A Video About Feminism

[OxfordWill]

I would be interested to hear what the well-travelled ladies here think about the content of this video:

I don't want to start a flame war which I know is likely. I hope we can avoid replies emotionally slagging off people, feminism in general or anything vitriolic.

Im sure there was a thread about this concept of the "disposable male" here on thaivisa recently.. but I couldn't find it?

Edited February 11, 2013 by OxfordWill

[Boo]

umm it is a single persons view on it. why, because I have a vagina, do I need to have an opinion on it?

[canuckamuck]

I would if I had one

[OxfordWill]

umm it is a single persons view on it. why, because I have a vagina, do I need to have an opinion on it?

Many congratulations, Boo.

And I quite agree that you are under no obligation to hold an opinion on it, but I would be interested to hear from any women here who do. This is not a set up.

[Sheryl]

You have failed to interest me in even clicking on it.....

[OxfordWill]

Right. Well, nevermind then.

[MacChine]

A view on feminism from a user who refers to herself as a girl? Mmmmm

What a load of crap is my opinion .

The biology is 1 woman 1 baby per year. One man can make many babies, hence he really hasn't the genetic value of a woman, and the female protectionist instinct is probably from this.

Survival of the species it's called.

Also, men are more readily group socialized and make better soldiers for this- they will do things they know are wrong if the rest of the group is doing it.

I can say the term feminist is very unpopular, and has been successfully demonized. I'm a feminist and when I was growing up , most women thought of themselves as feminists.

Now it's so incredibly important to completely sexualize oneself it seems, to have any value. To be a " girl " not a woman which is increasingly a demonized term too.

Ladies for older or not sexually desirable of course and the oft used girls for attractive young women, ... anything but just women.

Really have gone backwards on this, too.

( false eyelashes??? Skirts up to the kazoo on office workers? C'mon...)

However it was feminism that got women the vote and have allowed birth control to be a right. ( which is wasn't until 1972 in USA )

Feminists don't " hate" men, but simply do not want our entire gender to be marginalized as objects, sexualized a la the latest crudely produced calendar by Nok air.

I think criminalizing prostitution is as sexist as it gets, Let women sell sex , if they CHOOSE. and don't let others profit from intimidation of violence.

And yes, frankly.... maybe societies would be better off if men were culled or restrained in some way .

They do commit over 90 % of violent crimes. and they are absolutely wreaking havoc on the planet's resources.

I often think religions main role has been to rob women's power with patriarchal myths . Surely when mankind was young, women had more power as surely all the violence men love would not have allowed survival.

" Fair share" Not even close

Edited February 13, 2013 by MacChine

[MacChine]

OK I'm really gonna have to expand on this

It seems the typical male expat or frequent visitor to Thailand is here for the sex. And ladyboys are just as popular

Let me just say I think it is really about having servants, not just sex. Having a personal maid is very important to most men and is the reason they marry, IMO. Of course understandably-having much younger and quite attractive women interested in you is quite the lure.

And it is the fundamental difference in men and women that men are OK with being used.

Women seek genuine love, men seek genuine orgasms- which is the better gender to run a society?

[Morakot]

girlwriteswhat might be have developed an ingenious argument which I cannot get my head around or she is talking utter non-sense.

The introduction of the biological aspect of the significance of females to maintain a population into feminist discourses is a new one. It utterly ignores that the majority of the problems women, and indeed other marginalised people, experience are socially constructed and irrelevant of biological necessities. Her starting point that potential "child-bearing vessels" are dying seems not only absurd in a world of overpopulation (which evidently is not struggling to maintain its population), but counter-productive in terms of the real and pressing issues of multiple and intersecting factors of oppression.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Morakot

[Sheryl]

And it is the fundamental difference in men and women that men are OK with being used.

Actually many men are far from OK with it. Granted "sexpats" are as seemingly are some of the posters on TV but I don't think they can be taken a representative of the entire gender.

The desire to be seen and valued for who you are and to have relationships based on sincere two-way caring isn't sex-specific, it is a natural human one.

