In feminist theory there are many branches. There are two main branches that have sub-branches.

Liberal feminism - the idea that we are all equal through our capacity for rationality. Equality will come about through the practice and recognition of this equal capacity for rationality and as institutions change so too will women's capacity to demonstrate this. The reason that this currently can't be exhibited is because of a patriarchal system that views women as weak and soft minded. This leads lib fems to try to be "man-like" of mind so as to assert their equal status; girly but strong minded, ie. Thatcher(extreme example), Clinton, Rachel Maddow.

Radical feminism - Men are the oppressive class and women are the oppressed. (Try to deny it seriously. If not within the West then within the rest of the world) As a result women must form a opposition to this oppression by mens of taking sides. Women can still be equal of any attribute such as reason etc but none the less by virtue of their biological sex they are relegated to 2nd place based on that alone. The response is to form an equally if not more powerful class to overthrow the patriarchal system. Now this is where the original video things its anti men. It is anti patriarchy, anti a system millennia old that places political capital on birth right/biology. To argue against this risks committing a naturalistic fallacy whereby what IS is what is RIGHT. Through time we can cite all sorts of examples where that is not the case - slavery, pederasty, segregation. One way of addressing this patriarchy oppression is by banding together and attacking overt examples of gender/sex discrinination and oppression as is put forward in the video as reverse oppression (whatever). The other more radical feminism asks that women forgo their own proclivities and become political lesbians. This requires that they become a lesbian not only in solidarity with their sexed brethren but also actively reject men as a necessary part of a flourishing life.

So much of the discourse, on both sides, confuses the aims of which ever brand of feminism they prescribe (sometimes a mix of both) with instances of activism/oppression. Anecdotal evidence can only do so much in a systematic and ingrained norm such as gender roles.

The original video is laughably inane and self-agrandising in its selective use of anecdotes and conflation of one idea with another. It is as worse than radical-radical feminist arguments insofar as it cherry picks examples to highlight that which is unsystematic whereas rad fems point out things that are systematic but their ends are not understandable, or acceptable if understood, by most. That doesn't mean they are wrong.

TLDR; Lib fem, go with the flow and ask for gradual change. Rad fem, form a opposition of power and overthrow current system then restructure from what is divorced from historically contingient oppressive gender description.

I find this whole subject fascinating. I don't think I know nearly enough about it...

I would just say that perhaps there is a danger here of confusing gender role and gender identity. The former seems entirely manufactured by society in order to create this false dichotomy of gender. If one happens to like pink, dresses and playing with dolls does make him/her necessarily female? More often than not I'd assume they'd identified themselves as female and then conformed to the gender role, but thats not exactly always the case. Gay men might fall into female gender role but not be female etc.

If anyone wants to read more about Stephen and LGBTQIA youth, here is the NYT article.

The New York Time's

Generation LGBTQIA

By MICHAEL SCHULMAN

Published: January 10, 2013

STEPHEN IRA, a junior at Sarah Lawrence College, uploaded a video last March on We Happy Trans, a site that shares "positive perspectives" on being transgender.

In the breakneck six-and-a-half-minute monologue - hair tousled, sitting in a wood-paneled dorm room - Stephen exuberantly declared himself "a queer, a nerd fighter, a writer, an artist and a guy who needs a haircut," and held forth on everything from his style icons (Truman Capote and "any male-identified person who wears thigh-highs or garters") to his toy zebra.

Because Stephen, who was born Kathlyn, is the 21-year-old child of Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, the video went viral, garnering nearly half a million views. But that was not the only reason for its appeal. With its adrenalized, freewheeling eloquence, the video seemed like a battle cry for a new generation of post-gay gender activists, for whom Stephen represents a rare public face.

Armed with the millennial generation's defining traits - Web savvy, boundless confidence and social networks that extend online and off - Stephen and his peers are forging a political identity all their own, often at odds with mainstream gay culture.

If the gay-rights movement today seems to revolve around same-sex marriage, this generation is seeking something more radical: an upending of gender roles beyond the binary of male/female. The core question isn't whom they love, but who they are - that is, identity as distinct from sexual orientation.

