Gender, power, feminism, patriarchy...

It's not as easy as you seem to think for women to just put on their "big girl panties" (my, my, I'm having fun with quotation marks today!) and roll with the punches of being rejected possibly by family and/or society. I suppose I'm thinking more of lesser countries where women have no rights at all and are treated like dirt, where, no, there is no choice.

Well, if you want to get technical and say there is always a choice, alright. Do you remember the rape law in Afghanistan where a woman is to be legally forced to have sex with her husband? She has two choices: a) have sex with him as the law says she should or b) refuse. The consequence of the first choice is that she will be forced to have sex, no matter what. The consequence of the second choice is starvation. So it's either be raped or starve. We're back with the aoidant-avoidant conflict again.

In North America, on the other hand, though we have civil rights history to, hopefully, avoid such a law passing through, there are still unwanted consequences from picking two undesirable things. I'll agree that my wording was bad, but I stand by what I said earlier. Most of the time, women "stuck" in an unhealthy relationship feel they have to stay for their children/acceptance/need to be loved and cared for.

Hope that makes sense. If it doesn't, my apologies. I'm working on four hours of sleep here.

 

@ Ashrynn, sure, I could seek out more books with female characters. Sometimes I do. I think Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment is one of his best books, and it features women in ALL of the key roles, and by the end of the book you find out that all of the lead officers in the nation's army are in fact women. A great read, and a wonderful book that doesn't put women in one role.

What I'm saying is that I shouldn't have to seek out books like that. Women are human beings, and we make up over half of the population. Why is it that this isn't reflected in literature? I write male characters all the time and don't think twice. Why can't men do the same?*

In the end, literature is a reflection of society, and sometimes vice versa. I think that some books, especially in the fantasy genre, are slow on the uptake. Many fantasy books portray men as hardened warriors and women as purely love interests/vengeful bitches. That isn't fair to either sex.

That won't keep me from reading them, though. But it might keep me from writing stories like that, and I think that's what's really important, and something worth discussing with my fellow authors.

Sorry, I just like to complain and let out my inner feminist.



*not that I'm implying that only men write fantasy novels with all or mostly male casts. Women do it, too.

 

The laws in Afghanistan are certainly an issue and I don't agree with them. I never said I did. I said I am for womens rights and I meant that. That law is wrong.

What I was referring to was the statement that women who cry that they are "stuck" in unhealthy relationships because of their own fear of rejection, their need for acceptance, their need to be loved and cared for (your words), and the belief that raising their children in an unhealthy relationship is what's best for their children can't say that they are "forced" to stay. They're not. They have a choice. They most certainly do need to put on their big girl panties.

In reference to the "big girl panties" not being easy. There are very few people in the world who know that better than me. Sometimes the right thing is the hardest thing.

 

Hmm, I think I hit a nerve. I never implied that you supported such a thing. I used the rape law as a major example of a woman's limited choices in gender-based nations such as Afghanistan.

I respect that. I just don't feel that I should pass judgment onto others because I've never been in a relationship of such a nature. Not all women feel they are capable of doing the hardest thing. Actually, sometimes they don't know which one is right. I know some women who'd rather raise their kid with a bad husband under the misguided notion that the children of divorced parents are so-and-so percent more likely to insert negative thing here. There are also other women who feel they won't survive without that "other half" in their lives because they don't think they're strong enough to stand on their own two feet.

But I suppose you're right. There are choices, albeit hard ones. However, in places where women's rights are limited, some choices simply cannot be considered.

 

Well, yes. Wasn't that your intention? I think though that there's a fairly large difference between a gender-based nation like Afghanistan and a country like America, where there are women's shelters everywhere and domestic violence hotlines, posters, and tv shows everywhere you look.

And this is precisely my point. We can't blame men because we can't pull it together. There are assholes everywhere (male and female) and while they are most certainly responsible for their actions, we are responsible for ours. So if we as women choose to believe that a child growing up in an abusive household is better than growing up with a single mother who works her ass off, that is, in fact, a choice. It is not an obligation to stay in a relationship where you are abused (at least not here, I'm not talking about places like Afghanistan) and when we decide to do so we are stomping on everything the womens rights movement fought for. We are teaching our daughters to do the same, that it's supposed to be this way, that it's okay to be abused, humiliated, and demoralized. We are teaching our sons that they should expect subservience, meekness, and dependence. We are doing them no favors, on either side.