Some men accept being used because they want to use, and that's how that works, but these aren't likely to be very happy people nor would I call them typical.

[MacChine]

^^^Gay guys can stay, too. They aren't violent and are good decorators. [smile]

I think most men are motivated by sex and can be counted on to do what it takes to procure it. That makes them untrustworthy.

Most men ( or can I call them boys? ) who come to Thailand, the tourists, the sex pats are off the humanity charts- exploit is their game- they are users.

Edited February 13, 2013 by MacChine

[canuckamuck]

I think most men are motivated by sex and can be counted on to do what it takes to procure it. That makes them untrustworthy.

It is impossible to quantify what most men are motivated by, but it is sufficient to say that sex is commonly found near the top of the list. I would not say that alone makes us untrustworthy, in fact I would say it makes us predictable. Whereas women, being much more difficult to predict and to understand their motivations, and indeed track how their priorities have shifted through the day, month or year; is likely the cause of male pattern baldness. I would say that humans as a general rule are untrustworthy. This is why we invented contracts.

Most men ( or can I call them boys? ) who come to Thailand, the tourists, the sex pats are off the humanity charts- exploit is their game- they are users.

Yes but what percentage of the male population are sexpats?

[OxfordWill]

It would be nice to see if we can stick to the points raised in the video by its creator "girlwriteswhat", rather than another thread about sexpats in Thailand, although of course there must be some crossover.

Obviously there are many points raised, but if you would like to comment on one, please explain it clearly so we all know which part of the video you are talking about. Maybe we can use time indicators like 1:43 to 2:30 mins.

[Morakot]

4:18 -- 4:28 Those societies that have placed the highest restrictions on women (out of the perceived necessity to ensure no harm to women as potential "child-bearing vessels") are the most backwards! So girlwriteswhat says. This is an armchair philosophy if not utter non-sense. Especially when we consider that in those places women are stoned to death or attempted to be killed otherwise for various reasons.

The argument that women are enslaved because of society construing women in need of protection on the base of a biological aspect (i.e. being a potentially "child-bearing vessels) is missing the point by miles. The real issue are the multiple and intersecting factors that can lead to oppression of some people. For example: being a (1) young, (2) uneducated, (3) ethically marginalised, (4) rural woman in Thailand. See here: http://www.thaivisa....885__hl__+karen

Edited February 13, 2013 by Morakot

[OxfordWill]

In that section Morakot, she seems to be arguing against the feminist argument that the desire of men and "male-dominated society" to protect women is the ultimate form of objectification. She says "the most advanced societies are those that have made a balance between the desire to protect women and children and also provide them with freedoms". The point about backward societies that exist today is a concession she makes to those who would say "but not in all/any cases does this desire to protect women help advance society". But I think I agree that in the stone age the desire to protect women was fundamental, especially if one considers a small group of humans living in a cave.

She and the feminist argument she is tackling both agree that there exists this natural instinct (or that the effect of such an instinct exists, whether borne of instinct or otherwise) to protect or restrict women (protection and restriction, restriction and protection) but while the feminist argument says this is a bad thing, that it objectifies women and is just one of many vicissitudes to have befallen women thanks to men, she argues that our advanced societies owe much of our advancement to it, but only where it is metered and well balanced by not too many restrictions unlike such societies that restrict their women heavily (she says we could bomb them to the stone age and it would be 'an improvement', which I also agree with, although I would not want any bombing).

I think you are quite right, that a multitude of issues come together to form such opression and that it is too simplistic to consider only protection of women. However, I think we should not make too much of this, else we risk creating a strawman argument. The question she discusses is not, after all, "what causes opression", but rather whether or not the desire to protect women is the ultimate objectification of women (and therefore, bad.)

Edited February 13, 2013 by OxfordWill

[MacChine]

If I can't discuss my feelings on the piece, without inserting numbers, please just ignore me.

Seems she was dissing feminism and drolling on about how men are shortchanged as they are fighting the wars and get rescued last.. It was almost satirically anti- feminist. Not all women are feminists, it is true. And not all can be trusted.

