(Part 3) Top products from r/AskFeminists

To believe that we already have equality of opportunity would be to believe that it just a coincidence that women “naturally” don’t want to be part of the public places that they were legally banned from for hundreds of years. A much more logical explanation, and one that does not rest on biological and deterministic assumptions about talents/ambitions, is that hundreds and hundreds of years of discrimination has huge effects that will take much more than a few generations to fully understand and correct.

Let’s use politics as an example.

This report explains how gendered socialization can affect political ambitions. More often than men, women are socialized to not have political ambitions. This does not mean that women naturally are less inclined to want to be in politics-- they are actively taught to either give up or never form those ambitions.

Let's say that a woman happens to overcome the socialization that often deters women from having any political ambitions. What happens to the politically ambitious woman? Well, for one thing, the media is 4 times as likely to make comments on her appearance. No big deal, right? What's wrong with complimenting a woman's appearance? Well, commenting on a politician's appearance, no matter if it is a good or bad comment, actually lowers the public perception of that person.

There is also the fact that people who already hold office have advantages when it comes to reelection. Women were lawfully banned from holding public office for hundreds of years, but changing the law did not change the situation in which men already held office and were thus already at an advantage of any newcomer, regardless of sex.

We also have evidence that women are more likely to desire a career in politics if there are already women in politics, and parents are also more likely to support daughters’ political ambitions when she has role models of her same sex:

>In areas with long-serving female leaders in local government, the gender gap in teen education goals disappeared, due to the fact that girls had set higher goals for themselves. Parents were also 25% more likely to report having more ambitious education goals for their daughters, significantly narrowing the gender gap.

In summary: Women are barred from politics due to socialization and lack of parental support. Women are actively taught to not aspire to powerful positions; power is not for women. If a woman happens to disregard the socialization that is thrown at her from tons and tons of places, she still faces a barrier in that society at large will treat her differently and actively make it harder for her to get elected because of her sex. To claim that women have equal opportunity in politics is laughable. It is not illegal, sure, but equal opportunity, unfortunately, doesn’t exist. And it’s not something that we can fix by changing laws; we actually have to change the public’s views, which is much harder to do and will take many years.

I think part of it is that I’m not aware of this being taught in trade schools. Take this with a grain of salt, because my experience is with theater costuming in middle, high school, and college (including designing costumes for a play), home sewing, and historical re-enactment, but my major was neuroscience in college, so my knowledge is less extensive than a fashion major.

I have been sewing; however, for more than two decades.

That being said, Rosika Parker’s The Subversive Stitch makes a pretty good argument for the historic devaluing of sewing during the Middle Ages with concurrent social movements to restrict female power.

Here’s my perception of the hierarchies in the different careers and the education requirements (see further down)

1. fashion designer
   
2. line/season/show manager
   
3. higher level seamstress (might manage a couple outfits)
   
4. likely more layers of hierarchy
   
5. underlings (actually sewing the outfit parts)
   
   .
   
   
6. costume designer
   
7. levels of hierarchy (sorry)
   
8. underlings (actually doing most of the sewing)
   
   Here’s what I’m aware of for schooling (skewed because my experience is at a four year university)
   
   

• four year universities have majors in fashion design (which includes flat and dress model pattern drafting as well as rendering the patterns and concept art online), costuming (similar to fashion design but with more of a theater focus), and theater management (which includes designing concept art for plays, choosing and altering costumes, hair, and makeup)
  
  
• whatever the name for the fashion design seamstresses who manage an outfit for a fashion designer’s show is a one year masters program after four year university (for more info check out Zoe Hong on YouTube)
  
  
• theater set work (including costume making and alteration; not management) and (less sure for this) the actual sewing and embroidery work for fashion design is more of an apprenticeship area of work. You get hired already knowing how to sew and then receive on the job training to meet the costume designer’s standard (for theater and fashion design)
  
  
• and then there’s the tangential stuff like preserving and repairing historical garments for museums (likely masters maybe grad school) or working at historical sites like Jamestown, Williamsburg, etc. which from my understanding are also more of an apprenticeship (William & Mary undergrads are allowed to do this for the summer, so a college degree is not required)
  
  You might have better luck hunting down your local theater (you might be able to do this with fashion designer houses too; no idea) and asking for the required qualifications to be hired.
  
