All: in what ways are you masculine and in what ways are you feminine?

submitted by questioningtw from self.GCdebatesQT

all 25 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Penultimate_Penance 14 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Masculinity, and Femininity are bullshit impositions. I'm a human being and I'm tired. I just want to go out and do my thing without people ascribing masculinity or femininity to it. Also sexism is built into those concepts. I don't consider being into math[insert any subject here] or logical[insert any descriptive word here] a 'masculine' or 'feminine' trait.

[–]worried19 9 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

I think I fit most of the stereotypes associated with masculinity. Not the negative ones, but the neutral and positive ones. I enjoy being tall and strong. I'm stoic, kind of like the strong silent type. I'm athletic, enjoy sports and other male-coded hobbies, and prefer a masculine appearance in terms of hair and clothing.

I'm really not feminine at all. The only female stereotypes that I fit are being neat and orderly and liking cats. I'm also strongly monogamous, which I guess is seen as a female trait.

[–]questioningtw[S] 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

I usualy try to be stoic, but often fail at it! I wonder if it is because I suffer from clinical depression though.

[–]worried19 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

Sorry to hear you struggle with depression.

I think for me my baseline is cool and collected. It takes a lot to rile me up. I feel things, but maybe I don't feel them as strongly as some other people? Like it would never even occur to me to cry or yell in most situations. I just don't feel the urge.

[–]questioningtw[S] 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I think things like temperment tend to be nature rather then nurture. I have noticed that when I am on anti depressants I am way more cool and collected.

[–]grixitperson 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

In all ways i am human.

[–]adungitit 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not. I am susceptible to societal influence, and that includes sexist gendered upbringing, even if I'm gender nonconforming.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m feminine because of my ovaries and vulva and all that.

Anything else is just assigning regressive labels to my personality.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (5 children)

I suppose I could 'gender' every facet about me, or the world in general. Like, 'gender' anything. But I wouldn't really know where to begin and I feel like anything could be anything depending on how it's interpreted. I'll try to give a thoughtful answer though:

I'm male, but my body is undermasculinized and feminized, so I'm not sure if that makes my body feminine or masculine. I like a lot of stereotypically feminine things like sewing, fashion, design, baking, dance, floral arrangement, romance, breathing, and some stereotypically masculine things like heavy metal and martial arts. My personality and behavior is feminine, as in I have a lot of what might be commonly considered feminine traits, but I probably have some masculine ones, too. Maybe my perspective is feminine? Maybe I'm not even using these words right. Hopefully this was more informative than not.

[–]questioningtw[S] 9 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

It was informative, and it kind of reinforced my view that masculine and feminine are very, very much social constructs and I hate how almost backwards we are going in terms of thinking what is masculine and feminine. I also greatly dislke when men are into baking, sewing, dance, ect they get to be serious about it, while women are just kind of expected to be domestic:( I really like cooking and baking too!

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

sewing, fashion, design, baking, dance, floral arrangement, romance

I had no idea that any of these were "feminine" areas, LOL. If you looked into the history of any of these areas of human interest, creativity, endeavor and industry in depth, you'd find that depicting them as areas traditionally associated mainly or exclusively with women is highly inaccurate.

The very notion of romance in the Western world was invented and promulgated by men!

https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/roman-de-la-rose#

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-de-la-rose

Outside the West, the big promulgators of romance were men too. Like the guy who wrote the Kama Sutra. And the guy who built the world's most famous monument to romantic love:

https://faze.ca/taj-mahal-monumental-love-story/

https://www.tajmahal.org.uk/story.html

In the West, the poets who came up with the idea of romantic love, waxed lyrical about it and popularized it did so at a time in history when the vast majority of women couldn't read and write, and those who did attain literacy weren't allowed to write works of literature, particularly not romances.

In the Middle Ages men were more likely to be literate than women. The main reason for this was that women were usually denied an education. Even in wealthy families, it was often considered wrong to spend time and money on teaching daughters to read and write. It has been estimated that "in the later Middle Ages out of the total population 10 per cent of men and I per cent of women were literate." Most men were very hostile to the idea of women becoming literate.

Some women were allowed to read and write particularly if they joined religious orders by becoming nuns, or if they spent their formative years residing in nunneries or being tutored by nuns without becoming nuns themselves. But when women did acquire literacy, they weren't allowed to write flowery love poems the way men were. They had to confine their writings to religious and domestic matters:

Women who were nuns were the most likely to be literate. Despite the many obstacles they faced, some women learnt to read and write. Women's names appear on many documents that have survived. Some women authors also used male names.

