It's neverending...

Me: I saw a comic explaining the usual thing of how introverts spend energy interacting with others and how extroverts get energy from interacting with others and how that difference can be misunderstood as being anti-social.
Psychologist: Yes?
Me: Someone left a comment saying "Oh! That makes so much sense now."
Psychologist: [nods]
Me: How many times does that difference have to be explained before people get it?!
Psychologist: [laughs]


Another Frustration:

Why do so many people still have a problem with the scientific concept of a theory? Example: "Evolution is just a theory." "Theory" has been defined and explained probably millions of times, usually directly to the very people who say "it's just a theory," yet that term keeps being used incorrectly over and over. Why?! What do we have to do to get people to stop misusing the concept and arguing against a strawman? And please don't give me that they just don't want to "get it." I have a hard time believing that most people who claim to care so much about the strength of their argument are so easily able to just pretend to be ignorant. Some may just be manipulative jerks, but all of them? No, I can't believe that.

Why am I angry?

#Solidarityisforwhitewomen highlights many of the ways feminism as it is currently, has a bias towards addressing issues that affect white women, and doesn’t really address issues affecting WoC. Libby Anne points out some highlights. I agree and think this is an important topic to address if we want to grow and improve, both individually and as a philosophy and movement.

So why am I angry reading this? And why am I angry with critiques of liberals’/progressives’ privilege? I agree, so why am I angry reading about it? I’m angry with the people who don’t see or don’t care about their privilege, yes, but that’s not what this is. This is anger at the people pointing it out. Why? I know they’re correct; I actively look for and try to check my own privilege; I read about these problems deliberately; in some cases, they’re saying things I’m already aware of. I want these issues exposed. So why am I angry at them?

Other people who don’t want to admit they have privilege get angry when these issues are raised. They don’t like thinking they’re part of a social system that treats people differently; that they’re contributing to racism, sexism, etc.; that they may not have “earned” everything they have in life; that their experiences are not, or should not be, the default. But the issues still need to be raised and the deniers’ anger about it dealt with. Maybe if someone could figure out why I’m angry when I do care and want to know and even already do know, maybe that will help find a way to approach other people’s rejection of and anger about the problems and move forward.

Follow-up links and some others I like

I suppose if I'm going to claim feminists do address how sexism harms men, I should posts some links to that, huh.

First up is what I think is a fantastic overview of all the problems I've heard/seen talked about other places from feminist and atheist Greta Christina:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2010/07/26/5-stupid-unfair-and-sexist-things-expected-of-men/
or
http://www.alternet.org/story/147626/5_stupid,_unfair_and_sexist_things_expected_of_men

I admit I'm surprised to see her start of by saying we don't talk about sexism's effect on men much since I've seen it mentioned in terms of male body image in my university's mental health center going back a few years, but then, that's just one specific area and this post is a few years old, so, there's that.

Sarah Moon is a Christian(?) feminist (sorry, I don't really follow her stuff, I just coincidentally came across it today and thought it was appropriate,so I hope I got that right) who here is talking about sexual violence againts women, but begins by addressing sexual violence against men as well:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/sarahoverthemoon/2013/06/you-are-not-your-own-series-on-hostile-and-benevolent-sexism/

Libby Anne, my favorite blogger, discusses the limiting expectations gender roles place on her son:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/01/why-my-son-bobby-needs-feminism-too.html
and how her patriarchal upbringing distortered her view of men:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/02/men-arent-sex-addled-beasts-theyre-just-individuals.html
while her husband talks about the benefits he gets from birth control and egalitarian relationships:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/01/is-contraception-emasculating-sean-responds.html

Libby Anne actually frequently mentions how gender roles and sexism affect men, even though it's not usually the main focus of much of her writing.

And one more that I jst found that more thoroughly addresses some of the issues I mentioned anti-feminists like to bring up: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2011/10/08/the-disadvantages-of-being-a-man/


Some other things:
Lately, I've been coming across a lot of discussions about sexualizing and objectifying women, and I want to put my favorites all in one place. I would also like to point out that all of these also mention the harm it does to men, even if that's not the focus.

First, my favorite breakdown of what exactly people are complaining about when they talk about sexualized female characters. He does a fantastic job of starting with the claim and progressively addressing each rebutal you'd likely here in a conversation on the topic. Even more impressive is that this came from a guy who only came to realize he's a feminist after posting this, and comments as such in an edit half-way through:
http://thegamesofchance.blogspot.com/2011/12/feature-sexism-in-character-design.html

I do at some point plan to follow up his breakdown with some of my own ideas based on his last conclusion, but that will be in the future.

Second is Objectification and...Men? from Jimquisition. Similar to the one above, but in video form, and without the very facinating conclusion from the blog above. Instead, though, he discusses what video game companies have actually said regarding sexualized women characters. He also addressing how this affects men:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hR9UMgOFeLw

And finally, Feminist Frequency's Tropes vs. Women Part 2, which lays out pretty much all my concerns with stories that revolve around harming women to create emotion and tension, typically for male protagonists (Flynn, I'm looking at you...):
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/05/damsel-in-distress-part-2-tropes-vs-women/

Where are all the man-hating feminazis?

