RolStoppable said:
It's obligatory that I repeat that men and women are different.
That women in fictional stories targeted at women commonly play the more submissive part is because that's how most women like it. They don't wish to be the dominant party, because in their minds men are supposed to be reliable entity that can help and support whenever a woman feels uncertain about something, and that's a lot of times. A basic example of the psychological difference between men and women is when they look at themself in the mirror; even beautiful women tend to consider themselves to be lacking and not good enough whereas even below average looking men feel good about themselves. That's why women are into men who are capable of leading, because their own lack of self-confidence would make a relationship to troublesome if they had to be the guiding party themselves. That is not an excuse for abuse in relationships (which is a different topic), just an explanation for the differences in basic expectations that men and women have in a partner; men playing the leading part doesn't have to result in abuse of any kind.
Regarding feminism, some modern versions of it have overshot the initial goal. What it was about in the first place was that women shouldn't be ruled over by men and instead be able to make their own decisions, get equal opportunities and payment etc. Modern feminism pushes so far at times that it seems to me that women want to rule over women, therefore taking away or limiting the right to think for themself for each individual woman. That's why many of the so-called issues in today's times in western democracies don't happen to get much support. Women didn't like it when men told them how they are supposed to be, so it doesn't surprise me that women don't like it either when women tell them how they are supposed to be. That's why I doubt that romance novels and the like will change in any notable way in the future.
In general though, there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with media that cater to male or female fantasies. What everyone needs to understand is that they are fantasies, so the same expectations shouldn't be set for real partners. That's an actual problem in the world, because this isn't something that everyone understands, that real people won't and can't be like the characters portrayed in fantasies. So my approach to a solution wouldn't be to change the media, but rather get it into people's heads that they have to be capable of telling reality apart from fiction.
|
Reading your paragraph about how it's simply the Natural Order of Things for men to lead and for women to submit feels like I'm reading a primer for some male chauvinist pseudo-science like evolutionary biology. In reality, all one needs do is look outside of the human species to see that, in reality, females do NOT just have some inalienable, impulsive need to be subservient, as there are quite an abundance of generally matriarchal species out there ranging from wolves to lions (sorry Lion King fans!) to orcas and dolphins to bees and ants and elephants and chimpanzees and on and on the list goes. Even large swaths of our own species used to be organized along matrilineal lines, and a few so-organized communities actually still (yes still!) exist in today's world right now! One such human community, for example, is that of the Mosou people, who live in the foothills of the Himalayas in southwest China, wherein grandmothers act as heads of household and children taken on the surnames of the mothers instead of their fathers, the people mainly worship female deities, etc. The very existence of situations like these discredits the notion that it's just natural for women to prefer subservient social roles. It's obviously the culture one lives in that largely shapes the generally expected (and permitted) sex roles therein, NOT DNA.
Regarding your take on the history of feminism, I don't totally disagree with your opinion, but...well I'm just not sure you really know that much about the history of the women's movement, frankly, because the founding 1848 Seneca Falls Declaration was in fact nothing short of radical by the standards of its time and some of the goals contained therein still haven't been realized to this very day. I have always felt that as much was the real spirit of the movement, at least in as far as I have participated therein myself. It has not been some foundationally conservative movement that has recently "gone too far". I DO agree with you on a certain level though in the sense that I don't much agree with the distinctive tenets of intersectional feminism, which is the particular variety that prevails in the United States today. The core of my disagreement with that general school of thought lies in the fact that it is ideologically opposed to prioritizing women in feminism. Instead, it seeks to re-imagine the women's movement as but a particular appendage of a much larger milleu of social movements, to all of which it is subordinate. Naturally, focusing one's energy on constantly "checking your privilege" diminishes the general level of motivation, to say nothing of the scope of one's goals, and lends itself to much retarded infighting that only further demoralizes. The infighting part is the sense in which I agree with your perspective. In the name of boundless inclusion, we ironically do little besides quarrel with and expel each other.
Of course one differentiates between the reality of their lives and the fiction they digest or entertain. Part of the aforementioned reality though is that the culture we digest nonetheless influences us, or else there wouldn't be much point in digesting it. The entire point of art is to inspire something -- a thought, a feeling, something -- within others, or even just within one's self. All of us have changed something about our lives in response to the art that we've consumed. My point being that, yes, it all matters!
When I speak of sexual equality, part of what that looks like to me is seeing positive qualities like strength and ability and confidence as appealing in others more than being aroused by someone else's vulnerability or victimization or abuse. I'm speaking about much more than simply media representation in that regard. I'm speaking of life. It's a philosophical position that I maintain.
Last edited by Jaicee - on 27 February 2021
)
