Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Reverting to stereotypes? I think it's a matter of perceptions.

Firstly, you'd have to demonstrate that the visible feminists of our youth were more than a small minority. A very influential, culture-transforming minority, but forty years ago, the great majority of women had unreconstructed subservient attitudes.

Now, it's more difficult to identify a feminist -- they look like everyone else, for one thing. I say this as the father of two young feminist women who don't hesitate to dress glamorously or flirt in stereotypical ways; a superficial analysis of their social media traffic wouldn't necessarily give many clues either -- you need to know the codes and understand the irony.

But social stratification and modern tribalism have fragmented the cultural space, and I can't speak for the worlds which are outside my social spheres.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 06:12:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My experience would be similar - right down to having two feminist daughters who can do glamour when they want to. I suppose the nature of feminism has changed too; it's no longer a matter of throwing away the bras and heels and quite aggressively challenging female stereotypes in relationships, sexual norms, the work place and social spaces and more a case of getting ahead on their own terms with people who don't get in their way.  The widespread adoption of more "liberal norms" has made political protest and activism (and consciousness) less necessary with conservative organisations like the Churches ignored rather than protested against and becoming much less influential in discourse more generally. I also wonder has feminism become more of a middle class professional women thing - the people who perhaps need it least, whilst leaving the lives of many working class women relatively untouched. However education has also proved a great leveler, with many women outperforming men at all levels and achieving much greater career success and social status than heretofore. There is still a long way to go, but also perhaps a confidence that things are, for now, still heading in the right direction.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 06:50:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...getting ahead on their own terms... outperforming... achieving... career success and social status

Sorry, did someone say patriarchy was dead?

My beef with feminism is that in Western industrial cultures it's just business-patriarchy in drag.

You get all the usual capitalist work ethic nonsense and some cash to pat you on the head for being a good little cog and - er - that's pretty much it.

Nothing actually changed politically, except that the labour pool got bigger, people of both sexes became completely oriented towards work and income, votes remained largely valueless, consumption increased, and labour became cheaper.

Now, you could say that this is an improvement on the old ways of kirche, kuche, kinder.

But there's still no real self-determination happening here. The social goals are still being defined and reinforced externally,  there's still a huge propaganda industry telling everyone how to act, think, and feel, and women are still passively accepting this, largely without questioning it. Even so-called radicals either agree that this is all entirely good, or don't think it's important enough to question.

Because - you know - what everyone does all day isn't any kind of political issue.

The biggest difference is that men are now accepting it too. Before feminism family - no matter how dysfunctional - was a political motivator for men. (I'm not suggesting this is an ideal goal, I'm just pointing out the history.)

Now that we're all rats competing with each other, the motivations for progressive politics are harder to find, and less sticky and compelling than they used to be.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 11:04:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, feminism bad because it didn't kill capitalism...  the poor working-class male doesn't even have his wife to look down on any more... Sad.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 11:30:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Asian cultures are sort of behind in feminism, right? Would you say that (particularly) East Asian women suffer from old-fashioned subservient roles more than in the West, and that is the biggest problem for most of them?
by das monde on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 06:57:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The study mentioned (third-hand, via the NYT) is Egalitarianism, Housework,
and Sexual Frequency in Marriage
, and it's mildly interesting. It's a meta-analysis of US household data collected in the early 1990s, from which the authors conclude that couples which stick to "traditional" gender roles (woman does the housework, man takes out the garbage) have more sex than those who have a more egalitarian distribution of work. They explain this by the notion of "sexual scripts" :

Among teens, sexual scripts are highly gendered and link sexual activity to masculinity and femininity [...] Given the general importance of gender, we suspect that scripts continue to link sexual behavior to masculinity or femininity among heterosexual married couples.

With the proviso that this is WEIRD research (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic), and that the data is rather dated, I wouldn't be surprised if it were generally applicable. Perhaps Chinese men are getting more sex than us pussy-whipped westerners?

I tend to subscribe to a hypothesis mentioned in the paper (but not testable with their data set) : that sex is rationed by women (on the basis that men generally want more than women) in exchange  for whatever a woman wants. This fits well with highly gendered sexual scripting, and is observably much less frequent in egalitarian relationships.

So, in sum, if less-frequent sex is the price to pay for egalitarian relationships (which correlate strongly with mutually satisfying relationships, by the way) then that's OK with me personally.

And yes, I agree that

East Asian women suffer from old-fashioned subservient roles

But if you're asking whether having more frequent sex is a compensation for them, then I wouldn't know.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 09:28:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I tend to subscribe to a hypothesis mentioned in the paper (but not testable with their data set) : that sex is rationed by women (on the basis that men generally want more than women) in exchange  for whatever a woman wants. This fits well with highly gendered sexual scripting, and is observably much less frequent in egalitarian relationships.
Observably less frequent in egalitarian relationships... - With what data sets?! The image over there is opposite:
In a lot of ways, sajiao is a strategy to get a man to do what his Chinese girlfriend or wife wants him to do; this is very similar to how some western women use sex to manipulate their mate.
If (say) a Japanese woman is withholding sex, it generally means that the intimate relationship is in a serious trouble, it is over basically (unless the man gets IT soon).

Also, "men generally want sex more than women..." needs qualification, such as "...until SHE wants it more". There is one book that both feminists and PUAs love.

by das monde on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 10:06:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Observably less frequent in egalitarian relationships... - With what data sets?!

I'm relying on anecdata, but I don't think you would disagree if you actually understood me. I don't see the contradiction here. Indeed, the concept of saijao that you introduce is an excellent example of highly gendered sexual scripting, as is the fact that "some western women use sex to manipulate their mate".

"men generally want sex more than women" was a quote from the study I linked above, and of course not a good predictor of any individual relationship.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 10:24:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
eurogreen:

Perhaps Chinese men are getting more sex than us pussy-whipped westerners?

I saw a young middle class chinese girl interviewed on Euro Tv and she was saying how sexually uptight she found europeans.

<boggles> (ht Colman)

Then there's this

All the Single Ladies - Kate Bolick - The Atlantic

In 1969, when my 25-year-old mother, a college-educated high-school teacher, married a handsome lawyer-to-be, most women her age were doing more or less the same thing. By the time she was in her mid-30s, she was raising two small children and struggling to find a satisfying career. She'd never had sex with anyone but my father. Could she have even envisioned herself on a shopping excursion with an ex-lover, never mind one who was getting married while she remained alone? And the ex-lover's fiancée being so generous and open-minded as to suggest the shopping trip to begin with?

What my mother could envision was a future in which I made my own choices. I don't think either of us could have predicted what happens when you multiply that sense of agency by an entire generation.

But what transpired next lay well beyond the powers of everybody's imagination: as women have climbed ever higher, men have been falling behind. We've arrived at the top of the staircase, finally ready to start our lives, only to discover a cavernous room at the tail end of a party, most of the men gone already, some having never shown up--and those who remain are leering by the cheese table, or are, you know, the ones you don't want to go out with.

Oh dear...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 02:21:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series