* Why do little girls suddenly start to ask if "boys are better" when they get to school?
* Why do we feel the need to tell people out opinions about how they look?
* Why is a tattoo of a butterfly on a wrist okay for a woman but not full sleeves? (Contrast that with men.)
* Why do we insist on loudly proclaiming our daughters are "not like other girls" or are "like a boy"? Is there something shameful about it?
We took away agency long ago and we've been dangling it in front of oppressed people for years, periodically letting take small bites. That's another form if how me keep a grip on things. We give people a taste, as long as they're willing to take the conditions that comes with it.
There's a thing called "choosey choice feminism" that is a hot button item. One side days "following the magazine standards is a choice and I'm free to make it because feminism" and the other side says "but why do the magazines exist and would you choose that if you weren't bombarded by it all day?" I think both sides are right but I also hear and see the problems. It's not about whether or not feelings or opinions are right though, it's about what you'd feel or think if you weren't subjected to it constantly. To ignore the external influences and dismiss patriarchy is to accept the status quo as a Good Thing and be okay with slut shaming and demonizing the very freedom of choice you're trying to defend.
I don't see how this works well for long (and it arguably hasn't) because of th cognitive dissonance required to accept all things to be true.
It's not about whether their opinions are right, it's about where they're valid. Women can have opinions that aren't correct, just like men are free to be wrong. When you say it's about what they would feel if they weren't subjected to it constantly is totally subjective. Some might say women would run around naked because it's more comfortable without societies pressure, some say they would cover up because taking off clothing is a societal pressure to appease the male gaze. But then again, the assumption that all women would think that same is just more simplifying them and their views.
In reality it'd probably be a mix, because women can dislike other women without it being because society brainwashed them to. Saying they wouldn't ever be rude to one another if not for society feels like that patriarchal idea that women are all innocent flowers that must be protected from bad influences, rather than they're normal people who are nice and mean and everything in between. If you're gonna go into the territory of "what if everything were different" you can't also declare you know exactly what would happen. And yes society has taken a lot of agency away from women, but the solution isn't to take agency away from them in service of feminism. This just leads to a different set of problems for women
little boys also ask if girls are better when they get to school. both sexes are curious as they grow up. school is also dominated by female teachers and there are now more girls in school than boys.
the rest of your questions are nonsensical. people are people. norms exist. they might change but there will always be norms, and they will be tied to masculine and feminine expressions too.
If you want to be uncharitable, sure. Or maybe you could recognize the fact that human bonding is largely based on shared values, and if someone looks or acts radically different, then you see no common ground on which to establish such a bond.
I think people are all too quick to reach for the "hatred" and "misogyny" labels.
If we're going to discuss being charitable, we should start by allowing people to be happy with themselves and not share our thoughts on what we don't like about them because that's the problem. That's at the root of this whole topic. We are incapable of allowing people to deviate without telling them how we feel about it.
Why? And why don't we do the same thing as to men? (There is no 100% rule. Some men are shamed and some people shame men. It's not at the same rate.)
It benefits them because they're expressing their values and preferences, which allows them to find others like them and build bonds over these shared values. A shitty way to do it maybe, but it always comes back to bonding.
Edit: although some people shame out of genuine concern that the shamed party will not themselves be able to find human bonds. This is a type of shaming you often see from parents.
> We are incapable of allowing people to deviate without telling them how we feel about it.
I'm not sure who "we" is. Society collectively is much more tolerant of deviations from normal dress, appearance and behaviour than they were even 10 years ago. Society takes time to adapt.
I'm comforted by the admission of how shitty that is. I don't agree with your premise but I don't have to. The end result is that we can converge on the idea that people should stop being so forthcoming about their opinions of what other people do to and for themselves. If that's all we could (collective we, not specific) ever do, that would make the world pattern and remove the examples from Publix that keeps the pattern of shitty behavior going.
> Edit: although some people shame out of genuine concern that the shamed party will not themselves be able to find human bonds. This is a type of shaming you often see from parents.
Parents shouldn't shame their children. That's shitty behavior too. It's also infantalizing, whether from a parent or not. I've never shamed my kid and I don't plan to. I dealt with that myself and I can tell you that it didn't reap the outcomes anyone could have been looking for. I haven't spoken to my parents in years.
> I'm not sure who "we" is. Society collectively is much more tolerant of deviations from normal dress, appearance and behaviour than they were even 10 years ago. Society takes time to adapt
I'm not so sure that's true. I may have agreed with you 10 years ago but now we have Incels and Red Pills and Men Going Their Own Way and people openly advocate raping women (I have a hard time knowing that's a real thing). I think we've regressed and we're more than happy to shame people for anything we don't agree with. Loudly. Constantly. To the point that we drive people to isolation because they're tired of the barrage. (look up You Look Like a Man for a perfect example of this)
I'll only close to say that I think the media exaggerates this phenomenon considerably because it drives clicks, so don't buy into it. It's the same effect where people saw terrorism everywhere and feared muslims back in the late 1990s to late 2000's because the media was constantly harping on it.
Yes these people exist, but I haven't seen any evidence that they are a problem on the scale the media would have you believe (unless you're on Twitter, which is an unrepresentative cesspool).
Women can be misogynists too. We don't have a monopoly on that. We as a collective value conformity because it keeps people in line and doesn't threaten our existing architecture. Things that deviate from norms draw attention and inspire discussions like this. Too many people thinking about coloring outside the lines and then more will do it.
If we didn't indoctrinate our kids at the start, we'd have a higher chance for more uniform distribution of power. More people would be able to achieve success, which would raise the floor and make the ceiling not feel so high. Those on top would feel like they're losing because the gap would shrink and the perceived height from the top would be lower. Can't have that so we say things like "boys will boys" to dismiss shit behavior, glorify #boymom, defend our girls by saying they're "not like other girls" and sell little girls on shiny object and lacy dresses, even if they really just want to play with dinosaurs (because dinosaurs are cool and not only for boys).
Patriarchy, ftw! Red Pill, yay!