Dolls and feminism

Rockin' Resin Addict, you don't agree with me on the point that women backstab each other etc. - because I think they backstab and lie no more than men do. So my point and your point are quite different, so to say. I understand traumatic experiences can alter the way we view the world, and as I said I don't want to invalidate your experience. I simply don't agree, that's all

The Stockholm syndrome wording was exactly that - a hyperbole. It was meant provocatively to a certain degree. What I tried to say with it was that females tend to identify with males (who are actually the ones who have the most power in this world and hence more often are the oppressor class) and to demonize other females (who hold less power in this world and hence are more often the oppressed class). I used the identification with the kidnapper in the Stockholm syndrome to describe this hyperidentification with the male. I didn't mean that ALL women are literally trapped within their homes with men as their kidnappers (though this situation does exist, too).

So it seems you do see the world as "us" and "them" - you just side with men. But it can be dangerous to do so if you are a female. Dangerous not because men will do something to you. It can be dangerous to your self-image.

I might be biased too, to be honest. I am rather fond of women, so I am pretty much the opposite ^^ But the most important thing is that I think to be feminist you don't need to like other individual women. You can choose your friends as you wish - if you would like to have male friends, why not? It would actually be enough to like yourself. To see females as something bad is not good for a female's self-esteem.

By the way, liking females doesn't keep me from having male friends - and male dolls

 

I don't think it is hypocritical. The male dolls are not men - they are dolls. You don't say you think that men are better or something - you just collect male dolls. Like others collect fantasy dolls only, or tan skin dolls only, or only tinies, or only dolls by certain companies.

Maybe you just like the aesthetic of androgynous bodies. Maybe you want to be able to create storylines where the power gradient in relationships between active protagonists is less present, while still having the advantage of a historical - or nearly historical - background ( (I am thinking Felix and Wolfe as an example - sorry to sound stalkerish, I am not intenting to, I just follow you on dA), ), because one has to keep in mind that female protagonists are often limited in their freedom if one wants to be accurate with a historical background. Maybe you indeed feel tired of the permanent objectifying and sexualized visibilty of the female body in general. Maybe you are a heterosexual or heteroromantic female who finds men visually more attractive. There can be many reasons for one's taste in dolls. Of course, there is a possibility that you do value men higher in your subconscious - we all are taught to as little girls. But subconscious is the word. You cannot be hypocritical other than by will.

In my opinion, it is rather empowering for a female to be able to have something as beautiful to look at and touch, even if it is a doll. Females are much too often seen by society to be something beautiful and enjoyable for others, instead of actively enjoying. I think having pretty male dolls somewhat compensates us for this fact (well, having pretty female dolls actually does too, but I think one should just go with the taste one has).

 

The term femi-nazi may just as well have been coined by women like me, who despise what the women's movement tried to turn into in the 70s. NOW specifically, demonized anyone, male or female, who didn't agree w/their narrow-minded views on things. I remember getting into an extremely bitter argument in college, w/a junior professor who happened to be in our local NOW chapter, over Jane Austen & fairy tales. Not to get into specifics, she refused to take historical context, demanded that I 'admit' either her point or that I had been brainwashed by the patriarchy, etc etc.
Or that linguistic idiocy (womyn, ad nauseum, instead of proper spelling, because certain people are ignorant of etymology).
I use the term all the time. I MEAN to insult those who fit the criteria, thank you very much.

 

I really dislike the term "femi-nazi" for two reasons. One, it's offensive to the descendants of victims of the Holocaust. And two, the idea that it's okay to equate nazis with women who aggressively advocate for their rights, well, it makes me feel a little ill...

 

I believe it was Rush Limbaugh who coined the phrase...? He, of course, who knows and understands SO much about women's issues. Either Rush or one of his friends; someone who had a lot of fear & didn't know how to articulate it. The less said about him, the better.

 

Word! If it was Rush, then you know it's bad news lol

 

The phrase you're looking for is "Godwin's Law."

