I haven't read through it in any major detail yet, so this is purely my off-the-cuff reaction (after a quick scan, it's obviously not in the exact same area as it, but I thought it'd be worth putting up):
- We have developed into a society where we are scared to go after the daughter more than the son. I used to babysit when I was in high school (mid '00s) and there was a huge number of times I can remember where it's obvious the daughter, older or younger, can get away with virtually anything while the son (older or younger) is afraid to act without asking me (one asked me if he could get a glass of water...water!). It's even worse with younger daughters and I've seen some act in manners that at school would get you suspended for bullying. What do the parents do when I mention it at the end of the night? Nothing. They barely acknowledge that it happens and (as I did have the...fortune of babysitting this family again) it was obvious the daughter learned nothing.
-- Maybe it's because I'm male and I just recognize the mentality of the kid more, but I had an impossible time rounding up little girls for dinner or bed...most times, sons would be easier to deal with.
- I believe the concept of men = protector and provider, women = stay at home was a concept born of what should be outgrown data. It was done because men were stronger and therefore were better protectors and providers of food than women would be. At this point, it seems all it exists to do is enforce the concept that the man HAS to make the money while the woman stays at home. It still exists, don't get me wrong...but this feels outdated to me and I think shouldn't exist anymore.
- I do think that culturally, we're seeing a shift. The concept of masculine traits = good, feminine traits = bad is starting to slowly vanish. I'd particularily point to entertainment for this sort of stuff. Video games have an odd relationship, as it both moves towards progress (Western views of a character like Samus or Lara Croft take us into territory which defy cultural tradition), and back to the status quo (c'mon...use the previous examples. What one (fine...two
) things stand out if I say Lara Croft?). The video game world seems to realize what its best audience is...young teenage boys. And what do young teenage boys like? Sorry if I go off track on that, but it's been a point I kind of struggle with for the longest of time as I definately didn't see
Soul Calibur or
Dead or Alive the same way my friends did when I was in high school.
-- In film and TV, we're starting to see a bit more of a shift towards balance in agency of characters...at least, more than before. The concept of who has agency, in my opinion, stands to show you who the "strong" characters are. We have a decent grouping of high agency female protagonists who still retain feminine traits, so I think these concepts are starting to become neutral in thought. At a quick look, I think this paper seems to struggle coming to grips with that in its early points as it seems to bemoan the loss of maculinity in society...I personally view it as a change from masculinity being considered a positive trait to masculinity and feminimity being considered equals and more neutral terms.
- ...Of course, this also stands in stark contrast to the online communities at times. I can't determine at times where these "women in kitchen" jokes are for self-amusement and not serious (which I assumed they were initially) or if, as you can notice in things like MMORPGs, actual concerns created by 12 year olds which are then internalized as they explore the depths of the Internet...and whether or not they grow out of it (I don't know enough kids to test that).
- A quick glance at the article makes me wonder how much of it is true and how much of it seems to be stretching the facts. I notice some interesting points, but can't get links on them (such as "women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own". I'd love to read more into it, but there isn't a link provided at it). A lot of papers provide links to solid ground information, but stretch their facts to fit their argument and try to shuffle less than existant data under the table as their arguments diverge more and more from the data.
- It seems sometimes the writer uses Western culture, and sometimes uses both Western and Eastern culture as it suits his argument. In many Asian cultures, it's still expected that the wife's side pay for the wedding. Often when an Asian family and a Western family marry, I've heard (hey, I'm not married yet!) that the bill is split down the middle to reflect the change in cultures.
- The concept of "Feminism" these days is as nebulous as the concept of the Occupy Movement. There's no consistancy. I do consider myself a Liberal Feminist...we should treat people exactly as they are, with gender being no object; if a woman can do a job the exact same as a man with no other conditions, they are effectively the same person. At the same time, Feminist seems to also stand for nut chopping psycho and the group of people who think women are inherently better than men. This article seems to go after the extremists but fails to acknowledge that other groups seems to exist. I'm no expert in divorce laws, but some of them do seem unusual...I can't speak heavily on them as I haven't read them in detail yet.
- Some links definately seem to be weak support. One says that there was more hate from 'Feminists' towards Palin than Polanski...yet the link just points out an article which simply just dislikes Palin. I did a quick Ctrl-F search, but couldn't find mention of two key terms used..."Taliban" and "Polanski". All it claims is that Palin was used as a sex symbol in essence...whether that's true or not seems beside the point to me. It's just that the link and argument aren't supported by the evidence.
- The writer seems to occasionally struggle with how the online community works in terms of grouping like communities into a mob mentality. One thing that caught my eye was right after the above, where he says that a feminist forum would shoot you down if you defend a man...well, let's look at the forums around us. Here, you can get mercilessly attacked by many even if you make a legitimate claim about the Canucks or Oilers. If you go to Edmontonpuck.com or whatever Oilers site you want, I'm sure a suggestion such as "Bouwmeester is a good defensive D" or "Kiprusoff has more value than Khabibulin" will get the lynch mob on you. Similarly, I think if you visit a feminist site, expect to see a natural bias against men because, again, the term is so vague that it collects a wide swath of different people who are self proclaimed feminists.
...Anyways, that's all I can type before I start going on too much. I'll probably do a full reading later. It's an interesting topic and I'm curious to see what supported information this paper brings to the table.