But what to call this movement? Whereas "gay and lesbian" was once used to lump together various sexual minorities - and more recently "L.G.B.T." to include bisexual and transgender - the new vanguard wants a broader, more inclusive abbreviation. "Youth today do not define themselves on the spectrum of L.G.B.T.," said Shane Windmeyer, a founder of Campus Pride, a national student advocacy group based in Charlotte, N.C.

Part of the solution has been to add more letters, and in recent years the post-post-post-gay-rights banner has gotten significantly longer, some might say unwieldy. The emerging rubric is "L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.," which stands for different things, depending on whom you ask.

"Q" can mean "questioning" or "queer," an umbrella term itself, formerly derogatory before it was appropriated by gay activists in the 1990s. "I" is for "intersex," someone whose anatomy is not exclusively male or female. And "A" stands for "ally" (a friend of the cause) or "asexual," characterized by the absence of sexual attraction.

It may be a mouthful, but it's catching on, especially on liberal-arts campuses.

The University of Missouri, Kansas City, for example, has an L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. Resource Center that, among other things, helps student locate "gender-neutral" restrooms on campus. Vassar College offers an L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. Discussion Group on Thursday afternoons. Lehigh University will be hosting its second annual L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. Intercollegiate Conference next month, followed by a Queer Prom. Amherst College even has an L.G.B.T.Q.Q.I.A.A. center, where every group gets its own letter.

The term is also gaining traction on social media sites like Twitter and Tumblr, where posts tagged with "lgbtqia" suggest a younger, more progressive outlook than posts that are merely labeled "lgbt."

"There's a very different generation of people coming of age, with completely different conceptions of gender and sexuality," said Jack Halberstam (formerly Judith), a transgender professor at the University of Southern California and the author, most recently, of "Gaga Feminism: Sex, Gender, and the End of Normal."

"When you see terms like L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.," Professor Halberstam added, "it's because people are seeing all the things that fall out of the binary, and demanding that a name come into being."

And with a plethora of ever-expanding categories like "genderqueer" and "androgyne" to choose from, each with an online subculture, piecing together a gender identity can be as D.I.Y. as making a Pinterest board.

BUT sometimes L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. is not enough. At the University of Pennsylvania last fall, eight freshmen united in the frustration that no campus group represented them.

Sure, Penn already had some two dozen gay student groups, including Queer People of Color, Lambda Alliance and J-Bagel, which bills itself as the university's "Jewish L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. Community." But none focused on gender identity (the closest, Trans Penn, mostly catered to faculty members and graduate students).

Richard Parsons, an 18-year-old transgender male, discovered that when he attended a student mixer called the Gay Affair, sponsored by Penn's L.G.B.T. Center. "I left thoroughly disappointed," said Richard, a garrulous freshman with close-cropped hair, wire-framed glasses and preppy clothes, who added, "This is the L.G.B.T. Center, and it's all gay guys."

Through Facebook, Richard and others started a group called Penn Non-Cis, which is short for "non-cisgender." For those not fluent in gender-studies speak, "cis" means "on the same side as" and "cisgender" denotes someone whose gender identity matches his or her biology, which describes most of the student body. The group seeks to represent everyone else. "This is a freshman uprising," Richard said.

On a brisk Tuesday night in November, about 40 students crowded into the L.G.B.T. Center, a converted 19th-century carriage house, for the group's inaugural open mike. The organizers had lured students by handing out fliers on campus while barking: "Free condoms! Free ChapStick!"

"There's a really vibrant L.G.B.T. scene," Kate Campbell, one of the M.C.'s, began. "However, that mostly encompasses the L.G.B. and not too much of the T. So we're aiming to change that."

Students read poems and diary entries, and sang guitar ballads. Then Britt Gilbert - a punky-looking freshman with a blond bob, chunky glasses and a rock band T-shirt - took the stage. She wanted to talk about the concept of "bi-gender."

"Does anyone want to share what they think it is?"

Silence.

She explained that being bi-gender is like manifesting both masculine and feminine personas, almost as if one had a "detachable penis." "Some days I wake up and think, 'Why am I in this body?' " she said. "Most days I wake up and think, 'What was I thinking yesterday?' 

"Britt's grunginess belies a warm matter-of-factness, at least when describing her journey. As she elaborated afterward, she first heard the term "bi-gender" from Kate, who found it on Tumblr. The two met at freshman orientation and bonded. In high school, Kate identified as "agender" and used the singular pronoun "they"; she now sees her gender as an "amorphous blob."

