men. HMM, I think you may be onto something here. Pretty hard not to see it once it's put in perspective.
I love it, Connie.
To all our readers, look to the right of the page -- Connie's book. I will be buying one, and I urge you to do the same.
Check out Hammer Films' Christopher Lee as Dracula: tall, dark and gruesome! What woman wouldn't want a man like that?
Christopher Lee would chew these modern day wimp vampires to pieces. Talk about scary.
One thing Connie, I think you left out of this. It isn't just the strong man, it is the dangerous man/vampire/warewolf that draws the attraction.
It's the bad boys that give the tingles. And the idea of taming the bad boy, which never really happens in real life.
You always here "why can't I find a nice guy", when those same women always walk past that nice guy and head for the bad boy that will drop them like a lit stick of dynamite.
Ah, but Steve, you see, they have a cut-and-paste answer for that, which is that any guy who complains about it obviously isn't truly a nice guy after all!
This of course doesn't answer
1. why they don't pursue the GENUINELY nice guys out there, who aren't asking the question, and
2. why they pursue the 'bad boys' who are more prone to domestic violence etc.
It's a sidestep - note how they don't address the question, but instead attack the questioner, even though the subject at hand goes far beyond the questioner's character. It is, after all, a question about women IN GENERAL, so an attack on one man SPECIFICALLY is by no means a valid response.
Imo, it simply avoids confronting the truth about female sexuality.
No arguing anon. What is most disturbing about the twilight series, is that it is aimed and teen/pre-teen girls. And they are glorifying the "get with the violent bad boy, because he really has a heart of gold, it just takes a caring girl/woman to bring it out", BS.
This type of fantasy, is going to get a lot of girls/women hurt, for they buy into that fantasy with gusto, and honestly, I'm going to sit back and feel no pity when it happens.
Of course there's the True Blood vampires on HBO ....
http://s660.photobucket.com/albums/uu326/megdays/Vampires/?action=view¤t=True-Blood-vampires_l.jpg¤ttag=Alexander%20Skargard
Modern Gender / Raunch feminism does not sow hatred for all men..just the hetero-sexual men.
How "Empowered" is society gonna let these deviants get??
I don't have a credit card :( Is the book in book stores by chance?
Falsely Accused Soldier
Actually Connie on this one you were half on the mark. Or maybe I just misconstrued your article.
Almost everything feminist I have bumped into online has been anti-twilight. All of the youtube response videos from people who claim to be feminists hate it.
Usually its something along the lines of Paedophilia. A hundred year old vampire loving a 18 year old girl, OH MY!!! That is so representative of child predation in our current times(I am being sarcastic btw). The funny thing is too it was written by a woman.
Another stream of thought was Bella the female main character, needing a man as much as she needed Edward the male main character. Some videos I saw even went so far as too say that the Author Stephanie Myers was an oppressed woman. The reason they claim was she apparently had children and got married at a young age. They go so far as to say she never got to experience life without a man. I never looked into there claims about her marital status or whether or not she has kids. I assume since I have seen this more than once that she does.
What I never understood was what this had to do with a fictional vampire story. I have seen all the twilight movies, and find them mildly interesting. I mostly go to them for something to do on an early friday afternoon(I am off on friday). I just can't wrap my mind around it.
Bashing these movies with anything to do with real life is ridicolous. It would be like me saying Harry Potter is racist because only humans can have wands. Or Snow White and the Seven Dwarves is about Paedophilia or "insert random rape culture thing here."
If these movies were so offensive to women, you'd think the women would just stop watching them.
Apparently they don't know what's good for them!
On Vampires, Sex and the New Fascism:
http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/vampires-sex-and-new-fascism-10422
Here's another one:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.157314-Vampires-and-Sexuality
Quote from the article:
"Gone are the days when vampires preyed on young girls, corrupting them, and eventually killing them (well, not really, but I'll get back to that). It's no longer about vampires as the hunters, or at least not when it comes to the protagonist vampires. The protagonist vampires are good guys, trapped in bodies which force them to either do terrible things, or want to do terrible things. Vampire protagonists are trapped between their desire to be "normal" and good humans, and the fact that they want to simply give into their desires.
