Comments on: Mocking Perfect Gender Performances

By: michew

michew — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:56:05 +0000

I would like to say something about men targeting to oppress women etc. Although there is clear oppression, societal bias is it through collective reason. If one believes that men target as mentioned to maintain control and oppress. That same litmus test could also be used with us women. Take abuse of children statistics suggesting that females tend to abuse at higher rates. Appalling as this may seem do we want to targeting oppressor paradigm in feminism? I, my female daughters might be labeled as baby beaters who only seek to hurt children, NOT (LOL). My son, is he soon to be labeled an oppressor? He after all is the new improved man.
Suppose all the men or males of this world are purposefully working against us.
Do others like myself wonder, who is in charge? How did they teach other males to follow through, multitask, complete tasks after asking once? Forward skills to be further employed here at home :o)

By: Simone Lovelace

Simone Lovelace — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 03:09:39 +0000

Maybe you should contribute something insightful about the sociology of men??

By: Simone Lovelace

Simone Lovelace — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 03:02:31 +0000

Well, if we live in a culture that tends to prioritize men’s needs over women’s, then that is something we should recognize and address, no? Otherwise, “gender-blind” efforts to eradicate sexism will probably end up unintentionally favoring men…

By: Simone Lovelace

Simone Lovelace — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 02:59:36 +0000

Critique and denigration are two separate things.

Well-placed, incisive critiques of specific aspects of feminism can certainly be valuable.

Sweeping, unsubstantiated generalization about feminism in general, however, are not–especially when they are phrased in a disrespectful or dismissive way.

By: Keeley

Keeley — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:40:37 +0000

I don’t know if this is entirely true. My older brother spends significantly more time on his less-than-inch-long hair than I do on my shoulder-length hair, ion part because he needs to be sure it looks like he hasn’t spent any time on it when he’s done.

By: Keeley

Keeley — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:38:36 +0000

If by “troll” you mean “disagree” then I suppose your comment makes sense. Jake’s post seems reasonably well-thought-outa nd not a knee-jerk reaction. You may disagreee, andI myself am not on board, but Istill think his perspective is valid and worth addressing as something more than trolling.

By: aerdna

aerdna — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:20:41 +0000

Try doing a Google search for:

“passive voice” media rape

You will find a lot of resources, like this one:

http://www.womankind.org.uk/upload/Countering%20Public%20Narratives%20of%20Sexual%20Violence%20Mar%2003%20new.doc

By: aerdna

aerdna — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:15:56 +0000

“. . . but women face a double bind where either under-performing or over-performing femininity can lead to being selected as a target for violence.”

Here’s a bit of an improvement: Women are a target for violence.

Here’s an even better one: Men target women for violence.

There is no perfect performance of femininity that excludes a woman from misogyny. That is the point. These concepts are related but are not the same. The “femininity double-bind” points out specific punishments, not the terms of misogyny itself.

It is not a woman’s performance (actions) that leads to rape and partner violence. It is the rapists’ and abusers’ actions.

Your attempt to analogize men’s systemic misogynist acts and men’s dangerous behavior is a failure. Certainly, they’re related — more closely than you think. All you’re really pointing out is that men perpetrate violence toward themselves, each other, and toward women.

And that is correct.

If you’re arguing that fast cars commit violence against men, that sports commit violence against men, that skateboards commit violence against men, then you should also assert that vaginas commit violence against women, that beds commit violence against women, that guns commit violence against women.

And you know where that’s going. As we say in the southern US: “Guns don’t kill people. I do.” Hyuck hyuck.

By: Bagelsan

Bagelsan — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 01:33:45 +0000

That’s what jumped out at me, too. My initial read was “…is he trading in his girlfriend for a gadget?” (not an unheard of ad gimmick by any means.)

By: Bagelsan

Bagelsan — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:37:10 +0000

A key difference is that men do at least have the option of choosing not to engage in risk-taking behavior (even though the consequence is getting called a fag), but women face a double bind where either under-performing or over-performing femininity can lead to being selected as a target for violence. I think that this "key difference" is key enough so that you really can't call the risks comparable at all.

By: Bagelsan

Bagelsan — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:28:57 +0000

By: This Week: Women’s Suffrage, Black Women’s Health & more |

This Week: Women’s Suffrage, Black Women’s Health & more | — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:22:12 +0000

[…] Mocking Perfect Gender Performances […]

By: Perseus

Perseus — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:59:16 +0000

Please. If you’re advocating for gender equality, then you don’t mock people those who are treated unequal. If you or aerdna are egalitarian feminists then you are both hypocrites for making fun of men’s issues. If someone came here and said “oh you girls have it good, shut up and get back in the kitchen” you’d call them a troll. As far as I can tell, aerdna’s comment is no different, and I am baffled by your support of it.

By: May

May — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:22:16 +0000

Yes, that’s why this ad is so weird. It almost forces a woman looking at the ad to hate the woman sitting in front of her. In a way, trying to promote woman hating on woman.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:19:18 +0000

I would say yes.