fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2273 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2273 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 117 secrets from Secret Submission Post #325.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ], [ 1 2 3 - trolls ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Should a society which promoted solely 'masculine' values, but equally allowed and encouraged women to take them on, be considered feminist?

I think it would be considered egalitarian?

How do you define 'masculine values?'

That's what I want to find out too.

If they promoted those values because they're "masculine" and encouraged women to take them on so they could overcome their femaleness, then no. But if that society doesn't categorize them as "masculine values" (or have a history of doing so, like ours),then I would call it feminist.

What's the intrinsic difference there?

Valuing certain traits because of their usefulness to society (or whatever) versus valuing traits because it's assumed that most/all men embody these traits and that women need to take them on as well in order to overcome their "natural" feminine traits.

At least, that's what I'm getting out of it. Valuing something for what it is rather than for what it stands for or implies.

This seems to be putting the cart before the horse here.

Surely we ascribe 'valuable' traits to masculinity because of teh patriarchy, rather then valuing traits because they're masculine?

(it's a lot more complicated I suppose, but that's I imagine the central thrust)

I dunno dude, a lot of traditionally female things like furthering the species and raising offspring and making sure the house isn't on fire are pretty valuable.

They're valuable socially, not as an individual actor, which overall in the west we glorify.

Really I should change valuable there to traits society respects in an individual because it empowers them over their peers.

Do you have any particular society in mind?

I don't think that a society that decided that all of its values and virtues should be associated with "masculinity" is going to come out looking all that feminist, even if (or especially if) they're encouraging women to adopt traits their culture associates with masculinity in order to be more valued/virtuous.

I can't think of any traits or values that absolutely MUST be associated with one gender or the other; that's a determination usually made by culture and society.

Where did this society get the concept of "masculine" values in the first place? Have they adopted them from another culture already entrenched in patriarchal hierarchies? Or have they evolved that concept themselves?

one of the Discworld novels has a part where a female werewolf asks a female dwarf why she's discontented with her life because dwarf culture (in Discworld) encourages dwarf women to do what the men do, and the dwarf woman replies "Yes, provided we only do what the men do." do with this what you may.

And these things were - drinking alcohol and singing songs about gold. I don't think that's what anon was asking about.

no, these things were "any mention or implication of femininity is considered scandalous and horrible and a female dwarf who openly admits to being female is considered shameful."

If both genders were equally encouraged to practice those values, how and why would they be seen as masculine?

If you're inclined to use a term like feminist, then yes. Because "masculine" and "feminine" in this context is an utterly useless, dumb-ass term implying that particular traits/interests/attitudes are inherent to just one gender.

As long as those traits weren't seen as being actually masculine and coming easier to men, yes, absolutely. Probably not a very pleasant one, mind, but not inherently un-feminist.

i would say no, since actively encouraging women to be more "manly" isn't a feminist quality in society. it's implying - in this scenario - that there's something flawed about femininity.

what do you even mean with masculine here?

does the term masculine come from the members of the society themselves, i.e. they label certain values as masculine and tell everybody to strive for them? in which case, no, it would not be feminist.

or does the term masculine come from outside observers? Because if it is just a society that has termed a certain skill set as most valuable but does not necessarily ascribe these values to either sex (even if from our viewpoint that skill set would rate as masculine) then eh, i guess you could call it feminist?

it seems rather worthless though. feminist is a term that sprung up as a result of our unbiased society and embodies a certain think pattern. but if this society has never known this unbalance to begin with, I feel it would be hard to term them as feminist if when you'd ask them about it they'd probably answer with something like 'wow, it is so silly that is even a problem for you'.

Did I read this wrong in assuming OP meant western society? Because much of what feminism does is say women should be equal to men under the law(which is true, of course) but then a lot of people take that to mean dress like men, "behave like men", try to look like men. Where we don't also say that men can look and act like women.

I have problems with this concept because there's so many ways to read it and I think any of them can be true at any time. We don't allow men to be "feminine" because we see it as weak. We don't allow men to be feminine because we see that as exalted. We want women to be "masculine" because it makes them more important. We want women to be masculine because it knocks them down a notch.

That might be hard to follow. Anyway.

In a perfect world we'd be allowed to do what we want as long as it doesn't physically hurt someone. We wouldn't say that women are taking men's jobs(or clothes, or style) because jobs shouldn't have a gender. Even if they typically are filled mostly by one.

I don't think that's feminism. I think feminism is fractured and indescribable at this point only using "We're for Equality" as a wall against criticism.

[ SECRET POST #2273 ]

Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist

Re: Essentialist