(Part 2) Top products from r/Feminism

I will concede that an individual post cannot shout down another individual post, but I will also point out that I never claimed that was true. What I was claiming was that posts can and often are mass-downvoted or buried in a torrent of criticism not due to any fault of the content, but because the post expresses a minority view.

For example, go to r/radicalfeminism and claim that men are victims of sexism and observe that it doesn't matter how articulate and thoughtful your arguments are, it will be downvoted, resoundingly lambasted, and possibly deleted. Then go to r/mensrights and claim that men cannot be the victims of sexist oppression and watch how the same thing occurs. The crucial difference that makes these two situations non-comparable is that men's voices are not marginalized while women's voices are.

When I say that women's voices are marginalized, what I mean is that women's perspectives/opinions/experiences are systematically significantly underrepresented in the dominant discourse while men's perspectives/opinions/experiences have been normalized - assumed as the default. So, as I've said elsewhere, no one will be surprised when it turns out that there aren't any Hindu lesbians in the presidential debates, but if there were no heterosexual white protestant men in their fifties and sixties, it would be a bombshell. So normalized is it, that it literally goes without saying when a person in a position of power is male. That's why there are lists like this, and this, but there's no international men's day celebrating the 10 most influential men. That's not because no one cares about men, it's because every day is international men's day and the lists about the 10 most influential men are just called "10 most influential people". If any women do make it on to that list of influential people, it has to be remarked on because they're a woman. Similarly, look at how many non-white men there are in People Magazine's annual "sexiest man alive" list. So really, to quote W. Kamau Bell, "it should be Sexiest White Man Alive".

> You claimed you wanted "space" and when it was pointed out that there is unlimited space, you reveal that what you really want is a podium and a microphone for ideas you agree with. You don't really want space. You don't want a circle of equals where all ideas are judged on their merits.

It's clear that we're using two different definitions of "space". I've already said that while there's technically space for everyone to post everything, that isn't what I mean when I talk about "making space" for marginalized voices. What I'm talking about when I say that it's important to "make space" is that because marginalized voices are, by definition, under-represented in the dominant discourse, it's important for there to be places and forums where those voices are over-represented.

The reason a "circle of equals" is impossible is because sexism is so deeply entrenched in the fabric of social interactions and so built into the way we perceive and understand the world that you can't just declare an area a "sexism free zone". Since nowhere is free of sexism, pretending that contributions are discussed solely on their merit perpetuates sexism in the same way pretending that "color blindness" is possible perpetuates racism.

Even your assumptions about the purpose of discussion in a circle of equals is "male normative" in the sense that men and women are socialized to approach discussions differently. While this doesn't mean that all men approach discussions the same way all the time, it does mean that men tend to approach discussions in a way women tend not to. More specifically, men are socialized to see discussions as an opportunity to test the merit and consistency of ideas, while women are socialized to see discussions as an opportunity to share perspectives (see the previously mentioned book "You Just Don't Understand" for details). So when you assume that the purpose of a circle of equals is to test the merit of ideas, you're being male-normative in that you're assuming that the purpose of a circle of equals is not to simply share perspectives while acknowledging the inherent validity of each person's experience.

There are a number of academics in sociology, gender studies, anthropology, psychology, and even political science who are doing some pretty great work researching men and men's issues. Michael Kimmel and R.W. Connell are two such researchers, as are Dr. Shelley Pacholok and Michael Messner. In many universities, courses in Gender Studies now include examinations of men and masculinities alongside feminist theory and queer/critical theory.

My own MA thesis discussed constructions of masculinity within far right white supremacy movements, and my PhD research is examining men and masculinities in militia movements in the United States. I have several colleagues who are pursuing similar lines of research. While not a 'men's movement' per se, it is certainly doing what it can to look behind the 'male mystique' and see how men live, what sorts of issues they face, and how we can all work together to deconstruct some of the most harmful forms of masculine behaviour. The work is both male-focussed and absolutely pro-feminist. Interestingly enough, this growing body of work gives the MRM a wide berth, as its contributions have been negligible at best.

Check out "Masculinities" by R.W. Connell, or "Men's Lives: 9th Edition" by Kimmel and Messner, if you're interested in this kind of research.

I read a really great book while planning my wedding, One Perfect Day: The Selling of the American Wedding. It analyzes the commercial aspects of weddings piece by piece and deconstructs what we think of as traditional and "wedding-y." It might inspire you to come up with your own traditions. It certainly helped me feel good about planning my very unusual, casual wedding.

Is there anything other than the white dress, the walking down the aisle, and the taking of his last name that you find oppressive in the marriage process? Those things are all completely optional. I eschewed them all.

Some weddings have all of these parts to them that people think of as necessary - otherwise it won't be a real wedding - but really, you can do, or refuse to do, any and all of it and it will still be a great time and it will still be Your Wedding. Mine looked nothing like the wedding people expect when they think of "weddings" and two years later people still tell me it was the best wedding they've been to by far. We did it our way. It meant the world to us and it would have been so much less "us" if we'd done all the normal stuff, the aisle walk and the bouquet toss and the reception line and blahblahblah.

So figure out what your way is and do that.

I really got a lot out of The Hearts of Men by Barbara Ehrenreich and I've recommended it to guys I know.

It's really very wonderful though it should be said that you won't so much "learn about feminism" as you will see the power of a robust feminist analysis. It was written in the 80s, but I found it extremely relevant as a guy born in the late 80s.

