MRA and feminist issues.

[TheHuckster]

Anyone who identifies other people as "fuckable" in anything other than a dating scene is too immature to even be invited to the round table for this sort of discussion.

Speak for yourself, but I certainly wouldn't use the term "fuckable" on a date.

[Nekojin]

Speak for yourself, but I certainly wouldn't use the term "fuckable" on a date.

Eh... what I mean is that I wouldn't blame a 20-something too harshly for going into a dating club and thinking, or even saying, "That one's fuckable. So's that one. Not interested in that one..." Sure, he (or she) is still looking at people as sex objects rather than people, but at date clubs, almost everyone is.

But it's entirely different when you're using it as a measurement for someone you oppose politically. It rings loud a clear that you're a misogynistic asshole.

[Rageaholic]

I was going to post some long response, but what Hyena said covers a lot of it. When so many different people with different views identify under the same label, it becomes hard to define.
The basic ideas expressed in Katt's article are solid. No one should be stuck in some rigid role over what equipment they have (to put it nicely). It's one of my many problems with the MRA. While they are not wrong in addressing some problems men face, they often go too far and ignore the problems women still face (something they criticize feminists for doing). Also, don't get me started on the 'mangina' crap.

But sometimes it just goes too far. For example, target plans to do away with gender based labeling. This includes removing pink, blue, yellow, and green paper on the wall of the toy aisles. Now, I don't this is a bad decision or anything (it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things), but I also don't think anything was wrong with the colors or labeling in the first place. Like with shirtgate and banbossy, it's making mountains out of molehills. Trying to find discrimination where there is none.

[Kheldarson]

Now, I don't this is a bad decision or anything (it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things), but I also don't think anything was wrong with the colors or labeling in the first place. Like with shirtgate and banbossy, it's making mountains out of molehills. Trying to find discrimination where there is none.

It's not discrimination that the move address. It's stereotypes.

Most gender roles are taught from a young age. Infant clothes for boys have a wide range of colors and activities. Girls get white, pink, red, and purple with themes that emphasize cute, pretty, and princess.

That starts to teach something.

Then you take your child to the store. And the toys they want are down the pink aisle. And the toys here, again, emphasize cute, pretty, and princess.

You've now emphasized the lesson.

So Target's move has less to do with discrimination, but more to do with letting kids play without stereotype.

[Andara Bledin]

It's not discrimination that the move address. It's stereotypes.

Oh, no, it's absolutely discrimination. What do you think the stereotypes are based on?

And the reason why this is a good thing is so that boys who are fans of MLP can go and get their toys without having to worry about friends from school seeing them in the "girl" aisles while girls can go and get the latest Transformer toy without feeling like they don't belong.

I've actually been finding myself irritated specifically at the segregation of the toy sections in Target of late. It's not that they're doing anything differently so much as I've become aware of the effects of what they, and every other toy vendor, has been doing for generations.

Good for them for seeing that there actually is a problem and making a move to remove it.

[Kheldarson]

Oh, no, it's absolutely discrimination. What do you think the stereotypes are based on?

Discrimination is an active put down: the "no you can't because you're X". Stereotyping and bias are more passive and related to thought: the division of clothes and assumption of roles.

I'd actually say discrimination is based more on stereotypes and bias since those are related to thought. And you don't act without thought.

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah, you can't just redefine words like that.

Discrimination is consideration based on class affiliation; it doesn't have to reach the level of someone saying "you, shop in this aisle because you're a girl." The mere segregation of the aisles is, in and of itself, discrimination.

Someone made the decision to decorate like that; it didn't happen by happenstance.

As someone who has been harmed by thoughtless subtle discrimination of this nature my entire life; it really pisses me off when people want to change a definition of something because they don't want to face how the truth might make them feel about themselves or something they like.

[Kheldarson]

I'm not redefining words. From Merriam-Webster:

Discrimination:

the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

Stereotype:

to believe unfairly that all people or things with a particular characteristic are the same

Bias:

: a tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others that usually results in treating some people unfairly

Now, I would say that marketing strategies show a bias in this area because they reflect a societal stereotype, but I wouldn't call marketing strategies as being discriminatory, at least not in the store themselves, as there's nothing there saying specifically that "no you can't buy this".

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not redefining words. From Merriam-Webster:

Andara is correct.

Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.

To quote direct from Wikipedia.

Also, the gendered colours use to be the other way around ironically enough. Pink for boys, blue for girls. It didn't start to change till around 1920 and flipped entirely by the 40s thanks in part to retailers getting into the gendered theming of products.

It is, however, mainly a thing with western culture and only emerged after dyes became cheap enough to start gendering children. -.-

Similar to how dresses use to be for little boys and girls.

[Estil]

You mean like this?

[Bloodsoul]

Slightly related, I recall reading that Moe Howard gave himself his famous haircut as a kid as a way to rid himself of the long curls his mother had kept him in.

[Gravekeeper]

Slightly related, I recall reading that Moe Howard gave himself his famous haircut as a kid as a way to rid himself of the long curls his mother had kept him in.

Oddly enough yes, according to Wiki:

Although his "bowl cut" hairstyle is now widely recognized, Moe's mother refused to cut his hair in childhood, letting it grow to shoulder length. Finally he could not take his classmates' years of teasing any longer, sneaked off to a shed in the back yard and cut his hair. He was so afraid his mother would be upset (she enjoyed curling his hair) that he hid under the house for several hours, causing a panic. He finally came out and his mother was so glad to see him she didn't even mention the hair.

[gremcint]

ok so in the beginning of the thread someone brings up the custody thing which is a thing I hear mentioned a lot. I remembered reading a while ago about the fact that if the man actually fights for custody and sticks with it he will usually get it. I did a little googling http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massa...Bias_Study.htm
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcb...supportcu.html

We began our investigation of child custody aware of a common perception that there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions. Our research contradicted this perception. Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the primary [*748] caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time. Reports indicate, however, that in some cases perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody and stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes. In general, our evidence suggests that the courts hold higher standards for mothers than fathers in custody determinations.

So while gender perceptions do affect the outcome it's not so cut and dry. I'll be honest I simply do not have time to parse through the entire research study but thought it may be relevant to the discussion.

[the_std]

It is relevant, but not in the way it might seem.

This study doesn't do anything to discredit discrimination against men in the area of family law. What it does is reveal a more insidious bias.

It's true that men who actively seek custody are generally successful in receiving it. However, men are generally passively discouraged from seeking custody, as child care is still seen as "woman's work", and men are not generally seen as competent primary caregivers.

This is part of the subtle and pervasive sexism that continues to make life harder for everyone who encounters it, and it's hard to combat simply because it's so subconscious.

[Canarr]

This sounds interesting. Think I'll be watching that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/think...nt-want-you-t/