Ex: Angel from Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Thomas from The Dresden Files, Seras Victoria from Hellsing, and many others along the same lines.
The villain vampire, on the other hand, is much closer to the Dracula style. Corrupting, taking advantage of, and eventually destroying, women. But, it's now told not from the perspective of "the dangers of female sexuality" but from the perspective of "the evils of male sexuality". The vampires are cast as simple evil, and the women as pure victims. The vampire can be charming, but it's all a sinister act, belying the corruption at the center, the desire to use and mistreat women for his own pleasure. Not always women, necessarily, but it's all about people using each other, manipulating each other."
It is no wonder that false accusations are occurring more often when the collective unconscious has been infiltrated with the injunction that "all women and children are victims and need to be protected from men" -- this false belief comes out of the unconscious in the form of art: literature, film, photography, painting, and sculpture. Obviously it also affects law. What we do here each day at FRS will send new messages that will permeate the collective unconscious and popular culture: we are changing beliefs and values one mind at a time.
The pendulum of equality will eventually recenter. The granting of anonymity for those accused in rape cases in the UK shows that this process of re-centering is already underway. Overcoming false belief systems and deprogramming those who have become indoctrinated takes time. Reason must always prevail over passion. Until then, watch your backs (and your necks).
Imho, attributing the popularity of vampire stories to "misandry, brought to you by feminism" is quite a stretch. In both Twilight and True Blood, many of the morally good characters are male, and many of the morally evil characters are female. Twilight is even an example an the horror movie cliche of the father as the good policeman (eg. Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc.)
"Is it really coincidental, then, that the ascendency of sexy vampires in novels and movies coincides with the after-effects of second-wave feminism with its element of egregious man-hating?"
Except that the popularity of sexy vampires pre-dates second-wave feminism by more than a century. While many credit Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, Dracula, where the primary antagonist is a charming and seductive aristocrat, as being the most influential of the modern genre, it was not the first. In 1819, John William Polidori wrote an extremely popular short story, The Vampyre, about suave and mysterious nobleman who easily seduces women, that lead to numerous editions, translations, and adaptations, including Charles Nodier's hugely successful 1851 play, Le Vampire. Which sparked a vampire craze across Europe, with many other famous authors writing similar stories, and the production several other plays and operas, all about sexy vampires. Even in Emily Bronte's 1847 romantic novel, Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff is suspected by his housekeeper of being a vampire. Which was a year before Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her 1848 Seneca Falls convention, the birth of first-wave feminism.
In comparison, the depiction of vampires as unattractive monsters is both uncommon and relatively new, and afaik, originated with the 1922 film, Nosferatu. While that bald pointy-eared look was repeated in Stephen King's Salem's Lot and a few other stories, overall it is an exception to the way most vampires have been portrayed for almost 200 years. Whether it's films based on Anne Rice's books, or the Blade trilogy, in general, vampires are generally good-looking. Even if they weren't teenage heartthrob material, the character's portrayed Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee were at least very well dressed.
If there is any comparison between rape culture and vampires, it's that both appeal to the fantasies of many women, and neither exist in reality.
I have to agree for the most part with anonymous from 4:45am and 10:29am. Vampires have not traditionally been ugly, hideous monsters. My two favorites, Dracula and Barnabus Collins (from the orginal Dark Shadows) were attractive, charming, and charismatic men. Women desired them just as they do the more modern versions from Twilight. Barbabus Collins, like Edward Cullen, did not wish to prey on humans, and hunted animals instead. But there is a huge difference between them.
The vampire represents the very essence of male sexuality and power. The are eternal. They are nearly invincible. And women cannot resist them. They symbolize everything that man hating feminists love to hate about men.
When I was a kid, vampires appealed primarily to teenage boys. We recognized and desired their raw sexuality, even if that recognition was on an unconscious level. Girls, in general, were disgusted by them. They too, recognized the symbolic threat and oppressive nature of the vampire.
