Itchy Feet

I think it's a combination of things. Fear, certainly.

Things I've noticed:

Men being raised to believe that their own sex drives are evil - how many generations of people belived that masturbation was self-abuse?

The divide between perceptions of sexuality. Lesbians are hot, gay men are gross. Women who have a lot of sex are sluts, and women who are attractive have nothing else to offer but their sex drives - and women who are intelligent shouldn't want to be attractive, they're already 'good enough' - the "The pretty one, the smart one" divide between siblings, for example.

Sex as a point-based game. The more sex you have, the 'better' you are - virginity isn't considered a personal decision, it's a flaw - or a trait to be admired. People who aren't having sex are losers, people who are having sex are 'easy' or 'sluts'.

"such a woman' or 'such a girl' used as an insult. I've heard it myself, even as a women. "God, stop being such a GIRL." - wtf? What's wrong with being a girl anyway? and it's used when calling someone weak or emotional.

From:

deathpixie

Usual caveat that this is all generalities and there's always exceptions to every rule.

The sex=bad construct is responsible for a lot - men are taught to fear their sexual drives as being something that makes them out of control and animalistic, and it being part of the male psyche and response to internal conflict, they seek an outside avenue to blame - women, who are able to elicit such responses in them. Women make men lose control, therefore they are manipulative, either taunting men with their sexuality, or withholding it from them entirely and using the male response to control them. Which, given the mixed messages about sexuality women have, is a catch-22 - give it up, and you're a slut, withold it and you're a frigid bitch. Again, related to the sex = bad thing - men feel contempt for a woman who engages in sex purely for sex and not for reproduction, because sex is a dirty thing, for all that we're all obsessed with it.

From:

I think it's more complicated than Womb Envy, but he definitely has a point that reproduction is one of the most stigmatized, controlled aspects of gender difference; no doubt there are a million different examples, but the one I always go back to is that nearly 100,000 native women were sterilized in the United States in the 1970s - that is, when they got pregnant, they were given abortions (often without anaesthetic) and then hysterectomies (both without their consent).

Controlling reproduction isn't necessarily only about gender (in the example above, it was also about race and land), but I agree with Whedon that reproductive differences do make a huge difference in how women and men are treated. Fear might have something to do with it, but I think, on a more basic level, it's about power. (This is the political scientist in me. Everything's about power. :) Making women's reproductive capabilities - and, in many ways, their actual bodies - an issue of shame (let's all turn to the story of original sin for a moment) makes it easy to argue that biological differences mean political differences: "If you can't actually hunt and gather, what makes you think you can do it metaphorically in Parliament? What you do is different, and takes place over there, where it can't hurt society."

Misogyny is also more complicated than the dichotomies in Whedon's blog entry. It's a rant for another day, but I think there are shades of difference between tainted and evil. There's a whole discourse of illness that starts to come out - a kind of pathology of femininity, where it's like a disease that can be spread. Some of my favourite parts of Buffy and Angel were the ones where they addressed that - Billy (the rescued-from-hell-then-Lilah-shot-him guy) in Angel particularly, in reverse. (Okay, I'm stopping now before my nerdisms get worse. I should really be answering my email now that I'm semi-competent to do so. :)

From:

100,000? Good god. When Virginia finally -actually- repealed their law, the reports were saying something like 50,000 total across the country for all categories.

That number keeps going up, and I wonder how many unreported cases there still are, if 65,000 was the number that was reported start-to-finish. (That's the number wikipedia's currently giving here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_sterilization)

From:

I honestly can't remember what the number was adjusted for - I think it might have been all of North America, or else it was to include the statistically-probable number of unreported cases. I took that class more than a year ago, so the article is somewhere on my hard drive, but I'm sure you can stand to live without the citation.