  For historical costuming, try an apprenticeship or membership with your local re-enactment society or SCA
  
  For learning how to sew (may not include pattern drafting, rendering patterns digitally, or concept art generation) try your local sewing machine service shop (search vacuum service shops too because they overlap).
  
  Here are some books to recommend:
  
  Fashion:
  
  For someone who already sews
  
  Here are ones I feel I have to include, but they’re kind of impractical:
  
  
  
• Patternmaking for fashion design by Helen Joseph Armstrong (textbook; too expensive to just buy)
  
  
• Draping for Apparel Design by Helen Joseph Armstrong (textbook; too
  
  Here are cheaper options
  
  
• Transformative Reconstruction by Shingo Sato
  
  
• Pattern Magic by Tomoko Nakamichi
  
  For learning to sew
  
  
• The Singer Complete Photo Guide to Sewing
  
  
• I don’t recommend Gertie Sews books for beginners because several of the patterns are misdrafted, also ignore older (pre mid 2000s) Burda Patterns because the seam allowances are wrong or inconsistent between patterns
  
  Historical Reconstruction
  
  For someone who already sews:
  
  
• Patterns of Fashion series by Janet Arnold
  
  
• Copies of historical fashion magazines like La Mode Universelle Ilustree (in French) and Harpers Bazaar are sold on EBay. They are only in one size and therefore require pattern drafting and alteration knowledge to use.
  
  
• Reconstructing History
  
  
• Laughing Moon

> Feminism, at least on here, seems to completely ignore those factors and jump straight for 'social construct' with no evidence, no reasoning, and no discussion.

This is a false assertion on your part. There is a lot of very powerful evidence that gender is in fact the product of social forces and has very little to do with biology. This evidence emerges from decades of intensive research by sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and even biologists - who will often point out that while humans are a sexually dimorphic species, the extent of that dimorphism is fairly small.

One of the reasons you might not be seeing this evidence in discussions of gender online is because, frankly, having to stop a discussion to provide links to this exhaustive mountain of evidence every time someone with little knowledge of the material demands to see it is frustrating and tiresome. There are hundreds - thousands - of introductory textbooks from sociology, anthropology, gender studies, and psychology that talk about the social construction of gender; if you want to see the evidence, then look there. Most feminists accept the academic consensus that gender is primarily the product of culture, and because that consensus is grounded in the best possible empirical research, you should accept it too.

Or don't. I'm not your boss. But if you don't accept it, then you should accept that in rejecting the social construction of gender, you're also rejecting the preponderance of evidence, which might not be the best place to plant your flag.

>I think saying it's 100% socially constructed is probably wrong too...

Good thing that's not what most people are saying. Bodies exist. They are the things onto which we inscribe our cultural values. But they are also incredibly malleable and so they are shaped and reshaped by the dictates of culture.

Why do children raised in poverty have poorer health outcomes than those raised in middle class or rich environments? Because poverty correlates with poorer diets, fewer calories consumed per day, and a lack of regular access to gyms or after-school fitness programs. Poor bodies are shaped in different ways than rich bodies because of culture. I mean, hell, the foundation of epidemiology is the recognition that cultural forces have enormous impact on bodies.

Why are men bigger and stronger than women? Biology? Perhaps, but we also cannot overlook the fact that in our society - and in many others - men are expected to consume an average of 300-400 additional calories per day than women. Is this because men are "naturally" bigger and stronger than women, or are men bigger and stronger than women because they've historically had access to higher calorie diets (which we know result in bigger, stronger people)? Do men have more muscle mass because testosterone, or do they have more muscle mass because they are incentivized to be more muscled than women - who are treated worse if their own muscle mass begins to impact their perceived femininity? Men are supposed to be big and strong; women are supposed to be petite and "trim" or "fit but not overly muscled". Men know this and women know this, and our recognition of these normative standards will pressure us to sculpt our bodies in different ways.

What I'm saying is that the cliches of "men are strong because biology, men like blue because culture" is reductionist to the point of being useless. The reality is far, far more complicated than this, but in the end, in light of decades of research into the question of nature v. nurture, the broad consensus is "a little bit of biology, and a whole boatload of culture".

hey, not sure if you're trolling or being inflammatory while also ignorant.