On that, at least, we can agree.

 

I've been trying to stay out of this discussion, cuz omg, some of the stuff here...but I really have an issue with this kind of thinking. Blaming the victim is never okay, and that's basically what this philosophy amounts to; if a woman stays in an abusive relationship, it's her fault for not choosing to leave. I don't know what your experience with these kinds of relationships is, but as someone who's seen friends and family go through them, I can tell you that it's never as simple as you're making it out to be. It's easy from the outside to say, oh, you're too dependent, you're being abused, you need to leave, but from the inside, it's a whole other picture. As I assume any adult would know, emotions aren't black and white, and relationships are never as simple as good or bad. The kinds of behaviours that lead to the situations we're discussing are often the kinds of things that tend to build over long periods, during which time dependence can develop, and by the time the relationship becomes unhealthy, it can be difficult for the affected partners to recognise the problems, yet alone address them, or decide to do something as drastic as walk out. The victims of this kind of abuse are not, in any circumstances responsible for their abuse. They need help and support, not to be told they deserve it for not leaving sooner.

 

I never said they were responsible for their abuse. I never said the victim should be blamed. I said that staying is their responsibilty and that they have to take the credit for that. I spent 9 years with an abusive father (you know the kind of thing where you can't leave and of course I'm not in any way suggesting that I should be responsible for that, but it would have been helpful if my mother took us and left) and then 8 years in an abusive relationship. I've had almost every bone in my body broken at least once. I know what abuse is. I know how hard it is to get out, to walk away. I know what you go through. I know what they do to you, what it does to you. I walked away with nothing but the clothes on my back and a three month old son. I never said anyone deserved anything. I said that we can't blame everything on the men when we raise our daughters to think this is alright. I watched my mother live it, I watched my sister live it, I lived it. Over and over. My children won't be raised that way. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Saying that staying in an abusive relationship is their responsibility is tantamount to saying that the abuse is their responsibility. These victims often have no agency at all in their relationships. It isn't something that is actively taught, it isn't something that is acknowledged as an ideal model for what a relationship is. I respect what you've gone through, but I still don't agree with the way you're assigning responsibility.

 

Okay, how do they not have any responsibility? It isn't something that is actively taught? So children raised in an abusive household aren't more likely to be abused or abusers themselves? Of course it's not acknowledged as an ideal model, it's shoved under the rug and bolted behind doors. Don't get in the middle, don't make anyone jumpy, and whatever you do don't make anyone uncomfortable. Women do not have police officers at their disposal (I know you're not in the US, but is it that much different?) who they call and then refuse to press charges? Then they get a free pass because they're abused.

 

I don't want to get into your situation specifically (or mine), but when the victims of these relationships are abused, intimidated and manipulated as they are, it isn't their responsibility to break that cycle. Putting that responsibility on them creates the scenario where the victim becomes the one blamed for the abuse (by implicitly condoning it by staying or not taking action). It's equally unfair, in my opinion, to blame the parents for 'teaching' the children that kind of behaviour (not that teaching is the correct way to phrase it, in my opinion; just because the child absorbs it, doesn't mean it can be phrased in terms of something being taught by the parent). As I said before, it's easy to objectively critique these things, or consider them in hindsight, but the psychological and emotional manipulation involved in these relationships makes that kind of objectivity all but impossible.

 

I just don't agree. I'm sorry. I don't know who else is going to step in and break the cycle for them or whose responsibility it should be that our children "absorb" this mentality then. I haven't seen any white knights running around lately. It seems pretty clear to me.

I can't say that the emotional manipulation involved in them makes objectivity impossible. I just can't. For reasons already stated. I think you can ignore it, but you know it's not right. You can let them beat you down, but there's always that little voice in the back of your head.