 

I agree with Teleri in that some women take it way too far. We have the vote now, we can get the same jobs as men, the majority of people don't even raise an eyebrow when I go out on my motorbike or get out my tattoo. It's like these women are fighting for supremecy instead of equality. There are always going to be differences between men and women. While the Nazi thing opens up a whole new can of worms I do think people tend to hide behind wording instead of adressing the main issue that yes, these over opinionated people exist and can be incredibly annoying to some other people. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't surprised at some of the extreme and, in my opinion, unecessary, anti-masculine view points here. Yes, anti-masculine. Perhaps it's time that the men had a term for the opression that I think a few of these extreme feminists would force upon men if they could.

 

I still think there are battles to be fought - equal pay for equal work, springs immediately to mind. There's still a big discrepancy between male and female earnings, even for the same job within the same company.

I believe in equality, but I don't believe in one gender being superior over another; even though the world has been male-dominated for so long, I don't believe it's 'time' for females to dominate over men. I don't think one gender should surpass the other in opportunities and although I see the point of positive discrimination while there is disparity in educational opportunities and things like that, I don't believe it is fair and as time goes on and education and experience increases, the need for positive discrimination should be reduced and the practice should come to an end. I wouldn't want to get a job just because I'm the only woman who applied and the company needs to increase the number of female workers - I want to know I got the job because I'm the best qualified person and interviewed for the job the best.

If I had a son, I would be very concerned about the amount of anti-masculine commentary out there - David&Goliath brand had a t-shirt that said 'Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.' among other anti-masculine products. There are better ways to empower our daughters without belittling our sons at the same time. In the same way, there are better ways of giving young boys a masculine role model - the clothing and anti-woman slogans on some tees aimed at teen boys and young men can be disgusting.

I have one boy doll and seven female dolls (yes, even the two floating heads are girls!) and I don't particularly relate very well to male dolls. In RL I prefer female company and most of my friends are women. My dolls' characters exist in a world I would like to exist - both genders are equal, there is no pay-gap, and opportunities for both genders are available. I don't think this is an impossible dream - it does depend on he-men respecting the rights of women and depends on women working for genuine equality, not superiority.

 

You can do what you want - it is your life. You might want to be careful though because in some cases and places, insults can be pricey, because they can be persecuted by law (LOL). My view on it is, that insults are neither a mature, nor a sensible, nor a working way to change the views of those you argue with. I have been called femi-nazi a couple of times, despite only arguing about social circumstances, philosophy, and feminist theory, without name-calling or hatespeech. Well, the fact that someone called me this simply lead me to the impression that the one calling me that was simply a troll and not to be taken seriously. Insults will not change the world to the better. If at all, then they will make it a little more scarier than it already is.

To be honest, I haven't seen any anti-masculine points here. Feminist DOESN'T mean anti-masculine. I - just as an example - am often saying things that people could perceive as "extreme" in terms of feminist opinions. But I don't INSULT men. I don't say they are less valuable than women. Most of my friends have always been male, from my early childhood - even though I like females a lot. Simply because in my other hobbies there are way more men, and hence I get to know more men than women. I would be a hypocrite if I said that I don't like their company - they can be nice people indeed.

Even though I am aware of the fact that men are often - still are! - the opressing class, I don't blame it on every single boy out there. No, I am not saying that there is a "good only" man (The "but my Nigel is different"-discussion -.-) - every man can do the same evil things to women, BUT: men have a brain. They have feelings and thoughts and a conscience. They CAN decide to treat women as equal. They can try. They are humans too. I don't blame patriarchy on every single little boy growing up somewhere, I don't blame it on the babies born with XY chromosomes. I blame it on the mass. On the mob. On the structure of society. I don't hate men. I am not wishing them to be inferior to women. Feminism is about EQUALITY.

For that, humanity should first learn to perceive women as equally valuable as men. Otherwise a man can always be perceived as "more qualified" even though the qualification is the same.

 

Correction: Every person has the potential to do the same evil things to another person.

Evil is not the sole arena of man; there have been enough female murderers, sex offenders and violent gang members to prove this. Women are just as capable of doing terrible acts as men and frequently they do.

Men are not the problem. Society (including women!) is. We internalise phrases like "man up" and "grow a pair" to understand that standing up for yourself is a masculine trait and phrases like "don't be such a girl" to understand that wimping out of something is inherently feminine. If we want to see change, we need to act out the change and get that to spread, rather than continue the same tired tropes and phrases.