Today's vampire still represents male sexuality, but his appeal is is now geared more for teenage girls than boys. This is because the vampire is no longer in control. The female still finds him irresistable, but he no longer holds the power in the relationship. It is the female character who charms the vampire. She tames the beast and when she can't she is often shown to have the power to kill him (Buffy).
Modern vampire stories are now about female sexuality and the power women have in relationships with men. Feminists probably still don't care much for the vampire because he still represents male sexuality, and that is threatening to them. But the appeal of the vampire to teenage girls is based on the ability of the heroine to control the vampire, and thus control male sexuality.
TDOM
The pendulum of equality will eventually recenter. The granting of anonymity for those accused in rape cases in the UK shows that this process of re-centering is already underway.
***
I don't believe there is any such thing as a "pendulum of equality," much less that it's now swinging back in the right direction. That's wishful thinking, in my humble opinion.
Based on all of the evidence I've seen -- ranging from special victim status for rape claimants to slap on the wrist or Get Out of Jail Free treatment for rape liars, 86% of domestic spending being controlled by women, women being unemployed at a substantially lower rate than men, 13 out of 15 fastest growing professions being dominated by women, etc, etc, etc -- I believe that the balance has permanently shifted in favor of women, and that we are now looking at permanent second class citizenship for men.
Of course, so far men haven't done much about any of this. So there is hope, but let's not cling to any illusions that there will be anything automatic about achieving justice for men. There won't be.
Archivist, thanks for the comment on the article, and for helping me get the word out about my book.
Steve, I have never, ever understood the fascination some women have with bad boys, going way back to my youth. Only once did I have a bad-boy boyfriend (I was about 14, maybe) and I lost interest in him, in fact, I developed an aversion to him, in a matter of weeks.
Other than that, no matter how popular, good-looking, etc., they were, there was a sort of gross-out factor operating in bad boys. Maybe it was my raising as a preacher's kid, and the good boys I grew up with, but I've always found goodness and nobility far more appealing.
No man is all one or all the other; so maybe bad boys have some redeeming qualities, but I sure wouldn't have the patience to hunt for them or put up with the negative until the positive surfaced. There are too many good, decent men out there (being ignored or put down) to waste time on jerks. IMHO.
Also, regarding Twilight, I've read more than once that it is the mamas of teen/preteen girls who are so obsessed with the series, to the point of neglecting their families. Having never seen nor read it, I find the appeal unfathomable.
The absolute best anonymous logline I've seen for Eclipse is "A teenage girl must choose between necrophilia and bestiality." Ha! I wish I knew who to credit that to.
Anon at 2:47, I think you're right that feminists are anti-Twilight, for the most part. That probably explains the blogs I've run into by female Twilight-obsessees trying to argue that the series isn't "anti-feminist" because Bella is in charge of her own choices. (Smirk.)
But regardless of my personal disinterest in Twilight, or the current vampire/romance hero trend, the fact is, popular culture has an enormous impact on society. That's why I decided to write novels.
Conservatives and traditionalists have pretty much overlooked using fiction and drama, while the other side has used them, with stunning impact and effectiveness, for decades.
How much impact an unknown novelist selling on Amazon.com will have remains to be seen, but I had to do something.
Anon at 1:23, the book is not in bookstores, but it is available at Barnes and Noble online. I think you can go into one of their brick and mortar stores and buy a B&N gift card and use it for an online purchase.
Thanks for asking and I do hope I can get the book into bookstores eventually(just as the existence of bookstores is on the way out, alas).
"The absolute best anonymous logline I've seen for Eclipse is "A teenage girl must choose between necrophilia and bestiality." Ha! I wish I knew who to credit that to."
Hamish and Andy from a local radio station used that one.
Personally, I enjoyed the Twilight saga. Fluff reading, and Edward is a real gentleman. Feminists hate Twilight, from memory, and I just don't get it.