(and I took out the personal details of my last post since you hadn't quoted it. I apologize for making it personal. My intention was only to show that I've been there so I think I have a pretty good idea what it's like)

 

I find this very similar to economic conscription versus voluntarism. I won't get into why, it would take far too long to explain here right now, but PM me if you want more.
In the meantime, okay, the problem with blaming the victim is that the victim usually doesn't have a way out, in a sense. Now, I understand, people do need to mature. However, the problem is that not only do these people get dependency on their abusers at times, but you also get a psychological situation which while it can be helped from a technical point of you, defacto wise can not. Battered Women's Syndrome is an example of this.

 

In all the cases I've witness or been involved in personally, it's been supportive friends or family who've intervened to break the cycle and provide a safe way out. Placing the responsibility on the victim makes that kind of reliance on external intervention seem like weakness, which I definitely don't think is accurate or fair. As for the passing on of those behaviours to children, I don't really see a need to assign responsibility to anyone other than the abuser. Blame and guilt simply aren't productive in this context. I doubt the victim intended the child to learn the behaviour from them, but given the situation, they simply don't have the power to stop it. If you want to frame that in terms of parental responsibility, that's your prerogative, but it isn't one I share.

 

Well I guess not everyone has a family member or friend to do that. Also there are shelters, hotlines, etc. as I already stated so I think waiting for someone to save you is not always needed. We just disagree. That's okay. I can live with that. I am not saying to walk around telling people they're idiots or something, which I think is how this is turning out to look. My home is always open to friends and family, as is my ear, and I am surprisingly non-judgemental in that situation. I just think that women (or men) who are abused shouldn't always just get a free pass. You have to acknowledge your part in your life, you know? You can't be a victim forever. I'm not trying to change your mind (I know I couldn't anyway) but I'm not going to change mine either.

 

Bill isn't smart.

Women are not weak. They also have movies that mock men and penis more than they have movies that mock women and their breast. This equality jazz, is just that...jazz.

When they list what happens to people when they take it in commercials those are almost always one person who's had that happened more so than most. They are obligated to list problems ONE person has in case it might happen to someone else.

And women's studies, as I read this thread, is like a reeducation camp. It acts as if women are mistreated and if anyone thinks that...they don't live in reality.

Or they might be right, but only in politics.

 

The reason why an ideal relationship isn't taught by most people is because most people are far too PC to state how a real relationship should be. They're under the worldly impression that every relationship has it's positives and negatives and therefore none are better than any.

I agree that people are in abusive relationships have the responsibility to break that cycle. If they go around going woe is me all the time, then they're no better.

My father had an abusive father and my father broke the cycle. He gets mad. And his mad is very, very mad...and it's noticeable. Some might find his mad to be bad, but within context it's far more reserved than he was taught...way different than just night and day.

In every situation there is blame to go around. No one is 100% blameless no matter the situation. if you are ever in a situation that you're 100% blameless, that means there's nothing to learn. Whatever happened you didn't even play a part in. Meaning you'll fall victim to it again no matter what you do...which is not the case. Every situation has something one can learn, which shows that there is blame to go around.

Meaning if you get caught up in a robbery because you walked down a certain street...do you go out of your way to take that route again or do you find a better way? This showing you shared some of the blame for the robbery occurring. Had you paid attention to your surroundings, you might not have ran into the robber. It's not to blame the victim making it where the attacker is lured in mindlessly. It's showing that though one might be a victim they had the power to prevent it if they knew how to do so...and now that they know, shouldn't they use that to prevent it from occurring again?

-----
On a different note, if women and men are equal or men are far more equal than women...why are there more women's shelters than there are men's?

 

I'm sorry, but if you really believe that sexual equality exists and that women aren't mistreated as a result of institualised sexism, then you're delusional. In almost any area where men and women can be reasonably compared, it's clear that women have not been granted an equal place in society. Men still earn more on average (especially in Europe and Britain) and rise higher within companies (just 3 Fortune 500 CEO's were women in 2009). Only one-third of countries have achieved gender parity up to the secondary school level, and of the world's illiterate population, two thirds are women. During the economic crisis, complaints of discrimination against women (despite anti-discrimination laws supposedly remaining in effect) have risen sharply (as they have against ethnic minorities too). Women hold less than 20% of political seats, etc, etc, etc.