By contrast, Britt's evolution was more linear. She grew up in suburban Pennsylvania and never took to gender norms. As a child, she worshiped Cher and thought boy bands were icky. Playing video games, she dreaded having to choose male or female avatars.

In middle school, she started calling herself bisexual and dated boys. By 10th grade, she had come out as a lesbian. Her parents thought it was a phase - until she brought home a girlfriend, Ash. But she still wasn't settled.

"While I definitely knew that I liked girls, I didn't know that I was one," Britt said. Sometimes she would leave the house in a dress and feel uncomfortable, as if she were wearing a Halloween costume. Other days, she felt fine. She wasn't "trapped in the wrong body," as the cliché has it - she just didn't know which body she wanted.

When Kate told her about the term "bi-gender," it clicked instantly. "I knew what it was, before I knew what it was," Britt said, adding that it is more fluid than "transgender" but less vague than "genderqueer" - a catchall term for nontraditional gender identities.

At first, the only person she told was Ash, who responded, "It took you this long to figure it out?" For others, the concept was not so easy to grasp. Coming out as a lesbian had been relatively simple, Britt said, "since people know what that is." But when she got to Penn, she was relieved to find a small community of freshmen who had gone through similar awakenings.

Among them was Richard Parsons, the group's most politically lucid member. Raised female, Richard grew up in Orlando, Fla., and realized he was transgender in high school. One summer, he wanted to room with a transgender friend at camp, but his mother objected. "She's like, 'Well, if you say that he's a guy, then I don't want you rooming with a guy,' " he recalled. "We were in a car and I basically blurted out, 'I think I might be a guy, too!' "

After much door-slamming and tears, Richard and his mother reconciled. But when she asked what to call him, he had no idea. He chose "Richard" on a whim, and later added a middle name, Matthew, because it means "gift of God."

By the time he got to Penn, he had been binding his breasts for more than two years and had developed back pain. At the open mike, he told a harrowing story about visiting the university health center for numbness and having a panic attack when he was escorted into a women's changing room.

Nevertheless, he praised the university for offering gender-neutral housing. The college's medical program also covers sexual reassignment surgery, which, he added, "has heavily influenced my decision to probably go under the Penn insurance plan next year."

PENN has not always been so forward-thinking; a decade ago, the L.G.B.T. Center (nestled amid fraternity houses) was barely used. But in 2010, the university began reaching out to applicants whose essays raised gay themes. Last year, the gay newsmagazine The Advocate ranked Penn among the top 10 trans-friendly universities, alongside liberal standbys like New York University.

More and more colleges, mostly in the Northeast, are catering to gender-nonconforming students. According to a survey by Campus Pride, at least 203 campuses now allow transgender students to room with their preferred gender; 49 have a process to change one's name and gender in university records; and 57 cover hormone therapy. In December, the University of Iowa became the first to add a "transgender" checkbox to its college application.

"I wrote about an experience I had with a drag queen as my application essay for all the Ivy Leagues I applied to," said Santiago Cortes, one of the Penn students. "And I got into a few of the Ivy Leagues - Dartmouth, Columbia and Penn. Strangely not Brown.

"But even these measures cannot keep pace with the demands of incoming students, who are challenging the curriculum much as gay activists did in the '80s and '90s. Rather than protest the lack of gay studies classes, they are critiquing existing ones for being too narrow.

Several members of Penn Non-Cis had been complaining among themselves about a writing seminar they were taking called "Beyond 'Will & Grace,' " which examined gay characters on shows like "Ellen," "Glee" and "Modern Family." The professor, Gail Shister, who is a lesbian, had criticized several students for using "L.G.B.T.Q." in their essays, saying it was clunky, and proposed using "queer" instead. Some students found the suggestion offensive, including Britt Gilbert, who described Ms. Shister as "unaccepting of things that she doesn't understand."