> I think that this generalization is exaggerated to a level that is beyond ridiculousness. Where is the evidence to support this?

this is what makes me think you are trolling. you 'think' it's exaggerated, but why don't you show me some evidence to back up your opinions? let me give you quite a bit of evidence to support the feminist argument (aka, the truth):

The Second Sex

Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center

Women's Suffrage: A Primary Source History of the Women's Rights Movement in America

Modern Sexism: Blatant, Covert and Subtle Discrimination

I can give you a LOT of further recommended reading. This is absolutely an issue you should read a lot about before attempting to come into a safe place for feminist discussion and poison the conversation with ignorant, defensive and ultimately pathetic 'questions.' You are not here to be enlightened. You think women are the enemy. We are all humans, we all deserve to be equal.

Out of the goodness of my heart, here is a primer on male privilege, although until you open your heart, mind and eyes to equality, I won't hold my breath for you to take this seriously: How to Talk to Someone about Privilege

I once had the pleasure of hearing the feminist biologist, Marlene Zuk, speak. She was fantastic and I think you should check out her book [Sex on Six Legs] (https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Six-Legs-Lessons-Language/dp/015101373X)

Also, if you're not afraid of delving into psychology and neuroscience. I'd also recommend Cordelia Fine's [Delusions of Gender] (https://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494261794&sr=1-1&keywords=delusions+of+gender)

Skip the organizations.

The personal is political. Change yourself first.

Read books. Apply the knowledge you gain to your everyday relationships and interactions.

Analyze media. Gain an awareness of how women are portrayed in media (TV, movies, magazines, newspapers, social media and the internet, etc.). There are stark differences in the way males and females are developed, displayed, and interact with each other.

Study the social construction of gender and difference. Understand the separation of gender from sex.

Learn about the intersections of social identities and the matrix of domination.

Always ask questions. Never be shy - we are all here to learn, and help each other learn.

Yes.

The course covers a fairly wide swath of material, blending history, theory (of the critical variety), and empirical case studies. Its primary purpose is to introduce students to an examination of men and men's lives using the tools of sociology, and it does this through a few avenues:

1. History: We embark on something of a "masculinities throughout the ages" tour of men's lives. We look at everything from historical fashion trends (high-heels and silk stockings as the height of men's fashion in early modern Europe for example) to warfare, sex and sexuality, and the relationship between men and emotion.
   
   
2. Theory: This part of the course introduces students to the tools of the sociological trade. Students are introduced to the analytical and methodological instruments that we can use to examine men's lives. This is where we talk about "the basics" like intersectionality, bio-power and the body as a site of discipline, etc. We also talk a bit about the different sociological lenses that can be used to examine men and men's lives, from older functionalist approaches to more contemporary post-structuralist and feminist perspectives.
   
   
3. We attempt to disentangle the complex interactions between bodies and culture using concepts like Connell's "body-reflexive practices" and the "reproductive arena" (sorry, these sources are adequate, but the best ones are paywalled). This section is always challenging because the process of disentangling can have the effect of reproducing the very distinctions between body and practice that we're trying to trouble in the first place.
   
   
4. Case studies. Throughout the course, I draw on empirical studies that look at men and men's lives, in order to put the theoretical discussions we have into a more grounded social reality. We talk about things like men and violence, suicide, mental health, homelessness, men and emotion, men and education - both primary and later - and men and relationships - queer, gay and straight. We talk about the different understandings of masculinity that people have that are tied to race, class, and culture (what is a "real man" in white working class families vs. indigenous communities vs. white upper class families, etc.) The whole point of these case studies is to illustrate how the tools of sociology can give us solid, reliable data - both qualitative and quantitative - that can help us work towards understanding the challenges of masculinities in the 21st century.
   
   That's enough of a rant from me! I'll link some of the books I will be drawing on in my course below:
   
   If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer!
   
   Connell: Masculinities
   
   Connell: The Men and the Boys
   
   Kimmel and Messerschmidt: Men's Lives 9th edition - this one showcases dozens of authors, each of whom brings their own deep insights into contemporary masculinities.
   
