(Part 3) 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'm pretty leery of studies that conclude biological facts from things that are clearly (even explicitly) influenced by culture.

> "Men want sex more often than women at the start of a relationship, in the middle of it, and after many years of it," Baumeister concludes after reviewing several surveys of men and women. This isn't just true of heterosexuals, he reports: gay men also have higher frequency of sex than lesbians at all stages of the relationship. Men also say they want more sex partners in their lifetime, and are more interested in casual sex.

I remember reading somewhere that women are probably less interested in casual because the probability of orgasm is so low for them, and if the question is rephrased to include orgasm, the rates of interest in casual sex are close to equal between the sexes (can't find reference for this, sorry). Is that a difference in sex drive between the sexes or just common sense for women?

Historically, evolutionary biological theories of human sexuality are so gendered they are practically useless. They start by only considering reproductive sex as important, therefore anything other than vaginal intercourse is discarded. Researchers universally assumed competition between the sexes, rather than thinking of sex as a social feature that evolved alongside the development of cooperation, altruism, and living in communities. They also start by assuming male heterosexual sexual desire as the norm, and then try to explain anyone who doesn't fit that model.

New thinking has emerged in this field recently, and (surprise) it is revealing that human sexuality is complicated and nuanced and not easily broken down into a listicle on a pop-sci website. While we wait for more meaningful theories to migrate from academia into popular culture, we can expect more "men are like this, women are like that" articles.

tl;dr: This article is based on outdated theories, superficial, and useless.

I'd recommend Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs. It's an interesting view of how women are objectifying each other in the way men used to/still do. I also really enjoyed The Beauty Myth.

Thanks for joining the feminist side =D

EDIT: Spelling

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

That statistic is for the world as a whole, which in terms of mating isn't that useful. In china, for example, it has been documented that there is a huge difference in the numbers of boys versus girls. Bearing this in mind, it doesn't matter to a young boy in china that wants a girlfriend that there are actually more women than men in great britain, for example, because he doesn't live there.

This is important because we do not actually live in one joined society, and the low migration levels of people in areas of high gender inequality mean that the pockets of gender imbalance will increase in severity and size, as has already been documented in India between the beginning of the British Raj and the present day.

The wiki article is good reading, and so is Y- the Descent of Men by my favourite geneticist, Steve Jones.

If you haven't already read it, you could pick up The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin. It's topical for your experiment because it explores gender, or rather its lack. It's also fairly short and brilliantly written.

Hi Phoolf,

In the sidebar, we have a link to a selection of books on feminism, should more books be posted here, I will make sure to update the list :)



From previous discussions:

By wave:

Mary Wollstonecraft; A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

J. S. and Harriet Taylor Mill; The Subjection of Women

(Second wave) Simone de Beauvoir; The Second Sex

(Second wave) Betty Friedan; The Feminine Mystique

(Third wave) bell hooks; Ain't I a Woman?

(Third wave) bell hooks; Feminist Theory

(Third wave) This Bridge Called My Back




By subject:




Law:

What is Feminism

Intro to 'Schools' of Feminist Thought

Post-structural / post-modern

The Laugh of the Medusa, Helene Cixous

Speculum of the Other Woman, Irigaray

Powers of Horror, Kristeva

General overview of feminist theory in the west:

The Feminist Mystique Betty Friedan

Sister/Outsider Audrey Lords

Feminist Theory, Bell Hooks

Borderlands, Gloria Anzaldua

No Logo, Naomi Klein

LGBT:

Gender Trouble, Judith Butler

Bodies That Matter, Judith Butler

Postcolonial

Under Western Eyes, Chandra Talpade Mohanty (PDF)

International/Transnational feminist topics:

Gloria Anzaldua- Borderlands

Chandra Mohanty- Feminism Without Borders and Under Western Eyes

Sociology works:

Resisting Vulnerability: The Social Reconstruction of Gender in Interaction JOCELYN A. HOLLANDER

Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women Rosabeth Moss Kanter

The Retoric and Reality of “Opting Out” Pamela Stone

Literature

The Handmaid's Tale, by Margret Atwood



Other works:

Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir

Feminism is for Everybody, Bell Hooks

Full Frontal Feminism

The Politics of Reality, Marilyn Frye,


No Turning Back, by Estelle Freedman



Reclaiming the F Word by Catherine Redfern

The Equality Illusion by Kat Banyard


The Guy's Guide to Feminism, Michael Kaufman


The Purity Myth, Jessica Valenti

Backlash, Susan Faludi



Introductory articles

Why Women Aren't Crazy

Ted Talk: A Call to Men, by Tony Porter

What No Woman Deserves to Be Called, Yashar Ali

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Feminism But Were Afraid to Ask

"Delusions of Gender" by Cordelia Fine

"Gendered Society" by Michael Kimmel

"Click: The Moment We Knew We Were Feminists", Bitchfest

How to Be a Woman - Caitlin Moran

"Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis" by Joan Wallach Scott

The Politics of Reality, Marilyn Frye

How Two Aspiring Pornographers Turned Me Into the Ultimate F Word, by Hank Shaw

"The Macho Paradox" by Jackson Katz


Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Feminism But Were Afraid to Ask

Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?, by Linda Nochlin

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

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

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

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

Also Sadie Plant's Zeroes + Ones.

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