I recommend it if you want men to understand that feminism really is for everyone--it's not something to support "because you love the women in your life."

I wasn't raised religious, so never had those issues, but my parents are feminists and read me The Paper Bag Princess (http://www.amazon.com/Paper-Bag-Princess-Annikin/dp/0920236251) and Not One Damsel In Distress, (http://www.amazon.com/Not-One-Damsel-Distress-Folktales/dp/0152020470) both of which I and my sisters loved. When they get older, Tamora Pierce has a bunch of fantasy books with female protagonists, and Diane Duane's So You Want To Be A Wizard books were also favorites.

Edit: How could I forget Madeline and Pippi?! https://www.buzzfeed.com/sarahbreen/feminist-books-ftw?utm_term=.hs2PoxVvj#.ug2KJ8X0B
Also Ella Enchanted is a great retelling of the Cinderella story, I think it's either Jane Yolen or Ursula K LeGuin

This book could prove interesting : https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Fight-Club-Survival-Workplace/dp/0062439782

I haven't read the book yet but it sounds useful. Sexism can be so subtle in a male dominated workplace that it can make one crazy. Men often say they respect good ideas period but when an idea you said an hour ago suddenly comes out of a man's mouth and it is then lauded you think, "Huh. Maybe this sexism thing isn't over."

These are both great.

http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Thought-More-Comprehensive-Introduction/dp/0813343755/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324396213&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Theory-Reader-Wendy-Kolmar/dp/0073512265/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324396213&sr=1-6

This is a great book that addresses some of the questions you are asking. It’s totally opposite of what most of us have been taught, food for thought anyway. Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061707813/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_qg.6Cb69NTRX5

Here’s a great book for you https://www.amazon.com/Right-Side-History-Reason-Purpose/dp/0062857908

http://www.amazon.com/Significant-Sisters-Grassroots-Feminism-1839-1939/dp/0195040147/

This book, more than any other, really impressed upon me how far we have come.

To this end, we got our little boy a bunch of similar books. Notables:

Baby Feminists
Dream Big Little One

Not feminist but honorable mention as it is too much fun with some of the double entendre:

Woke Baby

If you are into woman rights you should get this shirt!


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07B8HHFWT

That as patently false as the Cracked article. Read some books.

Women talking

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/089858989290018R

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/d3375-genderandlanguageintheworkplace.pdf

Women going for people roughly their own age

https://www.businessinsider.com/dataclysm-shows-men-are-attracted-to-women-in-their-20s-2014-10

Source book: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0385347375/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=dataclysm&ie=UTF8&sr=8-1&linkCode=gs2&tag=bica09-20

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/23/feminist-porn-sex-consent-and-getting-off/

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.html

http://www.amazon.com/Deviant-Eyes-Bodies-Chris-Straayer/dp/0231079796

You're probably even more correct than you think you are.

Feminism and Sexuality: A Reader

Yes Means Yes


The Purity Myth


EDIT: The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help

> but you're sexist and need to learn about your bias.

There are tons of books on business/decision-making out there which focus on the idea of how unconscious biases can lead to worse outcomes/poor management/lost money. I feel like getting someone to buy into the idea that biases lead to worse outcomes can be a good path to helping them identify biases which may be more uncomfortable to confront initially.

Examples:
https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
https://www.amazon.com/Predictably-Irrational-Revised-Expanded-Decisions/dp/0061353248
https://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/0316010669

From the article:

A child goes to the doctor, has their finger pricked to draw blood, and reacts with pain. How much pain? There’s no way to quantify someone’s pain other than to try and interpret their responses, and according to recently published research, adults perceive that a child suffers more if they believe that child is a boy rather than a girl.

The study, published in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology earlier this month, asked 264 adults to evaluate how much pain they thought a five-year-old child was experiencing while having blood drawn at the doctor. All adults were shown the same video, which showed a child in gender-neutral clothing who didn’t clearly present as either girl or boy. But half were told to evaluate the pain “Samuel” was experiencing, while the other half were told to assess “Samantha’s” pain, both on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 100 (severe pain.)

On average, the participants rated the boy as experiencing pain of 50.42, compared to a mean of 45.9 if they thought the child was a girl. These findings reinforce the only other study on gender biases in perception of children’s pain, a 2014 paper which also found that adults rated pain as more severe if they thought the child was a boy rather than a girl.

The findings add to existing research showing that female pain is dismissed and undertreated compared to male conditions. This sort of dismissiveness of women’s pain reflects a stereotypical belief that women are hysterical, and therefore if a woman is expressing pain, she must be exaggerating. The new research also suggests that these biases impact how patient-reported pain is perceived in patients as young as five.

Unexpectedly, the recently published study also found that the boys’ pain was rated more severe entirely because of the judgement from female adult participants; male participants, in fact, rated the girls’ pain as fractionally more severe than the boys’. Female participants rated pain at a mean of 53.1 if they thought the child was a boy, compared to a mean of 45.69 if they thought the child was a girl. “We didn’t expect that,” says Brian Earp, co-author of the study and associate director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy at Yale University and The Hastings Center bioethics research institute in New York. Because the 2014 paper was predominantly made up of female participants, it also reflected this female bias. Earp says he’s unsure why women would show more bias than men and was open to hypotheses; I suggested perhaps women are socialized to minimize their own pain and so do the same for other women, whereas Earp pointed to Cornell University philosophy professor Kate Manne’s argument, from her book Down Girl, that women are socialized to take male concerns more seriously. Earp said those explanations were plausible