But most agree, and most men too, with feminist principles, even if they won't use the now marginalized term, which this video intends.

Edited February 13, 2013 by MacChine

[FDog]

reOh I just don't get it.

Why can't women just be women and men just be men.

Why the need for women to try and justify their existence or views. Why do women feel the need to try and be the equal. Why can't women just say 'this is who I am, like it or lump it'.

Why do men feel the need to put women down.

Why do men think they need to be dominant.

I think it is just in the genes. Men feel the need to 'protect' women from life's harm. Well not all men, some are just thugs and morons.

But 'normal' men don't give a toss. We just don't want a woman that can drink more than us, can shag more than us, talk about sexual conquests more than us.

No really, let women be women, let men be men. If you don't like a woman because of her views, or a man for that matter, then you just don't like them. It has nothing to do with gender. There are many men I don't like. I'm sure many women don't get along with other women.

I prefer not to get too deep with it. I open doors, I allow a woman the first seat, I tell a woman she looks beautiful (even if she doesn't) I tell her that her ass doesn't look big in that dress.

I don't care. That's me. If you don't like it than that's ok. If I don't like you then that's ok. Who cares. Why do we continually feel it necessary to find people to agree with our opinions. Does that really make someone happy?

Not me. Just take me or leave me. I prefer not to worry about such things and just be friends with people that like me without having to try and change their views.

[Morakot]

Thanks for this, Will! Interesting your explanation, but I have to admit I'm slightly puzzled (as well as intrigued).

If this is the case, what is her conclusion as to whether the desire to protect women would be the ultimate objectification of women? Yet regardless of her conclusion, such a question would not point us to what power relations are supposed to be out of balance, except that in an unlikely event women are supposedly the ones rescued. If this not about oppression or being disadvantaged what kind of feminist concerns does girlwriteswhat than raise?

Edited February 13, 2013 by Morakot

[MAJIC]

1:51 seconds of my life has just been wasted on this silly woman and the stupid video.

[MAJIC]

A view on feminism from a user who refers to herself as a girl? Mmmmm

What a load of crap is my opinion .

The biology is 1 woman 1 baby per year. One man can make many babies, hence he really hasn't the genetic value of a woman, and the female protectionist instinct is probably from this.

Survival of the species it's called.

Also, men are more readily group socialized and make better soldiers for this- they will do things they know are wrong if the rest of the group is doing it.

I can say the term feminist is very unpopular, and has been successfully demonized. I'm a feminist and when I was growing up , most women thought of themselves as feminists.

Now it's so incredibly important to completely sexualize oneself it seems, to have any value. To be a " girl " not a woman which is increasingly a demonized term too.

Ladies for older or not sexually desirable of course and the oft used girls for attractive young women, ... anything but just women.

Really have gone backwards on this, too.

( false eyelashes??? Skirts up to the kazoo on office workers? C'mon...)

However it was feminism that got women the vote and have allowed birth control to be a right. ( which is wasn't until 1972 in USA )

Feminists don't " hate" men, but simply do not want our entire gender to be marginalized as objects, sexualized a la the latest crudely produced calendar by Nok air.

I think criminalizing prostitution is as sexist as it gets, Let women sell sex , if they CHOOSE. and don't let others profit from intimidation of violence.

And yes, frankly.... maybe societies would be better off if men were culled or restrained in some way .

They do commit over 90 % of violent crimes. and they are absolutely wreaking havoc on the planet's resources.

I often think religions main role has been to rob women's power with patriarchal myths . Surely when mankind was young, women had more power as surely all the violence men love would not have allowed survival.

" Fair share" Not even close

I think you need to do some more research,of which there is plenty out there like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246802/Record-number-women-arrested-violent-crimes.html

[OxfordWill]

Thanks for this, Will! Interesting your explanation, but I have to admit I'm slightly puzzled (as well as intrigued).