Gradually attitudes began to change. Christine de Pizan, a very influential writer in the Middle Ages, argued that it was extremely important for mothers to arrange for their daughters to be taught how to read and write. Other important writers during this period included Marie de France and Margery Kempe.

It also became fashionable in rich families to give daughters a Book of Hours. These books contained a collection of different prayers and stories about the lives of saints and were often used to teach girls to read. Many books of hours were made for women. There is some evidence that they were sometimes given as a wedding present from a husband to his bride.

https://spartacus-educational.com/EXnormans13.htm

https://classicalpoets.org/2016/10/27/10-greatest-love-poems-ever-written/

In the modern era, particularly since the early 19th century era of Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters, women have written many of the world's great romances. But if we look at those considered to be great literature, the number written by men far outstrips the number written by men. Which include: Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare, The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway, Women in Love by D.H. Lawrence, Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy, The French Lieutenant's Woman by John Fowles, The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald, Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, Madame Bovary by Gustave Falubert, Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak, A Room With A View by E.M. Forester, The English patient by by Michael Ondaatje, Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence, Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel García Márquez...

Looking at pop fiction, men have made their mark in the romance department there too: Love Story Erich Segal, The Notebook and Message in a Bottle by Nicholas Sparks, The World According to Garp by John Irving, The Bridges of Madison Country by Robert James Waller, The Princess Bride by William Goldman, The Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy, The Horse Whisperer by Nicholas Evans, Snow Falling on Cedars by David Guterson, Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurty...

Since the dawn of the film era, the entertainment industry has made a great deal of romance stories for the big and small screen. But wherever movies and television dramas are made - Hollywood, France, the UK, Bollywood, Japan, China, South America - the film and TV industries are and always have been dominated by men. The producers who decide what movies get made, the directors who make them, and the script writers who plot them out have always been mostly or almost entirely men.

If I have the time later, I'll come back and show you the evidence that in none of the other areas you mention - sewing, fashion, design, baking, dance, floral arrangement - has it been the case traditionally or now that women have predominated in numbers, been in control, and served as the principal inventors, innovators, movers & shakers, main influences, masterminds, choreographers, chefs, CEOs, captains of industry and leading lights.

Not because women aren't talented or haven't tried in these areas - many women have made major inroads and accomplished great things in these fields, in fact. But because in most of these areas, women were expressly excluded, or relegated to limited and lowly roles - and have faced barriers to our inclusion and achievements that have been put in place by men for the purpose of keeping us out and in subordinate positions so they can remain in charge and hog most of the credit, acclaim and limelight.

For the most part, women get to pursue and shine in these activities only when they are done in domestic settings, as hobbies or as amateur pastimes. Or, as in the case of dance, when girls' and women's participation in the corps and in leading role is absolutely necessary. But even then, through history men have been the ones running the show since forever. For real. For every Martha Graham, Agnes de Mille and Twyla Tharp there's been, there have been 10 men on the scale of George Balanchine, Sergei Diaghilev, Nijinksy, Bob Fosse, Merce Cunningham, Jerome Robbins, Paul Taylor and Alvin Ailey.

BTW, I loved the little joke you made about breathing. Thanks for the chuckle.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

I know, it's terrible 😅 Even I roll my eyes a bit at trying to 'gender' things, hopefully someone's glad I did that lest I die of embarrassment or feel forced to lock myself in my apartment so as not to bring shame to my friends and family.

I would have been more surprised if no one had broken this down and criticized it, so you saved the day--my hero! I'm routinely impressed by the amount of things you know, so thank you for taking the time to share all of that. Most of the names and titles I will have to look up, with only a few exceptions I'm a hobbyist with most things, and despite my love of language I don't feel very well-read. I'm inclined to agree that everything you said is spot on, though. (and that joke was especially for you! Glad you liked it 😁)

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Totally off topic but my gods we have a lot in common. I think you’d be fun to sew with.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Ahhh I bet you'd be a blast yourself! Online intercontinental anonymous GC-trans sewing circle with only the coolest cats and kittens? Yes, please.

[–]emptiedriver 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I am honestly not sure most of the time...

When I have to choose between stereotypically masculine or feminine options, I can go one way or the other but generally neither is my choice. Like:

  • watch the game or go shopping? watch the game. But really I'd rather take out the board games...