But yeah, it's ridiculously high. And while others were sterilized against their will, it was pretty gender-specific to do the procedures without anaesthetic (this was a lesson in what happens if you get pregnant, apparently). Andrea Smith wrote about native women specifically in Conquest: Sexual Violence and the American Indian Genocide - I didn't agree with a lot of her conclusions ("All women of colour are oppressed equally but white women are evil" was one of the more, um, interesting little tangents), but she has some truly chilling background research on native reproduction and how it was controlled by the government. Like how they were forced to take dangerous longterm birth control.

So yeah, I agree with Joss Whedon that reproduction plays a huge role in what roles women take, both in society and in fiction. I'm not sure if it all boils down to "womb envy", but it's an area that can stand to be problematized. And it does tie in to violence, quite a bit, I think.

From:

It might've been all of North America - looking at the wiki stuff, that seems about right. Either way, it's an absurdly large number of people sterlized without consent and it's gone up at least twice that I know of, because of adjusting for more cases being discovered/reported.

There was a study done - I'll have to see if I can find it, talking about how there is a sharp increase in violence against women when they are pregnant. I think it was specifically domestic/family, but I am not entirely sure. My TKD teacher's wife was talking about it when one of our blackbelts was expecting.

From:

amythyst7.livejournal.com

It's specifically regarding domestic violence, afaik. A woman who has suffered domestic violence is more likely to be killed or severely injured at two points - when she leaves her abuser or when pregnant.

From:

deathpixie

*nods* It's something we saw in Australia too, with the Aboriginal population. There was an actual policy - "Breed Out The Colour". Aboriginal women were 'given' to white men in order to produce half-breed children, who would then be given to white men to produce further degrees of part-Aboriginal children, and so on. The intention was to overwhelm the 'weak' Aboriginal genes with our superior white ones. This was accompanied by the usual removal of part-Aboriginal children from their families, to be raised in orphanages and trained as domestic servants and farm hands, in order to further separate them from a 'dying' culture.

Child removal was going on up unti 1970. That just boggles me. There's a film - Rabbit Proof Fence - that really illustrates how things were, and yes, gender and reproduction were a big part of how they were controlled.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/_bounce_/

I'm putting a placeholder in right now so that I'll (hopefully) remember to reply to this in detail later since I have mountains of reading to do right now. *grins* But I do have Thoughts.

From:

caliban18.livejournal.com

I think there are two aspects that Mr. Whedon, and by extension, you, are bringing up. One is the perpetration of violence by men against women, and the other is the tolerance of such behaviour.

As far as the latter is concerned, I think that there are valid concerns to be raised regarding the role that media plays in immunizing us against shock when confronted with such horror. However, while I think our last centuries have brought us entirely new levels of unfettered misery, the domestic-type violence and societal abuse of women is not a new feature, so I don’t think it can be entirely laid on the doorstep of the movies we consume. That said, profiting from images that normalize and fetishize violence of that nature is obscene. Given the potential good that the advent of mass media could have done in playing a roll in developing empathy and creating a new behavioral norm, I think that commercial media has missed a major calling. (And yes, I do believe that media can be used to alter behavior.)

However the perpetration of violence is another matter and frankly, although the navel gazing of why it happens is interesting, as far as I am concerned, the answer is a simple one. Violence is a justice issue. Justice should be applied consistently for the protection of all human beings within a society, and criminal justice should stand apart from the moral tides that wander across the spectrum of political expedience. The fight should always be for a stable court system with open testimony, protection of witnesses and consistent penalties. That is the most powerful message a state can send and it is internationally the most recognized feature of a civil society. While a courts are a tremendously imperfect solution to society’s ills (as we are both personally aware) there are no better ones available.

From:

Great article, although some of the replies to it on his blog make me wince. The whole 'The world would be so much nicer if it were run by women' and the 'Yay! The Matriarchy is going to make a comeback and do so much better then the current patriarchy' stuff makes me want to smack someone.

It should be about us all helping each other out and getting somewhere together, not about who would do something the best.

From:

deathpixie

That would be why I consider myself a humanist, or an equalist, rather than a feminist. This whole attitude towards women and the way it's aided and abetted by women themselves, not only demeans women, it demeans men, reducing them to fearful, violent animals. I'm big on everyone being treated equally, regardless of gender, nationality, physical capability, or preference in hobbies - it's why the term 'Mundane' when applied to non-fanficcers always annoyed the crap out of me.