If this is the case, what is her conclusion as to whether the desire to protect women would be the ultimate objectification of women? Yet regardless of her conclusion, such a question would not point us to what power relations are supposed to be out of balance, except that in an unlikely event women are supposedly the ones rescued. If this not about oppression or being disadvantaged what kind of feminist concerns does girlwriteswhat than raise?

I'm by no means her mouthpiece but from what I can tell of her video, her conclusion is that feminism has entirely failed to change the idea of "women and children first" which she argued feminists do not favour (objectification). She also seems to conclude, for additional reasons, that feminism has helped to solidify this idea that all of society, including men, have agreed to always put men, men's feelings, men's desires, men's welfare, in last place behind women and children (i.e. anyone who is not a man goes before men in the order). "Society expects men to place themselves last and this has not changed". She talks about lifeboats and burning buildings.

She also argues that men are reduced from 'human beings' to 'human doings' by society, whereas women have an in-built value (the womb, still powerful evolutionary speaking) men do not, and so society looks at how useful an individual man is to the community at large.

She argues against the feminist idea that women are viewed as less valuable and the male sex preferred, saying that it's the opposite- 2:50 - 3:42.

edit: I don't think girlwriteswhat would object to being called an anti-misandrist

Edited February 14, 2013 by OxfordWill

[Morakot]

Nice summary Will. Hopefully people will chip in and say whether they agree this is the case in Thailand or in their home country.

her conclusion is that feminism has entirely failed to change the idea of "women and children first" which she argued feminists do not favour (objectification). She also seems to conclude, for additional reasons, that feminism has helped to solidify this idea that all of society, including men, have agreed to always put men, men's feelings, men's desires, men's welfare, in last place behind women and children (i.e. anyone who is not a man goes before men in the order). "Society expects men to place themselves last and this has not changed".

Apart from lifeboats and burning buildings, I cannot see that women are placed above men in Thailand. Even to say that we have a women prime minister here and sinsod is often paid by men, does not mean women are consistently above men.

She argues against the feminist idea that women are viewed as less valuable and the male sex preferred, saying that it's the opposite- 2:50 - 3:42.

I am amazed by the amount of women in the construction industry on building sites in Thailand, but I cannot imagine that they earn more than men because they are "valued higher". On the contrary, women through the world earn consistently less than men for similar jobs, have considerably lower changes of getting promoted, and are more likely to be made redundant at the point of crisis. How one can argue the opposite (on the basis of women having a womb), is not very logical and seems to lack concrete (anthropological) evidence.

What do other people in this forum think?

[rene123]

There are definitely some men that need disposing of. In fact we aren't disposing ENOUGH of them. There's just too many people in this world.

[OxfordWill]

thankyou, Rene123. A valuable contribution.

[wellred]

There are probably some women that need disposing off too. Jayus I've just read through this thread so far and that's 7 mins of my life I'm not getting back. I could have made 2 omlettes in that time.

Why the need to try and analyse what men come to Thailand for?

There are good and bad people in both gender sets. I honestly think some of you girls just need to get laid more instead coming out with this who needs disposing of spiel.

[sbk]

Didnt realize the video was about men coming to Thailand to get laid. But apparently you take out of it what suits your ideas and opinions from the looks of the responses here. And as for the getting laid thing, really? I hope that is not the best you can do as it is a total fail as a post. Sorry but this is the LADIES forum and as such some tripe is just really not acceptable here.

[wellred]

Shall we make a video about women going to pick up male prostitutes in Bali as its common knowledge that's pretty rife there. Or maybe let's talk about how Thai girls picking up rent boys in karaoke joints?

[Sheryl]

May I point out that the OP as well as most of the responding posts are by MEN.

Wasn't us ladies who posted that video, and it isn't us that wants to discuss it. We have better things to do with our time....

[sbk]

I was going to do my toenails tonight.

[OxfordWill]

Hah!

And Sheryl, you and I had such a nice exchange in that clinic thread last year. Really no opinion on it? I know you've stated as much twice now..

I suppose, thaivisa is not the most friendly place to discuss such ideas, especially if you are female. I do understand!