   Kimmel and Holler: The Gendered Society
   
   Wade and Ferree: Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions

Gerda Lerner's text The Creation of the Patriarchy is an excellent read. I highly recommend picking up a copy and reading the whole thing.

Instead of just getting rid of them, I think we should supplement them with stories like Dealing with Dragons, Ella Enchanted, and other books with positive messages.

http://www.amazon.com/An-Introduction-Womens-Studies-Transnational/dp/0072887184
This is my textbook for my intro class; there are a lot of interesting articles pertaining to history which should help you out

Hm that seems to be in a nice price range though. Could import that from England....what I can get a hold of is:

http://www.amazon.com/Feminism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/019280510X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324595152&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Feminism-Cathia-Jenainati/dp/1840466499/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324595173&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Feminism-Masculinities-Oxford-Readings/dp/0199267243/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324595199&sr=1-1

Might be worth a read...

There are many more that exist, of course, but here are some of my favourites:

Bitchfest - A collection of essays from Bitch magazine

Female Chauvanist Pigs: Women and the rise of raunch culture by Ariel Levy

Men explain things to me - Rebecca Solnit

Backlash - Susan Faludi

Bad feminist by Roxane Gay - I'm just in the middle of reasing this now, really enjoying it.

> I have a lot of trouble accepting the notion of the patriarchy.

I think you are not familiar with the Bible. And I think you are not familiar with how Christianity controlled Europe.

> I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy+2%3A12-15

That line is why there have never been women in the Catholic hierarchy and has been used as the foundation for control of women through the centuries.

A book that illustrates just how deeply Paul's misogyny was baked into Christianity is Woman Defamed and Woman Defended.

Another example of how deeply the ownership of women has been baked into society can be shown in the traditional marriage ceremony:

Who gives this woman?
Who takes this woman?

It is a transfer of ownership of the woman. When I was going to high school, our family was living in Ireland at that time. Shortly before we moved there, the laws were changed so that married women could now inherit property. When one unpacks the statement married women could now inherit property, one should realize that also meant widows were previously unable to inherit their dead husband's property (whether house or bank accounts, so one of the arguments against gay marriage was that part of what marriage was about was about inheritance, but where married women could inherit property is only something that's happened in the past couple of centuries). Marriage was legally presumed to take 2 people and make them one under the law: and that person was the husband. In previous centuries, married women were not able to enter into contracts, only their husband could.

Many of the women who were accused of witchcraft were "unowned". Acceptable ownership was father, husband, brother, son, other male relative or in the case of nuns the local bishop. And that left the case where she was not owned by any of the previous list of men, that meant she was owned by Satan. In programming terms, owner could not be null. Inquisitors got most of the property/wealth from confessed witches and the remainder went to "The Church".

you started well with things that can be proven to help. exercise, nature, psychotherapy if you're really lost. But the reason why you pay a psychotherapist to listen is that they're a professional and most people don't know how to help you with your complaints. So all you're doing is straining relationships by treating them like therapy sessions where you vent about the inequities of the world. Also, check the link I posted in the previous post showing that venting to relieve stress only hardwires your brain for more stress and more venting.

And feminism is jealousy. Its the belief that you don't have what men have and you want it. That's plain and simple jealousy. Nobody has it the same as anyone else. But feminism is the fight to prioritize your life unfairness above everyone else by suggesting you're selflessly doing it for other women and acting the most distressed. If you ever worked retail when you were a teen, customers often would try to receive priority or get special treatment by being the most visibly upset. It's not that different. There are lots of movements like feminism and they all end up fighting each other, as well as fracturing and fighting within because it's not only about which group gets priority, within each group its about which person gets priority too.


There's also no evidence activism changes things for the better. Counter culturalism, which feminism sprouted from in the 60's altered our culture and gave rise to activism.(no I don't care about 1st wave since there are 300 years between 1st and 2nd with no physical connection between them except with books and in the name that the second wave gave the first. the people involved from 2nd-4th are the same people using the same methods and are within the same hippie culture), Previously, civil rights were handled by lawyers an lawmakers. The end result did not only be civil rights lawyers shirked of getting any mention of the efforts they were making in court but the men and women leading mobs, clashing with police and society and getting people killed were hailed as heroes because they garnered media attention and headlines that boring courtrooms do not. Harvey Milk drove his friend to suicide to push his not-so-selfless agenda All for a pointless cause since there were many lawyers sleeplessly working for gay rights already. The system was already working, but no activist wants to believe that because it makes their control of the media spotlight look tyrannical.


