Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No more sex war!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    No more sex war!

    Letter from the Times:

    Sir, While enjoying the irony of a sexist campaign against sexism (“It’s time to challenge casual sexism”, times2, Sept 28), it does raise a serious point. Contempt for women because they are women is rightly deprecated and we call it misogyny. The male equivalent, misandry, is a word never heard, presumably because society has no need of it. Is that because misandry is acceptable and unremarkable and in no need of being either highlighted or condemned?

    Sexism, the application of double standards and disparaging stereotyping, applies to men, too. It can be found everywhere, from the attitude of the courts in relation to divorce and the role of fathers in the welfare of their children, to the depiction of men as hapless buffoons, such as Frank Spencer and Mr Bean, for whom there are no female equivalents. A widely available cartoon of a woman saying to her husband “I’m having my period, so I can legally kill you” is simply seen as funny, but if one could reverse the sexes many women would find it offensive.

    The sexism described is deplorable but how best to deal with it should be part of a wider debate that includes society’s attitude towards men.

    Julian Field

    London EC4
    No silly women in sitcoms!

    And what on earth is the opposite of this hilarious period joke?

    #2
    No more sex war!

    Tubby Isaacs wrote:
    Letter from the Times
    Who to?

    Comment


      #3
      No more sex war!

      He makes some good points. One that's always bothered me is the portrayal of 'dad' as a hapless buffoon in tv commercials. That notion of 'he tries hard, I'll give him that, but always gets it wrong' does insult dads who do better than 'try hard'. Restaurants use it to great effect in the standard "Mom working late? Take the kids to....", since dads clearly can't feed their children.

      Maybe do one where a wife is trying to install a shelf using a nailgun and some bathtub calking and we'll see how long before it gets yanked from the air.

      And the one I really love is when you're vacuuming or doing the dishes and one of your wife's friends (or mother) says "Well, you've got him well trained." Imagine reversing that scenario and living to tell the tale.

      Argh...this bugs me.

      Comment


        #4
        No more sex war!

        I completely disagree with you, WOM, and I think Julian Field is an utter fool.

        The reason the "well trained" line works when said by a woman is because things like hoovering and doing the dishes are traditionally seen as the women's work, a relic from a time when the man was the wage earner and the woman was expected to stay at home, keep things tidy, and have her man's dinner cooking for him when he got home. So said by a woman the line is a wry acknowledgement that she's succeeded in redressing the power imbalance. Said by a man, there's an implication that the woman has been kept in 'her place', ie that of doing the menial tasks of housework and keeping things neat and tidy for her man. The difference in power relationships between the two is vast, and thus you can't really compare them in the way you have.

        And something similar goes for all Joolsy's comments too.

        Comment


          #5
          No more sex war!

          So said by a woman the line is a wry acknowledgement that she's succeeded in redressing the power imbalance.
          But I'm not doing [half the] housework because my girlfriend tells me to. I do it because we both have full-time jobs and it would be unfair to do otherwise.

          Comment


            #6
            No more sex war!

            Well, quite. I'm not suggestion there was any actual coercion or training program required.

            Comment


              #7
              No more sex war!

              Quite. And you don't redress historic imbalances of power by insulting successive generations who weren't responsible for, nor subscribe to, those imbalances.

              Comment


                #8
                No more sex war!

                Hofzinser wrote:
                Well, quite. I'm not suggestion there was any actual coercion or training program required.
                Bollocks. You've said that 'she's succeeded in redressing the power imbalance'. She's succeeded in nothing at all when I do what I should be doing. It's no real victory on her part.

                Comment


                  #9
                  No more sex war!

                  Christ, well if you want be pedantic about it...

                  My point was about the difference in power relationships; my attempt at a paraphrase may have been weak but has little to do with actual point I was making so knock yourself out in devising a better paraphrasing.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    No more sex war!

                    Fine, then argue the point you were making. How is insulting me a legitimate way of redressing past grievances?

                    Or, how does one justly punish the son for the sins of the father?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      No more sex war!

                      It's all a bit biblical innit, this talk of punishment of forbears' sins and the like. But Hof's broader points stand, I think. We may not be responsible for the 'sins' of our 'fathers', but we still benefit from them, just as how we in Britain may not be racist colonialists, but we still derive material benefit from its legacy.

                      So yeah, there are power imbalances that want redressing, regardless of who's 'sinned' and who hasn't.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        No more sex war!

                        Fine, then argue the point you were making. How is insulting me a legitimate way of redressing past grievances?

                        Or, how does one justly punish the son for the sins of the father?
                        Well, I didn't make either of those points.

                        You argued that the statement about being well-trained shouldn't be accepted coming from a woman because it wouldn't be accepted coming from a man, and therefore there's somehow some sort of double standard there.

                        I'm simply saying that there's no double standard there at all - because of historic power imbalances, the quip has quite different resonances depending on whether it's from a man or a woman, and it's much more pernicious coming from a man.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          No more sex war!

                          A widely available cartoon of a woman saying to her husband “I’m having my period, so I can legally kill you” is simply seen as funny
                          And this is supposed to be an example of misandry?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            No more sex war!

                            I totally agree with WOM about the portrayal of men in commercials. There's a paper towel or some cleaning product commercial that runs here with a woman talking about how hard it is to keep her house clean--cue scenes of a dog running across the carpet with muddy paws, a kid spilling a glass of juice, and dad eating a sloppy joe, with meat falling out of the sandwich, and he guiltily looks to his right and left, and walks away from the mess. There are countless commercials like this.

                            Not only are these commercials insulting to men, who are portrayed as clumsy oafs who make messes and then do nothing about them, but the ads only feature women as the ones that are picking up the mess and responsible for keeping things clean, so it's insulting to women as well.

