41–50 of 92 posts
I think sometimes women do things to be different or to protect themselves. Like straight girls in high school claiming they are bisexual when they are not. It makes them different, but it also might serve as a defense mechanism for some people and situations.
Sex coach and educator Violet Turning, 24, also points out the “fetishisation” of two women having sex or making out, specifically under the male gaze. It’s made same-sexual attraction between women more socially acceptable, albeit for the wrong reasons. Meanwhile, people seem to find notions of two men having sex far less palatable. A 2019 study that looked at attitudes toward gay men and women in 23 countries found…
> It can’t be that heterosexual men are more tolerant and accepting of bisexual women than heterosexual women are of bisexual men. Granted I'm basing this solely on my experience having grown up a heterosexual man, but that explanation seems absurd. By and large, it has not been the women who have been intolerant of homosexual men, but rather other men.
I've known several straight women who absolutely refuse to date bisexual men, or any man that has shown any bisexual tendencies.
I don't know any guys who would refuse to date a woman just because she's had sex with a woman at some point in the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I think this is a consequence of there being a female-focussed feminist movement, but not an equivalent movement focussed around male empowerment. There is an equivalent movement for males. Unfortunately it's been entirely co-opted by red-pillers and incels, and rejects feminism and its arguments categorically.
Yes. I guess I don't really consider those an equivalent, but something else entirely. While feminism is all about self-reflection and questioning traditional narratives, these movements seem to be mostly about doubling down on them.
edit: I just realized between those comments I said the modern men' rights movement is both equivalent and not equivalent to modern feminism. What I mean is, they're equivalent in the way apples and oranges are both equivalent as fruits. They fill the same roles but are otherwise entirely different.
And it's ironic, because the mens' rights movement coined the term "toxic masculinity," and it has its roots in traditional masculine/chivalrous ideals and teachings, but now modern MRAs consider it to be nothing but a slur. It's like masculine culture becomes more defensive the further feminism encroaches into its traditional domain.
Sex coach and educator Violet Turning, 24, also points out the “fetishisation” of two women having sex or making out, specifically under the male gaze. It’s made same-sexual attraction between women more socially acceptable, albeit for the wrong reasons. Meanwhile, people seem to find notions of two men having sex far less palatable. A 2019 study that looked at attitudes toward gay men and women in 23 countries found…
This quote from the article speaks to that: > “Progress has really been made around the female gender role and less around the male gender role,” says Massey. I think this is a consequence of there being a female-focussed feminist movement, but not an equivalent movement focussed around male empowerment. It means that analyses like these are typically done from a female perspective with all the usual implicit biases…
I’m not saying it’s entirely on women but it shouldn’t be controversial to say that women have a role to play, including as expressed by who they choose to be with romantically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This quote from the article speaks to that: > “Progress has really been made around the female gender role and less around the male gender role,” says Massey. I think this is a consequence of there being a female-focussed feminist movement, but not an equivalent movement focussed around male empowerment. It means that analyses like these are typically done from a female perspective with all the usual implicit biases…
I think there’s an unwillingness on the part of feminists to acknowledge that women as a group play a huge role in defining masculinity, even though they critique men’s role in defining femininity. I’m not saying it’s entirely on women but it shouldn’t be controversial to say that women have a role to play, including as expressed by who they choose to be with romantically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think this is a consequence of there being a female-focussed feminist movement, but not an equivalent movement focussed around male empowerment. It means that analyses like these are typically done from a female perspective with all the usual implicit biases that come from that. Yes, in the last few decades we started to see some efforts to create this missing male empowerment movement, but they all seem to end u…
Could it be that traditional gender roles are socially adaptive and comfortable for the majority of men - and for that matter, also for many women who don't necessarily identify with modern social movements? There seems to be an undercurrent of de-humanization in wanting to uncritically jettison such a key part of the lived experience, and one that's even so deeply linked to our very biological makeup as living being…
I think so. But the key word there is majority. I think it might well be a majority, but I don't think it's anything like an overwhelming one (ie.. more like 60% than 99%). That still leaves an awful lot of people for who this organisation doesn't work particularly well.
Women's liberation over the 20th century also shows us that it's very much not a binary thing. Many modern women will embrace femininity when they're dressing up to go out, but also appreciate and take full advantage of the option to wear trousers and adopt more traditionally masculine attitudes when working of exercising.
As someone who doesn't have any inclination towards traditional gender roles, I somewhat question the idea that they are linked to our biological makeup. Or at least, I think it needs to be recognised that it is not as simple as men having one set of inclinations and women another. And I think it's quite important that society recognises this and gives people the flexibility to do as they want to not as their gender roles tell them they should do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there’s an unwillingness on the part of feminists to acknowledge that women as a group play a huge role in defining masculinity, even though they critique men’s role in defining femininity. I’m not saying it’s entirely on women but it shouldn’t be controversial to say that women have a role to play, including as expressed by who they choose to be with romantically.
The choice of who to be with romantically is often dependent on some sort of sexual attraction, which is notoriously hard to change. This goes for both men and women obviously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could it be that traditional gender roles are socially adaptive and comfortable for the majority of men - and for that matter, also for many women who don't necessarily identify with modern social movements? There seems to be an undercurrent of de-humanization in wanting to uncritically jettison such a key part of the lived experience, and one that's even so deeply linked to our very biological makeup as living being…
> Could it be that traditional gender roles are socially adaptive and comfortable for the majority of men - and for that matter, also for many women I think so. But the key word there is majority . I think it might well be a majority, but I don't think it's anything like an overwhelming one (ie.. more like 60% than 99%). That still leaves an awful lot of people for who this organisation doesn't work particularly well…
Of course there's a lot of variance in how these gender roles might play out individually. Where I see some potential issues and pushback is largely with the common tendency in these movements, of wanting to throw out gender roles altogether. Again, a key majority of people would find this dehumanizing, not freedom-affirming, Many people want to be told what they might comfortably be expected to do, even if they would ultimately also want the right to choose differently. This is just as true for gender roles as for the many other ways of providing some common shared structure to our actions as we conduct ourselves and relate to others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. I guess I don't really consider those an equivalent, but something else entirely. While feminism is all about self-reflection and questioning traditional narratives, these movements seem to be mostly about doubling down on them.
They're not equivalent, but there is no equivalent movement among males of any significance that I'm aware of. edit: I just realized between those comments I said the modern men' rights movement is both equivalent and not equivalent to modern feminism. What I mean is, they're equivalent in the way apples and oranges are both equivalent as fruits. They fill the same roles but are otherwise entirely different. And it's…
Indeed. That was very much my original point. I've thought about trying to start one. But the prospect is rather daunting considering that unless done very carefully, it could well end of offending both feminists and MRAs. Which could lead to some... interesting experiences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there’s an unwillingness on the part of feminists to acknowledge that women as a group play a huge role in defining masculinity, even though they critique men’s role in defining femininity. I’m not saying it’s entirely on women but it shouldn’t be controversial to say that women have a role to play, including as expressed by who they choose to be with romantically.
The choice of who to be with romantically is often dependent on some sort of sexual attraction, which is notoriously hard to change. This goes for both men and women obviously.