For the record - the Twilight saga has an awesome relationship between Bella and her father, who didn't have primary custody of her for a very long time. I loved that, and Glenn Sacks put up a piece I wrote on it some time back.
To be sure, I don't entirely blame women for not going for nice guys, inasmuch as a lot of 'nice guys' are boring. By 'nice guys', I mean guys who are conventional, PC, never tell an off-color joke, faux-sensitive and fashionably progressive when it comes to gender relations and the like, believe that global warming is the gravest moral challenge facing mankind etc.etc.
Some of my best friends are lovable rogues with checkered pasts, while I wouldn't bother having a drink with some of the more boy scout types I know.
For the record - the Twilight saga has an awesome relationship between Bella and her father, who didn't have primary custody of her for a very long time.
***
Thus explaining why feminists hate Twilight.
@Connie Chastain
"[...]feminism's drive toward this unachievable goal has made it unpopular, even offensive, for a woman to admire and love a man, particularly a strong one."
Unless by "strong" you mean violent and abusive (which I don't think you do), I have never in my life seen any evidence of this. Quite the contrary actually. Women are generally encouraged to love men, particularly (but not necessarily) strong ones. Indeed, thinking about all the popular 'heartthrobs', they tend to be strong, sexy, dominant men, not weak and submissive. Yes, there are movements extolling the virtues of being a single, independent woman, but the longterm goal seems to generally be to find a man and women who fail to do this are usually looked down on and seen as having something missing from their lives. Living in the UK, these have been my experiences.
I'm wondering if you could expand on what you meant by the above quotation because I'm struggling to think of a single example of women being discouraged from admiring/loving men, let alone this being seen as offensive.
Are you kidding? Everything that comes out of a feminist's mouth is an attack against strong men and the women who support them.
You're very confused if you think that the men women read about in romance novels have anything to do with feminist ideals of manhood (up to and including wiping men out completely).
What women want as revealed by their cultural choices and what feminists advocate are two completely different things. Feminists are a uniquely perverted type of woman, who are and always have been at war with the women who make choices that they don't approve.
Well then, it's a good thing I wasn't talking about feminists or what they advocate. If I understood the post correctly (and if I didn't, I apologise, but it seems to be the premise of the whole article), it said that it has become "unpopular, even offensive" in society in general for women to love (strong) men due to the influence of feminism. This intrigued me because I've seen absolutely no evidence of this and so I'd appreciate it if the author would elaborate. I hadn't actually thought about romance novels, but I suppose yes they too provide evidence of the attitude of society in general towards relationships. I was thinking of popular culture (magazines, TV programmes, films etc), my life experiences and those of the people I know and everything I've read online. Clearly, my own experience is limited, as is everyone's, but if it really was so unpopular for women to love men, surely I'd have seen some evidence of this, rather than masses of evidence of the exact opposite.
You seem to be saying merely that some people hold these views, in which case I of course agree. I'd just like to point out though that these are extreme marginal groups. Feminism at its core is about promoting equality between the sexes and giving women choices, not hating men or fighting the choices of other women. The thing is that, all in all, equality has largely been achieved in this part of the world* so those who actually describe themselves as feminists may often be radical feminists. These are what you're describing, particularly separatist feminists who don't believe in heterosexual relationships. These groups and the misandry they engage in is against the original goals of feminism. (And no, I wouldn't describe myself as a feminist).
*(I realise that some groups will argue there is still a long way to go towards equality for women, while others like many on this site will argue the opposite, that men are now oppressed. However, I don't believe that gender oppression is a major problem today in this part of the world - and if it were, there wouldn't be so much argument over which is the more disadvantaged sex.)
Nick S, you make a good point. When I say good, decent men, I'm not equating that with being a milquetoast man. Except for the concept of "conventional", the nice guy you describe sounds like a leftist male feminist, and I don't have a lot of admiration for those guys. Michael Kimmel and Alan Alda come to mind as celebrity examples.