From:

asgljjhagraagfskjh

Dude, you just described yourself as a liberal feminist with a mild postmodern streak. :) I have to run (literally run) to work just now, but I absolutely hate the stigmatization of the word 'feminist' as some kind of man-hating bitch who doesn't care about anything but ousting men from power. I actually agree with you - you're about where I am, politically speaking, there - but that perception of feminism is a gross misrepresentation of what feminism is, and since it comes from everyone's favourite neo-conservatives (Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, etc, etc) I feel... kinda obliged to say something. Feminists believe that gender is a legitimate lens through which to view inequalities in society. From there, they start to differ, and yes, some of them believe pretty crazy things, but a majority of them? Not so much. They'd almost unanimously agree with you that other divisions are legitimate and appropriate, even if that's not what they can look at without generalizing too much (my academic bent comes out here).

(Sorry to be nitpicky in your journal. It's not personal, I swear. Just one of those sore points for me, and I know it's kinda rude to say so, and I don't mean it badly or ANYTHING, but it makes me really sad to see it.)

From:

I think for me, it's because of feminists like Germane Greer that I'm iffy about calling myself one. At least, Germane Greer as she is now, I believe there may have been a time when she wasn't crazy. But I guess it's the same as with feminism as it is with anything else. The crazy types are always the loudest and tend to spoil it for everyone else. :)

From:

I do feminist political theory and I've never even READ Germaine Greer, to be honest. Feminism isn't one ideology - there are a lot of streams, but the mainstream is exactly as Rossi described herself: Equality is an issue, particularly legal equality, but recent developments have made clear that gender is only one of the divisions which requires attention. I'd call that liberal feminism, because it fits in the general area... Radical feminism (which means trying to get to the root of oppression, not "scary evil feminism") has so many fragments that I'm loath to call it its own stream, to be honest, but that's where some of the more intense people come from.

People like Germaine Greer come up in the mainstream (conservative) media to discredit reasonable feminists, IMO. And that media succeeds, because yeah, some people are crazy. But do we automatically assume that Rush Limbaugh speaks for all conservatives, or that Michael Moore speaks for all liberals?

(Sorry. SORRY. This makes me foam at the mouth and that's totally obvious - maybe I am one of the crazy feminists after all. :)

From:

*grins* No need to appoligise. I'm fully able to admit that I have a lot to learn about the world and that includes being open to changing my opinions when given enough evidence that I should do so.

If feminist means fighting for equalitity and for people to be treated with respect no matter what gender,social status or anything else they are, then I'm a feminist. :)

From:

deathpixie

Apologies. I wasn't meaning to stigmatise feminism, but focus on the fact it's not just gender equality we need, but _human_ equality. Phrased it badly, obviously. :(

From:

Noooo, no apologizing for the things that make me foam at the mouth even though honestly I should be less sensitive just imagine me saying all of this in one breath and we'll be fine. :)

(Seriously, I can be a loser sometimes. I shouldn't've ranted at you.)

From:

deathpixie

You're not the only one to take offence, so obviously I was offensive. I should have just turned off the computer today.

From:

It wasn't really offence? I know I worded it too strongly - I was just very reactionary today, and to be more honest than usual, that's because it's the first day I've been off the Ativan since Friday (I think) and it made me too... probably too harsh. I'm really sorry, I really didn't mean to yell at you - especially since we fundamentally agree. I tend to get worked up over semantics even though it's not always very important, and I think I probably misread your intent anyway.

But hon, you know I respect you. And like I said, we do agree. I just flew off the handle a little. The feminist label's one that I feel really strongly about, but I've had the benefit of really involving myself in what it means and what it is (and can be, and isn't).