 

I can't even begin to respond to your post or I'd just get too angry, but if you really, sincerely believe this, please get professional help (and I don't mean that in an insulting way, I'm saying it out of genuine concern for you and your future partners).

 

The fact that you think that women are mistreated shows you don't see how men are mistreated and you're buying into liberal binding thinking. Where white men are the problem and that's that.

It's unreasonable to think that men are women are on equal ground to begin with. Well that just goes to show you how in the dark ages Europe is. America has a their first women general.

When you make victims of people, they'll live up to it.

People like you keep women down.

You say it out of ignorance. You don't get what I said. You assume it to be the exact opposite of right.

 

Oh and a film that was shown on HBO is about two strong women without focusing on men.

Grey Gardens

Everyone's a victim. That mentality ruins the world.

 

Yes, you're totally right. It's the guys who take women's studies courses, regularly involve themselves in equal rights activism and draw attention to the inequalities of men and women that are the problem. It's my fault that female children are routinely aborted just for being female. It's my fault women are killed for being raped for bringing shame to their families. It's my fault that women aren't allowed to drive, enroll in schools or take jobs in some countries. It's my fault that women are exponentially more likely to be the target of sexual abuse than men. It's my fault that women are less likely to win public offices or top positions in large companies, and that they earn less money even if they do. Women are clearly completely equal to men, what was I thinking?

 

I don't need women's studies to tell me how to treat women.

My mother did that just fine as did my grandmother and my aunts. They don't teach you anything special in those classes other than victimizing people who are not really victims anyway.

It's women's choice...abortion, is it not?

That's a cultural thing. Something that people fight for those to keep when they move to places like America.

No, it's not your fault. It's your mentality that makes it possible. There are people that blame and there are people actually put forth the effort to change things. Then there are those that say they want to change things for the camera or the forum and in their personal life...they do nothing.

No one should need a class on how to treat humans. If you can't treat them right without a class, then you're not going to treat them right after the class.

What has women's studies down for the world? The world still treats women terribly as you so proved yourself.

 

I'm going to assume you're not college age and therefore don't understand what women's studies (or cultural studies in general) comprises, but basically, it takes a critical approach to historical and institutional attitudes towards women. I'm sure you're aware that the place of women in Western society has changed drastically over the past 150 years, and I'm also sure that your last sentence was some kind of joke and you actually are aware of the progress that has been made since Mary Wollstonecraft's writings in the Eighteenth century. Women's studies has nothing to do with how to treat women, it's an analysis of the ways women are treated in society. You keep saying that my 'mentality', whatever you imagine that to be, is what keeps women subjugated in society, but you fail to offer any evidence. I would argue that it's the kind of complacency you demonstrate that keeps women in that position. It shouldn't be newsworthy when a woman becomes 'the first woman to do X' but it is. In 2011. That alone should be a sign that things aren't equal between men and women, and no one is placing women in the role of the victim (unless, as in the situations I described regarding rape and abortion, they are indeed victims), it's simply a fact, and it's a fact that people like me are fighting to change.

In the Western world, women are treated much better now than they were 30 or 40 years ago, and the equality gap is closing, but (maybe you should sit down for this) there is a world outside the developed economies where huge injustices are carried out every day and where women are abused, exploited and discriminated against at a social and institutional level. Everything might be fine for women in whatever Western area you live in, but that doesn't mean that all is right with the world. Acknowledging that women are being victimised (and despite your rabid but baseless claims to the contrary, they ARE being victimised) in many areas of the world is the first step to correcting the problem, not a cause of the problem.

 

You mean a liberal approach. Universities are liberal indoctrination centers. It's why those that have weak minded approaches to life go to have something to "fight" for. Though that fighting never really amounts to much change in their world and that's because they never had the power to do that to begin with.

I don't have complacency. I have contempt for people who claim to want to change the world and don't. All talk and no show makes for a terrible world.

When will there be equal amount of men as nurses? Or in child care? Or as wet nurses?

It's a fact that people like you haven't caused much change and talk way too much.

A world you haven't visited to fight for any of those women. You can't fight for rights from a computer or from thousands of miles away.

 

Jesus, can you really be that ignorant? The breach of human rights is not a liberal or even a political issue. If you really can't understand that, then there's nothing more to say.