In the 60's Students on campus at UC Berkeley fought for the right to talk about politics and take control of the university. they rescinded the power from the faculty and gave it to the students through mob rule, a format that's been adopted by almost every university in the world. feminism was a breakoff protest of that 60's Berkeley student movement because some women didn't feel they had enough power and a voice in the protests and protested the men. (documentary: Berkeley in the sixties) The movement also empowered psychedelic drug use, funded gun purchases for the black panthers, and irrevocably changed youth culture around the world to what it is today: jaded and believe the system is rigged against them even though they took control of it almost sixty years ago.

now we're seeing a rollback of free speech. we're seeing students actually believing fascism is better than liberty because its the best way to force society to prioritize their needs above everyone else. Evergreen college in Oregon is the most recent example of that where the student actually tried to racially segregate the campus in the name of equality. Or elsewhere in the world. People forget that Afghanistan by the 50's was progressive with many women, not in burkas, attending university. Men wore blue jeans and listened to rock and roll. Until the early 70's groups of students using the Berkeley model rallied students against western culture raided a US embassy, killed several Americans inside and lead their country to the disaster it became less than a decade later. (first chapter of the book "ghost wars" by Steve Coll)

rules and laws are only fair if they apply to everyone equally. If you're not a lawyer, learn the law. If you are a lawyer you don't go to protests, you make your arguments in court and guess what, if you're angry you get kicked out of the courtroom.

Be proactive. Be sensitive to your friend's feelings, including men (which you responded to pathologically with 'haha' earlier). Realize what your guy friend was saying is exactly what he would've said to his guy friends too so there's no possibility is trying to silence you or treating you differently for being a girl. In fact, he probably said it nicer than he normally does because sometimes dudes just need to hear "stfu."

Hope this helps. If it doesn't do some soul searching and try to figure it out on your own. But if you come at me or your friend like we're being an asshole when we're giving you the same advice we'd give anyone we're trying to help, guess who might be the real asshole.

So a couple of things:

1.) Just because something happened out of necessity, doesn't mean we should KEEP DOING IT.

2.) In a way you are saying male aggression makes male aggression necessary. I don't say this flippantly or to blame the victim. I am pointing out how this is a self reinforcing cycle that can only be disrupted by outside forces, namely the criminal justice system. There is a strong correlation between how much of the population can rely on the governement for justice, and how much inter-personal violence there is in that society.

> So, right off the bat, your criticism of bias is pretty moot -- it is a feminist journal commenting on feminist issues. There is nothing wrong with intentionally examining an issue from a specific perspective.

You apparently miss the point of peer-reviewed research and repeatability of experiments in general - it's to account for personal and/or experimental bias. Having your study reviewed in a journal that shares your own bias is like having somebody repeat your experiment on your own equipment.

The journal didn't even catch the fact that the study's title opened with "Boys can do anything" but there were no boys in the study. What they actually studied was the perception girls had about boys as a gender vs. themselves as individuals, so really it was "girls think boys can do anything" which of course they didn't use. It was a shitty study and defending it makes me feel like you want feminist science to have a lower bar to clear than the rest of science, which perpetuates the idea that women just aren't capable of doing science on the same level as men. I think if feminists want to use the word science they have to earn it on the same level as men. That's equality.

EDIT: And the paper's available for free if you go to a university library, you can read it yourself if you want.

> Seriously: do people who make this statement recognize that they're perpetuating the same system of erasure? It denies the existence of a long line of Black feminists from Sojourner Truth to Alice Walker to the entire population of womanists. Lucille Clifton has barely been dead for two years. Saying "feminism has a problem with Black women" is literally saying "the Black women in feminism are not real feminists / real Black women."

I don't know, you could start with a book like this (I have no idea if it's any good) or an article like this. Yes, I view feminism as historically being a movement of mostly middle/upper class white women. Most feminists (and especially rad-fems) I've known come from money. Most poor women I've known have been actually disempowered to the point they'd never dream of shutting down a lecture for disagreeing with them - that level of entitlement is a sign of a childhood of privilege.