From:

'more honest than usual' - meaning, I wouldn't usually throw around my medication like it's an excuse, which it's not. It just made me jumpy and I didn't control that too well. :/

From:

philf.livejournal.com

See, this is why I wish someone would invent the technology to hyperlink verbal conversation, so when someone says something like 'feminism', I could just click on a link and have a word-balloon materialise above their heads with a definition of what they mean, 'cos half the time what someone else means by a word and what I mean are subtly different to just enough of a degree that we end up arguing over something we basically agree on.

It's very confusing ;)

From:

You, I'd consider a feminist. ;)

From:

God, that would help SO MUCH. :) I totally agree with you. :)

From: (Anonymous)

*grins* Only I could see it all going horribly wrong, or someone finding a way to make a virus work with it so what you actually got was a whole slab of text about cats that no one really understands, and then you have a big arguement about whether you've been holding in the power button for long enough for the thing to bloody well turn off.

From:

And that anonymous comment was me...having once again forgotten to log on. Oh! I had a thought about making puppy dog eyes at Rossi to take up indoor climbing after DexCon, depending on how long after DexCon you're staying, would you be up for that?

From:

*nods* Hmm, I like those terms. I think one of the reasons I always refused to call myself a feminist is exactly that reason. The fact that I think we should all be treated equal and that I don't consider myself in some way superior to someone else just because I happen to have a womb and they don't.

I think everyone has their own talents and skill set. There's no need for the whole 'I'm better then you' stuff that goes on sometimes.

From:

See, I always wonder about that. In what way are you not a feminist? Do you believe that which particular set of genitalia you own should influence your career? Do you believe that the particular set of hormones that influenced your pre-birth or adolescent physical development have made you incomparable to someone influenced by the other set?

I have never been of the belief that being a feminist means that I think that women are better than men (and so not going into genitalia, medically that's more complicated that I want to mention) just that it meant that women aren't worse. As a result of this I wonder why it is that women get paid less, are the social givers of EEEVIL! aka sexuality, and have all of that other cultural baggage.

Being feminist has not, as far as I can figure or have experienced, meant that I am blind to other forms of discrimination, and that I have used up my "But why are there differences in how these two groups of people are treated" quota. I didn't even know there was a quota. Why can't I be a feminist and liberal, gay-rights, environmentalist, inclusionist, human/civil rights advocating person?

And to Rossi: How can you look at all human equality without looking at gender? Sure, and also looking at *spits* race (I hate that word, my inner scientist gets grumpy when I use it), language, age, abilities and disabilities, sexuality, physical and social groups.

You know I'm not angry at you guys, but I get so tired of seeing the fact that it is culturally unacceptable for women to be feminist. Let alone men. It's insane that it's considered risque for straight men to call themselves feminist. Frankly I consider that a sign that more people should be.

From: (Anonymous)

See my above comment to Lauren. *grins* And I think it'd take us running over your cat or something to get you mad at us. And then you'd be calling us on the phone to rant at us, not doing it in a journal entry. :)

From:

And that was me, by the by. *smacks hand against forehead* Forgot to log in.

From:

Heh. And no one's run over my cat for years. Plus you'd have to be here for that.

...

You should come and visit and not run over my cat.

From:

*grins* When I have money and annual leave to take, I believe I shall do so. I'm currently saving for a new computer, and just paid for my trip to DexCon so the funds are somewhat scarce right now. However, that shall not always be so!

From:

deathpixie

*sighs* Forget it, I said the wrong thing, I'm too damn sick of people yelling at each other and at me today to argue.

From:

Dude, opinions aren't the wrong thing. I'm sorry you're so stressed today, I feel strongly about this issue but wasn't planning for a fight either.

Who's been yelling? My life is one of low level atmospheric bitching and moaning. Not just by me, if you can believe it.

From:

It's just because the term's been stolen by the crazy people that so many of us are reluctant to use it for the casual day to day "Hey! I'd like to make as much money as a guy doing my job and quit assuming I'm a slut if I like giving blowjobs, can we have that too?"

In some cases, it's picking battles. I'm tired of having to explain what version of feminism I mean when I say "I'm a feminist."

From: