RoberII wrote:Going by the usual ideas of what masculinity entails, namely strength, dominance, assertiveness, I'm pretty sure you just said that all women should be weak, submissive and demure. (Now, you could mean something else, but I would be shocked, surprised and bewildered)
Now, I am a 25-year old white dude, and I don't usually presume to talk on behalf of women, but I'm pretty sure that I speak on behalf of the women here when I say to you: Go fuck yourself.
(In fact, I'm also sure I speak on behalf of most of the guys.)
You're assuming that femininity is necessarily the polar opposite of masculinity. Why are you assuming that?
Masculinity to me is the exercise of the Noble Virtues through the prism of male experience and capability.
Femininity is the exercise of the Noble Virtues through the prism of female experience and capability.
For instance, bearing a child is an exercise of the virtue of fidelity through the prism of female capability. Men can't express fidelity in this way because they can't bear children. bearing children can therefore be an act of femininity.
Avenging a wrongdoing is the exercise of the virtue of honour. Men are generally more likely to want revenge than women, so this is through the prism of male experience. Generally, therefore, seeking revenge is a masculine act.
I want both men and women to be strong and assertive - but (average) men and (average) women are fundamentally different - so they will be strong and assertive (and since we're speaking of ideals, steadfast, honourable, self reliant) in different ways based on their different biology and different experience - self reliance for a man is more likely to include household repairs, for instance because men are more drawn to engineering tasks than women. Men are more prone to physical violence than women, so are more likely to express honour by joining the military.
There are going to be people outside the norms of society - there are plenty of women who can't bear children, men who cant seek revenge et cetera. There will be women who express some virtues in masculine ways, and men who express some in feminine ways. Many of these people will still conform to expectations of masculinity and femininity in other ways. Some wont.
I've no problem with these people, but throwing out ideals like masculinity and femininity because a minority finds them unreachable is unfair to the majority of society who are benefited by them. The message of a fair feminism shouldn't be that masculinity and femininity are bad concepts - it should be that the minority outside them aren't any less worthy for not being able to reach them in some way.
Dont "radically alter the societal concept of gender." Just say "some people don't conform. treat them nicely too, ok?"
(treating them badly would be un-feminine and un-masculine incidentally, because it violates Hospitality)
sigsfried wrote: extra being-a-man tax
I think this is kind of "fuck men" stuff is what people justifiably have a problem with.
Not everything can be justified by starting a sentence with "given the male dominated society/ patriarchy/ similar"
when someone starts calling for taking an extra 200 dollars from a male janitor on 20k vs a female janitor on 20k because "fuck men"(dressed up nicely of course) you cross the line from equality into simple misandry.
A little sexism in society is required because men and women are different. I'd be broadly OK with a higher marginal rate of tax for being a man, with the proceeds used in a woman-exclusive way. Paying for maternity leave might be a good use of it - if companies themselves didn't have to stump up for employees who aren't working, some of the reticence to hire women in some field might disappear.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.