This is changing though, and will continue to change as women press for equality. More people of my generation (1985 onwards) understand and express that men and women are equals. More and more children in the generations following mine understand that men and women are equals to a far greater degree. If we want humanity to change, we have to keep the ball rolling, but it is important to distance equality from 'female superiority', I want to empower little girls to be all they can be, but not at the expense of little boys.

I'm not sure how familiar non-Brits will have been with the riots we had over the summer, but part of that was because so many young men are disaffected, unemployed and are out of education. They have nothing to do and no self-esteem. If they don't value themselves, they won't be able to value someone else. We can't teach girls to get out there and show the world what they're made of, but also leave the boys trailing behind. It'll only lead to boys resenting women even more and make women's situations worse.

As in all things, the only solution is to pull together to make things better.

 

Just because the old Andrea Dworkin style of feminist still exists-- so what? It's just reactionary ignorance to tar all of feminism with the same brush. That's the same as saying all men are rapists & murderers & sexist beasties.

Also, the Poor Downtrodden Us men's movement DOES have lots of terms for the "oppression" that they feel. Somebody brings up the gender pay-gap in conversation? *whoosh* Quick, open the bag & whip out another euphemism for that awful castrating manhating female! Yes, they have plenty of terms. I'll let you go Google them, though.

 

Agreed! So called "Men's Right's Activists" are on the whole, very unpleasant males who, instead of helping to liberate men alongside women, spend their time spitting misognistic bile at feminists, blaming them for all of men's problems in life whilst completely ignoring their own male privilege.
I have had enough run ins with them to know that they do no good to men at all!

 

I am not going to engage myself in this thread but I would like to contribute with a little something.
If anyone is interested I am leaving a link to a documentary about this issue.
The tough guise
It is really good and I highly recommend it. It might make people look at men a bit differently and ask themselves if it really is just our nature to be aggressive or if it is more than that.
Peace out!

 

As someone who has lived through five decades of the "war between the sexes" (who remembers that term anymore?), it is my firm belief that until everyone--men, women, TG, TV, androgynous, whatever--is free to pursue the life choices they are called to, no one can be truly free.

To too many women, sexual equality seems to mean sexual homogenization--that there should be no difference at all between men and women. That expectation is both unrealistic and limiting in a completely different way. There are differences, on average, between men and women. The differences are more pronounced in some individuals and less so--or nonexistent--in others. Whether those differences are the product of societal conditioning, evolution, God's will or the sprinkling of magic pink or blue fairy dust is a subject of hot debate and has been ever since the first woman came out of the cave and grunted "Hungh!" (which was old Caveish for "Hey, why can't I join the mastodon hunt?").

I believe women should get equal pay for equal work. I also believe that boys should be allowed to play with dolls if they want to (and not have to call them "action figures", either). Furthermore, I believe that if a woman wants to stay home, raise kids, and keep house while her husband brings home the paycheck, she should be allowed to without being called names for it. If her husband wants to stay home while she brings home the bacon, that should be okay, too. There are those who feel comfortable in "traditional" gender roles, and as long as they aren't trying to force everyone into that same niche, more power to them! It's when other people try to tell me what my place is that I say "Look behind you, sugar--there's the line".

So where do dolls fit into all of this? Well, doll play has always been something of a dress rehearsal for grown-up life for children, and as adult collectors and customizers, our dolls reflect aspects of our personality and imagination that might not otherwise be apparent. Chaeri wears the outfits that would look ridiculous on a fiftysomething plus-size Amazon like me. For her the lolita fashions, the sparklepunk glitter and leather, the ultra-girly-but-still-fierce outfits. She gets to wear the stuff I don't feel comfortable wearing (and trust me, I've worn some outrageous outfits in my time). If somebody were bold enough to tell me to my face that my dolls were somehow damaging to a feminist image, I would answer: "Doesn't the term 'feminist' imply freedom for women to be what they want? Does that exclude women who feel happy in a feminine role?" Seriously.