It would take pages to fully describe my notion of a man who is good and strong, but here's a quick recap: he knows how/when to mind his own business and how/when to take responsibility--in his personal/family life, on the job, in the community. Such men can be silly (a trait I normally associate with women)--the football fans who paint their torsos in their team's colors come to mind--but they can get serious in a heartbeat. They experience emotions, which is what connects them with the rest of humanity, but they don't showcase them. As an example, I've seen lots of women cry on the job, but never, ever a man. (Incidently, I don't hold that against women; men and women are different.). Strong, good and decent can encompass a plethora of male personality types.
Anonymous at 6:03, maybe things are different in the UK, but in the USA women have been told they need a man like a fish needs a bicycle. When I say strong men, I'm talking about what men traditionally have been -- providers, protectors, authorities in their families, leaders in their communities. Feminism has mutated our society so that fewer and fewer men hold such positions and take such roles, and women who want to be a companion, helper and partner to such men are seen as "limiting" themselves, or getting their identity from a man, not from themselves. It was Betty Friedan's "problem with no name."
A lot of women have bought into it.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/01/04/career.relationships/index.html
In the UK women are told they don't need a man to succeed, not that they don't need a man full stop. Women, like men, are the masters of their own wallet. Who would be stupid enough to think that anyone else should provide for us male or female?
Gender difference should be a source of celebration not persecution.
For the record - the Twilight saga has an awesome relationship between Bella and her father, who didn't have primary custody of her for a very long time.
****
wait, really? awesome relationship?
Bella is constantly lying and deceiving her father. how is that a good relationship?
@Connie Chastain
Thank you for replying to my comment. I appreciate it. I wonder if the sentiment behind the fish and bicycles comment was that women don't need to be dependent on men, as a backlash against centuries of this. On the other hand, the choice of metaphor implies men are completely unnecessary... Do you think this is a mainstream view? (I don't think women prioritising their careers while they're young equates to them thinking men are unnecessary. Indeed, there's a big difference between not needing a man (i.e. being able to cope without one) and thinking men in general are unnecessary and being against the idea of loving or admiring a man.)
I think the most prevalent idea in the UK is that women can have it all - a career and a family. (I also agree with what anon at 11:12 said). Thinking about it though, women rarely have more prominent careers than their husbands. When instances of this are portrayed in the media (mostly American TV shows, come to think of it), it tends to be shown as creating dischord in the household, though I don't think the women are shown to be in the wrong for this (and I don't believe they are).
I'm interested you say fewer and fewer men are taking leadership positions. After all, the vast majority of these positions (politicians, CEOs, headteachers etc) are still held by men. Do you see it as a bad thing that these positions are now also open to women?
I can see what you mean about women being accused of getting their identity from a man by devoting themselves to supporting their husbands. Personally I think some people are overly sensitive to things like this. I believe in everyone having the same opportunities, but how they choose to live their lives is their prerogative - whether that's as a devoted housewife or an independent career woman.
"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle," is attributed variously to Irina Dunn or Gloria Steinem. It is not a mainstream view and not everyone agrees with it, but it's more prevalent now that it was in my mother's generation.
Radical feminists do believe men are unnecessary--indeed, that they're menacing. Surely you've heard that testosterone has poisoned the world; that it makes men aggressors, that war, domestic violence and rape are the products of men's aggressiveness, and without men, there would be no war, no crime, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_poisoning
Men still hold most of the positions of leadership--thank goodness, or the whole culture would be going down the drain--but women are occupying more of them all the time. They already outnumber men in the university and the workplace.
This article will illustrate what I'm talking about. Writing in The Atlantic, feminist Hanna Rosin says it's "The End of Men." http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/
William Tucker rebuts Rosin in :The End of Men, the Beginning of What?" http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/07/the-end-of-men-the-beginning-o
Read especially the last five paragraphs of Tucker's essay.
I don't know about the UK, but a great many men still holding positions of leadership, particularly in academics and politic, cater to the feminist view and the feminist agenda, unfortunately.That is mostly where women are discouraged from loving relationships with men. That, and the popular culture -- TV, movies, magazines, novels--that portray strong men as brutal and abusive (or nonhuman), and non-aggressive human men as weak or idiotic.