Ms. Shister, reached by phone, said the criticism was strictly grammatical. "I am all about economy of expression," she said. "L.G.B.T.Q. doesn't exactly flow off the tongue. So I tell the students, 'Don't put in an acronym with five or six letters.' "

One thing is clear. Ms. Shister, who is 60 and in 1979 became The Philadelphia Inquirer's first female sportswriter, is of a different generation, a fact she acknowledges freely, even gratefully. "Frankly, I'm both proud and envious that these young people are growing up in an age where they're free to love who they want," she said.

If history is any guide, the age gap won't be so easy to overcome. As liberated gay men in the 1970s once baffled their pre-Stonewall forebears, the new gender outlaws, to borrow a phrase from the transgender writer Kate Bornstein, may soon be running ideological circles around their elders.

Still, the alphabet soup of L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. may be difficult to sustain. "In the next 10 or 20 years, the various categories heaped under the umbrella of L.G.B.T. will become quite quotidian," Professor Halberstam said.

Even at the open mike, as students picked at potato chips and pineapple slices, the bounds of identity politics were spilling over and becoming blurry.

At one point, Santiago, a curly-haired freshman from Colombia, stood before the crowd. He and a friend had been pondering the limits of what he calls "L.G.B.T.Q. plus."

"Why do only certain letters get to be in the full acronym?" he asked.

Then he rattled off a list of gender identities, many culled from Wikipedia. "We have our lesbians, our gays," he said, before adding, "bisexual, transsexual, queer, homosexual, asexual." He took a breath and continued. "Pansexual. Omnisexual. Trisexual. Agender. Bi-gender. Third gender. Transgender. Transvestite. Intersexual. Two-spirit. Hijra. Polyamorous."

By now, the list had turned into free verse. He ended: "Undecided. Questioning. Other. Human."

The room burst into applause.

Correction: January 10, 2013, Thursday

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: An earlier version of this article and a picture caption referred incorrectly to a Sarah Lawrence College student who uploaded a video online about being transgender. He says he is Stephen Ira, not Stephen Ira Beatty.

Source NYT

Fair Use

>> ^Trancecoach:

@davidraine, @NetRunner: Please read the article, then we can have a discussion.


Done. That was a very entitled and misogynistic read, and the arguments sounded exactly like the ones the Republican on Meet The Press presented. The $40k/$47k line was used specifically -- except that it's a figure that's now eleven years old, so who knows how valid it is anymore. In any event, I claim that based on this sample of his work, the book represents a very misogynistic viewpoint. Not everything in the book is going to be anti-woman, but there's enough there to form a clear pattern.

"Give women ways of earning more rather than suing more." / "Give companies ways of teaching women how to earn more."

Both of these statements stem from the belief that women think they are a privileged class and should get more rights and protections then men. It further states that the playing field is already level, and if women were just a little smarter they'd figure out how to earn more and wouldn't need the courts to fight their battles for them. This is misogynistic on its face -- It is a belief that women aren't as bright as men and need special training to "earn more", and a belief that women aren't already doing the same work men are. It also assumes that the playing field is actually level, which it is not.

"At this moment in history, gender-specific research is funded with a consciousness toward making women in the workplace look equally engaged but unequally paid."

This espouses a belief that there is an agenda behind equal-pay studies and that the researchers were biased and cannot be trusted. It's a form of "projecting" -- Modern Republicans (among others) love this tactic and truly believe in it because their studies have an agenda and are biased, so all studies must be the same way. The fact is that biased studies don't hold up to scrutiny (peer review), and research methodologies are published to help verify the quality of a study. It's also the same argument that you used in an earlier post: "The statistics can be shown to prove anything, so I can raise a counterargument without supporting it with data."

"From the Jobs Rated Almanac’s worst-job list: We often hear that women are segregated into lower-paying jobs. What is probably true is that women are more likely to take lower paid jobs precisely to avoid these worst jobs." / "The fields with the highest paid workers bias toward engineering, computers and the hard sciences while the lowest paid are doing work that almost any adult can do—therefore there is no end to the supply of available people."

The fact that this is still used as an argument means that those using it are being deliberately misleading. This misses the point and always has. If unequal pay was a function of occupation choice, then a man and a woman in the same job at the same company would make the same amount of money. This is provably false.