                            And as WOM points out, there are the restaurant/fast food commercials that show that dad is incapable of cooking. There was a takeout one recently where the kids are excited because "dad made dinner!" and the mom asks "when did you do all this?," looking at a set table, then she sees the takeout boxes on the kitchen counter. Cue the "oh, you!" smile and head shake as he sheepishly shrugs his shoulders.

                            Now, I'm not saying that these portrayals in pop culture are anywhere equal to the systematic discrimination that women face, but these only reinforce stereotypes and are bad for both men and women, I think.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              No more sex war!

                              ...the depiction of men as hapless buffoons, such as Frank Spencer and Mr Bean, for whom there are no female equivalents.
                              Unless these characters were created by women then this argument might have some value, but they were male characters played by men. A better example would have been the lecherous fat blokes who French and Saunders used to portray. This has an opposing example in the Pepperpots from Monty Python, which pisses on his chips even more because they are by far the funniest example of all these.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                No more sex war!

                                It's hard to imagine Sean being referred to as Mister outside of a brush with officialdom.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  No more sex war!

                                  Well now, look. We can all agree, I guess, that these ads are the way they are because they're seeking to sell to women, and using a conspiratorial "Oh, aren't men just big incompetent babies?" to establish an illusion of rapport. Which is a bit pathetic and irritating, to be sure; let's grant that.

                                  We can also agree that there isn't a symmetry here: that an ad that sought to do the same thing with the boot on the other foot would get into trouble.

                                  But I mean, there isn't a symmetry in society. There isn't a symmetry in history. And for that reason I think ads like that are pathetic and irritating and no more, whereas ads slagging off women are something slightly worse than pathetic and irritating.

                                  I think the fact that the men are always infantilised in these ads is fascinating. Complex stuff going on there, I reckon. Part of it is taking us self-important buggers down a peg or two. But it's more than that; I think women have often sought to reconcile themselves to how much they've had to skivvy for men by drawing the "man=child" analogy, and saying, in effect, "If I didn't do all this he'd be dead in a week." Kind of a way of restoring the sense of self-worth that the domestic drudgery robs you of. The ads are chiming in with that.

                                  Which of course makes them pretty cynical, and deeply conservative in effect. (As well as pathetic and irritating, which we've established.) But I still think chaps who are "insulted" by this kind of stuff probably need to chill a bit.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    No more sex war!

                                    Do you know, timing could spoil that.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      No more sex war!

                                      It's all about tone though. If a man said "I've got to go home and clean the toilet" this mates might laugh about him being well trained, and under the thumb, whereas used as above it is fine. Likewise, a woman fetching her partner a beer while he watches football with his mates, one might say "blimey, you're well trained" meaning "Gosh, you love Brian so much you're happy to get things for him - my missus would get me a beer if I was on fire". But could be used nastily as well.

                                      Anyway, it doesn't bother me. And while I'd agree that there's more than our fair share of male bumbling hopeless cases on our screens, the fact that I'd have to be scarily self-unaware not to acknowledge that I'm pretty much a hopeless bumbler anyway, so it's pretty accurate. Although the whole thing about man-flu does annoy me, because it's crap.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        No more sex war!

                                        E10 Rifle wrote:
                                        So yeah, there are power imbalances that want redressing, regardless of who's 'sinned' and who hasn't.
                                        And a legitimate means of redress is sexist commentary and negative stereotyping?

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          No more sex war!

                                          Well no, but I wasn't talking about the specifics of a mildly irksome ad; more, the general point about power imbalances and us being 'innocent' of our forebears' 'sins'.

                                          Wyatt's post has struck the right tone here.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            No more sex war!

                                            I'm still confused. Yes, power balances did and do exist. And yes, we benefit in many ways from past sins. But if we didn't (and aren't currently) commit those sins, should we be punished or held to account for them even if it's just a mild, but still sexist, rebuke?

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              No more sex war!

                                              It's absolutely nothing to do with being punished or held to account.

                                              It's about how pernicious it is, the sort of attitudes the statement reveals, and the sort of message it sends. And I'd say all these things vary immensely depending on whether or not the speaker is a man or a woman.

                                              Excellent post by Wyatt above.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                No more sex war!

                                                I just thought that those adverts were in the main for products that women buy. I've worked in offices with women, they'll quite often say disparaging stuff about their husband/ boyfriend, but done in an affectionate way, and I just see it as tapping into that. Whereas men don't do quite the same thing. A woman within her social group when talking about her fella, will bemoan her husband's lack of taste in clothes for example, but in a light hearted manner and the advertisers are just tapping into that, men don't do quite the same thing, so an advert with a woman who's hopeless at putting up shelves or somehting just wouldn't resonate with us.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  No more sex war!

                                                  Hofzinser wrote:
                                                  I'm simply saying that there's no double standard there at all - because of historic power imbalances, the quip has quite different resonances depending on whether it's from a man or a woman, and it's much more pernicious coming from a man.
                                                  That's precisely what a double standard is. When there are different provisions for one group than for another.

                                                  It's about how pernicious it is, the sort of attitudes the statement reveals, and the sort of message it sends. And I'd say all these things vary immensely depending on whether or not the speaker is a man or a woman.
                                                  Well, you've called (rather pompously in my opinion) the author 'an utter fool' when all he has done is point out that a double standard exists. You can justify its existence and say it's not pernicious, but it seems to me the guy is making a worthwhile point, that men are targets of sexism, too. I don't read him as saying that the one kind is as bad as the other, rather that the one gets highlighted a lot, and the other hardly at all.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X