Don't take away my pink ruffles, and I'll leave your studded leather alone. Hell, why choose? You can wear both at once. Chaeri does it all the time.

 

It's easy to say that we have equality already Rockin' Resin Addict, but as a woman who works in finance, I can tell you definitely that we don't have equality. My entire academic/professional career, I've been dealing with misogyny and prejudice against women since my field is dominated with men and they don't take kindly to women showing them up. And that's just my specific experience, we all experience the effects of oppression against women in the media and the horrible effects of our society's rape culture.

I like your post, Emby Quinn. It's always a pleasure to see the thoughts of women who have experienced women's rights for longer than I have. I'm a follower of lolita fashion too, I have been for about 6 years now, and I love dolls and pink and whatnot. That doesn't stop me from busting balls at work on wall street. And anyone who tells me I have to choose between traditional feminine hobbies/aesthetics and my "male" occupation and personality traits has got something coming to them, and it ain't a home-baked pie I can tell you that much.

 

Agreed. Theoretically, it is true. I was actually thinking about wording it like that, it would have been the more PC version.

I both agree and disagree with this. I agree that yes, evil is not the sole area of man. But statistics show that there are FAR more male murderers, sex offenders and violent gang members than female ones. While strangely enough, there are almost as many female victims as there are male. This doesn't mean that I think all men are evil and rapists etc. by nature. It is just that while they are as capable to commit crimes as women, they are more likely to than women.

At this point we could argue that maybe it is society (and not testosterone - because otherwise ALL men would constantly rape and kill) that makes them so, and that a world in which equality existed, males would be less likely to behave this way. Why? Because equality would mean that men would have more freedom too - for example, they would be allowed to take paternity leave more often, and not be discriminated against in court when they fight for the right to see their child; they would be allowed to play with dolls as little boys without their identity being questioned and ridiculed. Men would be allowed to show their feelings when they feel sad or hurt in a more appropriate way than fighting or getting angry. They would be less forced to fight for superiority in jobs, because if women are paid equally, the financial responsibility for the average heterosexual marriage would not be put that much on the male's shoulders. Men wouldn't need to try and be "cool" and "manly" by treating women and other men badly. Men would profit from equality, too.

So yes, I also agree with the following to a certain degree:

But still I think it is important to remember that only in the last couple of centuries - well, actually even less than that! - women got rights, like voting, divorce, deciding if they want to marry someone or give birth to a child, studying, going where they want... well, even being counted as a human being instead of their father's or their husband's property. And you don't change a culture as easily as a pair of shoes. While "men" are not a problem - the PATRIARCHAL society structure that still prevails is. Men are victims of it as are women.

The boys that are suffering like you mentioned - and I agree they do, I work in the social services and I see, talk and work with more male youths without orientation and helpless at the hand of society in one week and its pressure than most people meet in their whole lives - suffer under the society structure as well as little girls do. Just... they suffered before, too. Not under the "new rise of feminism". It is just that we care more, for the first time, about all those children and their suffering. They are more visible. The riots, the disoriented and deprived young males, taking refuge to aggression and antisocial behaviour, or to suicide, existed all along. The male child as the victim is not a new thing. But who cared about children before the rise of feminism at all? In earlier ages, children were simply considered property.

Also, the boys don't trail behind because the girls are "rising to the top". Many of the boys - not all! they are sooo many that succeed in the new world! - do so because the world is getting more and more technologically complicated. There is a loss of simple physical jobs which makes many young men who would otherwise feel needed and be able to earn money without learning unemployed. This leaves them without an identity, because our - patriarchal! - society links identity to financial and job success. In earlier ages, physical fitness and strength were a great source of identity for the men, and now it is changing, mostly because of the development of technology. Physical work is suffering a loss of prestige, so even the boys who still are able to get such a job, suddenly see that they are not the big alpha male how they were promised they would be if they are strong and fast and aggressive and manly, and again they suffer a crisis. These are reasons for the "trailing behind".

These are the main problems, and they are not created through women. Blaming this problem on feminism is in my opinion just a trick the media like to do, because it sounds interesting and creates a scapegoat.

Like you, Jescissa, I believe in working together, women and men, to make things better.