"Men’s Weakness As Their Façade Of Strength; Women’s Strength as Their Façade Of Weakness" / "In most fields with higher pay, you can’t psychologically check out at the end of the day (corporate attorney vs. librarian)"

These comments espouse a belief in seriously outdated gender roles. Assuming women should be shrinking violets that do their work behind the scenes and do amazing things that surprise the men she is working under is not the way it works anymore, and thank goodness because that was a bunch of crap when it was expected (which was what, five decades ago?). The concept that women can't handle the stress of not leaving work behind when you leave work is equally misogynistic.

"People Who Get Higher Pay..."

This is the last one I'll tackle, and I'm going to repeat myself here, because it bears repeating. This is the heart of what's wrong with the "equal-pay is a myth" counterargument. The whole chapter and the next is predicated on the belief that women make less because they're making the wrong choices, not risking as much as their male counterparts, and are working less than the men even though they're in the same position. Therefore women *should* earn less because women are *doing* less.

Except that women *aren't* doing less. They don't just occupy the same positions, they do the same work. In some cases they do more work, and are still stiffed and passed over for promotion. Women are willing and able to do exactly what men do for their jobs, and yet they make considerably less for no reason other than their gender. There isn't an "effort gap" or "reverse sexism" or "societal factors" in play here -- Those have been modeled and they don't explain the disparity. It is discrimination, plain and simple. It's literally the only explanation left over.

Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not.

This represents a minority group. India represents the vast majority of arranged marriages world wide and it is arranged for both male and female alike.

Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

Yes, really. It's simply factual that the two male losers (of the competition) don't marry. They lost = they are the losers. She doesn't compete so there are no losers on her side. Furthermore, the males are trying hard to win (it's easy to lose just shoot an arrow wide). So they are happy to participate even though they are under duress. So no contradiction I'm afraid. (whether or not you "win" by marrying is up to the individual - obviously not true for her).

two main underlying assumptions here.....

I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether arranged marriage is happy or good or whatever. I also don't know whether they last because of dependancy or not - if someone shows me some data supporting that hypothesis..... A lot of ethical and social progress has been made by going against tradition - but not all. And tradition is not fear of change, basically speaking it is a social link to the previous generation.

assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

They are not even nearly almost all socially constructed. Firstly there are differences at a genetic level (we are sexual beings) Secondly, testosterone level differences create massive difference mentally and physically that account for the majority of character differences.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

No, it's not ridiculous. Men are stronger, have better muscle control, and significantly faster reaction speeds. There are lots of studies showing this - go look them up. It's why we dominate all sports, even ones that don't require strength, e.g. archery, low calibre pistol shooting, golf, badminton, etc. the list goes on. It may be an animated feature but it is still a reflection of real people and real life - otherwise what would be the point of talking about any movie.

Anyway, you've made some very valid points - I can't spend any more time discussing this (too busy) and I'm sure it will be a great movie (btw - I have multiple female children and I'm raising them to be what I call "pioneers" and not "princesses" - so they can do everything the boys do if they want - and when they choose to they do - I also have a bunch of boys).

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^harlequinn:
.......
>> ^hpqp:
......


Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.
1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.
2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?
3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.
4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.
The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.
To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.
_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

>> ^harlequinn:

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.
You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.
Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)
In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?
In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.
>> ^hpqp:
@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.



Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.

1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.

2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.

4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.

_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

^I agree. You can either see this clip as a young, independent girl trying to escape an arranged marriage with a group of potential suitors she does not have any great affection for.... or you can see this clip as a young smart assed girl going against her traditional gender role and beating men in physical competition. I guess it all depends on which characters you empathize with most.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why does female empowerment bother people? Do they feel women should be subservient? Do they feel women are inferior and should not be glorified in cinema? Are they threatened by challenges to traditional gender roles? I don't get the conservative lizard brain.


It comes down to privilege. A dude who has experienced pop culture produced by men, catered to men, and starring men for as long as he can remember will see female leads, female-produced movies, etc. as a threat. It means they might be losing their privileged position (even though it's really still just a drop in the bucket).

And losing privilege is SUPER scary because it means that at some point these dudes might have to actually compete on their merits. I don't mean compete for anything specifically, just that all the power, privilege, opportunity, etc., in our society have been given to dudes (especially white dudes), for so long just because they're (white) dudes. If things changed and these guys actually had to get ahead by working hard and being decent human beings, a lot of them would be screwed.