I feel this is not exactly well written or thorough, particularly since I don’t really know who my intended audience is for this. This is my rough thoughts, and I can see a few directions I make take further developments of these ideas. Input on writing, audience, focus, and of course the ideas themselves are very welcome.

It seems every discussion of feminist issues results in someone talking about feminist-extremists, but I can’t seem to find them. I've studied feminism, I have friends in Women's Studies programs, I read feminist blogs, I’ve known some pretty intense feminists who even I thought sometimes saw sexism that wasn’t there. Yet no one I've come across fits that stereotype in the slightest, having both close male friends and meaningful, long-term romantic relationships with men. I would imagine that statistically, there must be *some* feminists who dislike men for one reason or another, but I’ve never even come across them. I doubt there are many. I've met more feminists who say they don't like women! Yet given how often people equate feminism with hating men, you’d think there must be at least a few; the whole “vocal minority becoming the face of the majority” problem. But there seems to be more talk about them than talk from them; I’ve concluded “feminazis” aren’t simply a minority, but a complete fantasy.

I recently came across a comment on a feminist blog I follow that clarified the thought process that leads to the “feminazi” stereotype. The blog was criticizing a harmful aspect of Christian patriarchy, and the commenter complained that the blogger was blaming men. But she wasn’t. She was only discussing how the ideology can lead to harmful outcomes, and not eve ascribing that ideology to any particular gender. Yet the commenter seemed to be linking a male identity with social systems such patriarchy and hyper-masculinity, as though simply being male is dependent upon those systems. Criticism of social norms became criticisms of the male gender. Criticism of stereotyped gender became blaming men for having testosterone.

Men are not patriarchy; people’s identities are not a system; being biologically (or culturally!) male is not dependent upon being masculine. Criticism of a system is not criticism of a person’s identity, unless perhaps their identity is solely tied to their place in that system. After all, I don't see how someone can take criticism of a stereotype personally unless they actually identify with that stereotype.

Yet many anti-feminists indirectly claim to NOT identify with the system. MRA’s for example, complain about negative portrayals of men as dumb and childish, about potentially harsher treatment of male criminals by our justice system, about fewer men than women getting custody of their children, about the lack of recognition and support for male victims of abuse. These are legitimate concerns, but they are the result of patriarchy and gender essentialism defining men as inherently dominant (aggressive and less nuturing), natural protectors (expendable, and weak if they’re a victim), belittled by women who tell them how to do things (childish and unable to take criticism), sexual to the point of needing women to not tempt them (lacking self control). Feminists frequently address the harm these very ideas about masculinity have on men, not just women, yet feminists inexplicably get blamed for them by anti-feminists anyway.

If people opposed to feminism are serious about addressing these problems, why do they take criticisms of patriarchy personally? Why do they attack feminists for “blaming men,” when logically they should agree with feminists about the source of the problem? Why do they focus on “one-upping” feminists with men’s problems instead of just working to address those problems they care about, to get to the real root of those problems?

If they truly care about equality as many claim, have they simply only moved half-way down the path to understanding equality? They now see the harm, but are still far enough in patriarchy and gender essentialism culture to continue seeing women as the “enemy,” an “opposing force” in a zero-sum game where addressing women’s problems therefore *must* be the source of their own problems? If they care about negative cultural influences on men, such as the “dumb jock” stereotype, why do they reject that the next step, pointing out how that culture actually influences some men's behavior? Why don't they see that pointing that out isn’t the same as pointing out some “essential” fact about men (like pointing out that most rapists are men, which is almost always followed by criticism of the cultural factors that lead to that fact, is not the same as saying there is something inherently “wrong” with men,” just as saying women are more often victims of sexual violence is not the same as saying women are inherently “weak;” both ultimately point to the cultural factors that are the problem, not to some "inherent quality" of each gender). Are they still so wrapped in their privilege, the positives patriarchy has to say about men - Leaders! Strong! Intelligent! The movers of the world! - that they haven’t realized they won’t suddenly stop being those things, assuming they ever were, just because patriarchy is questioned? That they are individuals defined by their individual strengths and weaknesses, not what our society says their strengths and weaknesses “should” be? That harmful cultural influences don't just harm the immediate subject, but can lead that harmed subject to cause harm as well? Or do they simply still believe in gender essentialism, in the flawed “separate but equal,” that men and women are fundamentally different, but recognizing and rejecting the harm this concept does to men while rejecting that it even does harm to women? Why do they seem more interested in “proving” feminism is somehow opposed to equality and less interested in actually addressing the problems they claim to recognize in our society? Where is the talk about creating shelters and support for abused men? Directing men unfairly sentenced or denied custody to law programs that can assist them? Working to establish educational programs for boys at high risk of violence, drug abuse, and other societal problems?

Is that where the “feminazi” comes from? Women focusing on women’s problems instead of addressing men’s problems for them means they must hate men? Certainly, I think it’s safe to say anti-feminists reject the claim that they hate women, even while going so far as to insist women don’t even have problems or blaming feminists for their own. But if they truly thought through their positions, if they truly cared about men’s problems that arise from our societal systems, if they truly listened to what feminists have to say about the source of gendered problems, I think we’d actually be on the same page.