Feminists may say they support a woman doing what she chooses, even it it is choosing the role of being some man's wife and some kid's mother--but they'll let you know, subtly or blatantly, that such women are limiting themselves and aren't the equal of high-powered lawyer-women or corporate-executive women, etc.
Years ago, I read something I've been trying to track down again for a long time, some feminist saying that doing housework for a husband and kids atrophies a woman's brain.
Yes, I mentioned radical and separatist feminists in my second post and their beliefs. The definition of feminism however is advocating equal rights for women. Is this what you mean when you say men in positions of power often cater to the feminist agenda? If so, I'm confused as to why you see this as a bad thing. Do you think women should work at all or just not hold leadership positions?
Thanks for the articles. I read the Tucker one and most of the Rosin one. I was going to ask you about all these movies and novels portraying men as brutal or idiotic and discouraging relationships with them, but the Rosin essay had a few examples. Although the essay portrays a world I don't recognise, I can see what you mean now. In both articles, the level of contempt for the opposite sex (particularly in the Rosin one) and their intent on claiming their gender's supremacy is quite disturbing. While there are differences between men and women, I think both, particularly Tucker, focus on them too much. One would almost be led to believe that one's personality was entirely determined by one's gender and that all men are expected to have this ideal masculine persona. I think actually, in real life and in popular culture, everyone is just far too different to be defined by such narrow stereotypes.
The dictionary definition of feminism and what it really amounts to are quite different. Feminism is about sticking it to men under the guise of advocating equal rights for women. It's about female supremacy and get-evenism. It's about women who hate men but who, paradoxically, want to be more like them.
I support women's rights; I do not support feminism.
Couple of examples of how males in the establishment cater to a very destructive feminist agenda.
Feminist Carol Gilligan, whose work was responsible for making schools in the United States hostile to the way boys learn.
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0208roberts.html
Here's the legislation that did it:
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg86.html
Now there is a boy-crisis in education (and in more than just education).
Then there's the Title Nining of college sports--
http://www.nysun.com/arts/androgyny-lie-lives/16170/
If women want to work, that's fine with me. I've worked since I was seventeen. But leadership is a male characteristic. Certainly some women can lead, and some men can't, just as some men are better than some women at nurturing children. But far more men than women possess the ability to lead.
I don't think personality is determined entirely by gender but gender has a huge affect on personality. Also, I don't expect all men to have some ideal masculine persona. Maleness encompasses all sorts of personality types.
Sex/gender is not a stereotype. It is very fundamental aspect of human existence. "Male and female created He them."
I'm going to repeat what I said in an earlier post on this article, that feminism at its core is about equality and that was what the early feminists fought for. Now however, women generally have equal rights so for most people, describing themselves as feminists is basically redundant (in my view anyway). That means those who still describe themselves as feminists tend to be radical/separatist feminists who believe in women's supremacy. So I effectively agree with you on this in practice (I think), I just find it sad to see how these people (the radicals) have corrupted the original feminist doctrine and made feminism something to be reviled rather than celebrated.
The Title IX thing is bizarre. I saw that in the Tucker article but thought it might be misrepresented given the biased source because it seemed so unbelievable. Having looked it up, it sounds like Title IX is a good thing in principle, but in practice, equal opportunities are being confused with forced equal outcomes so opportunites are actually being reduced. ...I can see why there's so much hate for feminism about.
The rest is fair enough. I didn't mean that sex/gender itself is a stereotype, just this masculine ideal (and what you said about strong men being portrayed as brutal and non-aggressive men being portrayed as idiotic - which is actually what I had in mind when I wrote that bit). I just don't see any of that when I look at the men on TV or in real life. I see lots of very different individuals. (We haven't really talked about the personalities of women). That's what I was trying to get across. I wasn't really making a point, just reacting to the articles and that was where my train of thought led.
I would like to exchange links with your site www.blogger.com
Is this possible?
Post a Comment