At least that's how I see it. The movie looks rad.

...and then you find out this is a Taming of the Shrew sort of movie.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't get why a female lead should be so controversial. I don't see any evidence that women are in any way a threat to male dominance in cinema.
Why does female empowerment bother people? Do they feel women should be subservient? Do they feel women are inferior and should not be glorified in cinema? Are they threatened by challenges to traditional gender roles? I don't get the conservative lizard brain.
Most films are focused on male characters: ex cia operatives, cia operatives, superheroes, starship pilots, lawyers, roughnecks, wealthy aires, adventurous lads, movie stars, pilots, news reporters, detectives, grieving sons, criminals, singing woodland crittters, spys, soldiers, cops, businessmen, farmers, swordsmen, insurance salesmen, vietnam vets, tap dancing penguins, even men playing female roles.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie/box_office.php

I don't get why a female lead should be so controversial. I don't see any evidence that women are in any way a threat to male dominance in cinema.

Why does female empowerment bother people? Do they feel women should be subservient? Do they feel women are inferior and should not be glorified in cinema? Are they threatened by challenges to traditional gender roles? I don't get the conservative lizard brain.

Most films are focused on male characters: ex cia operatives, cia operatives, superheroes, starship pilots, lawyers, roughnecks, wealthy aires, adventurous lads, movie stars, pilots, news reporters, detectives, grieving sons, criminals, singing woodland crittters, spys, soldiers, cops, businessmen, farmers, swordsmen, insurance salesmen, vietnam vets, tap dancing penguins, even men playing female roles.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie/box_office.php

You and I have been inculcated by decades of advertising propaganda. This little girl has been exposed to far less propaganda. She has a much less biased opinion on this matter than we do. Do you think it's possible that a young person like this who hasn't yet been beaten down by the system might have something to teach us?

>>> Adorable she may be, but she has far more to learn than to teach.

I'd like to know why the issue of gender roles is so important to you. Why you are bothered by a little girl questioning your status quo?

>>> I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm "bothered" by this at all. I'm annoyed that Pops has no good answers for her. And the confusion that awaits in government indoc. Maybe Pops doesn't know that there are real biological differences between male and female brains and that even if there were no obvious physical differences between the brains, they are each "pickled" in different biochemical baths in male or female bodies.

I don't get why you dismiss her natural feelings of gender unity in a culture that strongly enforces gender roles, and then claim she will later be indoctrinated by the government to believe "we are all the same", which is what she already believes in the first place - honestly the cognitive dissonance of this comment makes my head hurt a little.

>>> I dislike moral relativism, the sacrificing truth for convenience. There will be days when the indoc center will assure her that "people are all the same" in areas of life where it's simply untrue. There will be other days when she'll be segregated and her differences highlighted, in order to wrongly gain from others (political correctness) or preyed upon by others (political correctness).

Why do you have a strong partisan political opinion on something probably better left to psychology to research and explain?

>>> Why wait? Everything is political. Eveything. You really think the shrinks aren't "influenced" by who is paying for their research grants? Science--honest science--recognizes there are differences between boys and girls, men and women. Gender roles may be part societal, but AFAIC, it's 95% biological.

If you believe there's no difference between the genders you're trying a little too hard.

There's no doubt my son and daughter fit easily into seperate genders. We've given them both the same opportunities to pick their interests. Bit when my son picks up a stick it becomes a gun and when my daughter picks up the same stick she'll use it to train her horse. They both cook and clean and work to earn money that they have to manage but there's no doubt that there brains are fundamentally different.

You may argue that we have unconsciously reinforced roles for our children or that media and corporations have influenced their development but that ignores millenia of societal structures across the whole planet by cultures that in no way influenced each other and certainly were not influenced by modern media. It's obvious that corporate marketing reacts to gender roles rather than fabricating them. The idea of a conspiracy to suppress or elevate one gender through recognition of that genders inherent traits is horse shit. The inequality between genders in any culture is not a product of the difference between the genders themselves but a result of the values of that culture. Denying gender differences does not solve the problem of inequality in any culture, it only demonstrates a lack of real understanding of the problem.

My children can be anything they want. My son does not need to be encouraged to be something he's not in order to satisfy someone's intellectually dishonest bias that he is somehow no different from his sister. If you want to tackle the violence and suppression of the female gender in some societies then you have to address the political and social issues at the root. Pretending that making less pink toys is the solution is lazy and ignorant.

You and I have been inculcated by decades of advertising propaganda. This little girl has been exposed to far less propaganda. She has a much less biased opinion on this matter than we do. Do you think it's possible that a young person like this who hasn't yet been beaten down by the system might have something to teach us?

I'd like to know why the issue of gender roles is so important to you. Why you are bothered by a little girl questioning your status quo? I don't get why you dismiss her natural feelings of gender unity in a culture that strongly enforces gender roles, and then claim she will later be indoctrinated by the government to believe "we are all the same", which is what she already believes in the first place - honestly the cognitive dissonance of this comment makes my head hurt a little. Why do you have a strong partisan political opinion on something probably better left to psychology to research and explain? I'm fascinated with how the conservative mind works and I feel like the answer to this question could be a key to a deeper understanding. >> ^quantumushroom:

Plump-cheeked urchin, boys' and girls' brains are wired differently. You'll be hearing enough "we all the same" when you're placed in your first government indoctrination center school.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

She speaks the truth. Corporate marketing reinforces outdated gender roles.

@quantumushroom If facts are so important to you, then why is it that you never employ them while making implausible comments like liberalism causes black people to have babies out of wedlock, or that gays don't want equal marriage rights, or that California is broke because of liberalism.

You proudly admit to getting your media from questionable, corporate funded sources that a) carry no credibility outside of hardcore sympathetic ideologues, and b) have been shown to be less effective at keeping you informed than no media at all. This should be a big red flag.

http://www.good.is/post/poll-finds-fox-news-is-worse-than-no-news-at-all/

Beyond all this, you support a political ideology that has been on the wrong side of history, from slavery to women's rights to civil rights, to labor rights, and continuing with campaigns against gays, Muslims and Mexicans, as well as a continuation of the prejudices of old.

Do you ever wonder how regular German citizens got sucked into supporting fascism? Well wonder no more.

Let's take a look at the 14 defining characteristics of fascism and see how you do....

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

CHECK

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

CHECK

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

CHECK

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

CHECK

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

CHECK

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

CHECK

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

CHECK

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

CHECK

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

CHECK

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

CHECK

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

CHECK

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

CHECK

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

CHECK

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

I've seen nothing to suggest you support fraudulent elections.

13 out of 14. NOT GOOD DUDE. NOT GOOD AT ALL. You are free to dispute which ever ones you like, but you've got years of incriminating comments on this site to back this up.

But of course if you could see it, then the Germans would have been able to see it too, and we wouldn't have had to fight that war.



In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
My problem is only with intellectual dishonesty, whether it's via curable ignorance or deliberate deception is almost irrelevant.

I've been where you are now politically, only LONG ago. I worked my way UP from liberalism, wiped the slate clean with anarchism, aimed toward libertarianism and am now floating in the undefined, invisible world of 'conservatarianism'. I do not agree with liberal policies based on liberals' good intentions. As a taxpayer and citizen, I demand positive RESULTS, and anyone foisting social experiments on society better be ready to defend them when they fail. Do you know the stats on Black crime and births out of wedlock? "Racism" did not cause a 70% illegitimacy rate in the Black community, LIBERALISM did. Crazy Johnson's "Great Society" garbage. The results of holding Blacks to lower standards--including standards of behavior--is self-evident.

There is even a fair argument for gay marriage, but the gay "lifestyle" generally is a sad one, with rampant promiscuity and diseases. It's not established that most gays even want legal marriage. And though no one else cares to acknowledge it, AIDS is a behaviorally spread disease. Remember that the billions politically steered towards AIDS research could also have been spent on cancer research, and cancer affects FAR more people.

California is broke. It got that way due to liberalism. RESULTS. Not good intentions, RESULTS.

You have a right to your opinions, but no one has the right to their own facts. If I had to judge you, I would say you're highly intelligent but misguided, not because your political views don't mirror mine, but because you refuse to step back and view the entire picture.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The bottom line is that your problem with gays, blacks and other minorities is just that: your problem. It's not their fault that they have ended up on the wrong side of your emotional development. It's something you need to come to terms with on your own.