  • superhero action movie or romantic comedy? romantic comedy. But actually I'm more of a Charlie Kaufman type...

  • hot dress or cool suit? cool suit. But I'm happy in jeans...

  • redecorate or get a sports car? redecorate. But why not spend it on travel?

Generally I just don't tend to go for the things people associate with stereotypes that much.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Masculine Women, Feminine Men a humorous song that was a big hit in the 1920s seems apropos. Here's Irving Kaufman's version, with lyrics, recorded 95 years ago in 1926: https://youtu.be/-tQH79p5Ulk

The photos showing all the different recordings of Masculine Women, Feminine Men in the 1920s and beyond plus all the posters are eye-opening and a hoot: https://www.queermusicheritage.com/MWFM.html

[–]questioningtw[S] 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

I love the song! It is pretty depressing how backwards we have gone, the comments on the youtube video are actually calling the lyrics transphobic:/ It is almost like these people don't realize that people have personalities with all sorts of traits, and while a lot of conservative people wanted to keep men and women in boxes, no one thought feminine men where women, or masculine women where men.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

lmao yesss this is amazing 😂 thank you!

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some other videos of Masculine Women, Feminine Men showed up on my YouTube feed.

This one has great footage of men and women defying sex stereotypes back in the 1920s: https://youtu.be/3NmUH5nd_EQ

Clips along the same lines from Hollywood films of yesteryear: https://youtu.be/wBBKLd_qqCY

Still photos: https://youtu.be/YGOVk9WnWwI

https://youtu.be/pQklPxEhJvw

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (5 children)

I just use those terms to communicate how I act and what I like, but it's just that nothing more, nothing less, just a way to communicate some current level of stereotype I meet based off today's society's standards. For example I'm more feminine if I like blue many years ago, I'm now considered more masculine if I like blue and I would describe myself as such, these are not real examples, but they're just an example of how I would describe myself or someone else. Another example is if I want to communicate the type of male I want to date, it would be one that is not too masculine but doesn't look too feminine either based off today's society's standards (which is way faster than going through a long list of descriptions). At the end of the day, they're as abstract as having a name. I use these old "sexist" words to convey some sort of concept, not the words themselves as representative of someone's gender. I really don't care if they're sexist or not, if I start caring about that then I should start getting offended about the chinese character for the word "traitor" using the character for "female" and that some languages have a separate female and male way the speaker should use to address themselves with.

Edit: Grammar

[–]adungitit 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

which is way faster than going through a long list of descriptions

Considering that "feminine" and "masculine" can mean a whole bunch of things, I don't think so. Like, you use men you'd want to date as an example, but are "feminine/masculine" referring to body type? Or clothing styles (and how feminine/masculine? Straight up crossdressing, something in between, very tidied up masculine, unconcerned with appearance)? Long hair or short? Beard, sparse facial hair, smooth face? Being emotional/empathic/stoic/immature/aggressive? Passive or assertive (socially or sexually?)?

if I start caring about that then I should start getting offended about the chinese character for the word "traitor" using the character for "female" and that some languages have a separate female and male way the speaker should use to address themselves with.

And you shouldn't be offended at it because...? It's cool to "not care" about misogyny?

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

Like, you use men you'd want to date as an example, but are "feminine/masculine" referring to body type? Or clothing styles (and how feminine/masculine?)

You answered your own question with your own question right there. How I describe a male I want to date or myself is context dependent.

And you shouldn't be offended at it because...? It's cool to "not care" about misogyny?

I assume you've never studied a non-germanic language and you're plain ignorant in understanding foreign language structure. Some Asian languages have a rule about how you address yourself depending on your sex (e.g. in Japanese, you're either allowed to say "watashi" or "boku" depending on the sex when speaking formally). To not follow these language rules would be utter disrespect to the culture and actually make things harder to communicate with other users of their respective languages across different generations (to people from current to past generations). They're just rules for people to address themselves or to address other topics, nothing more, nothing less. Should I be offended that in Italian there are feminine and masculine nouns too? I don't know the purpose of the distinction, but by some feminist logic, I should be offended and change some ancient rule in speaking.

Some of them maybe are borne out of sexism, but that does not mean the user is going to be sexist because of them. You're not going to fix anything by trying to change the language. It's like how people get offended when you call a female police officer "policeman" thinking that changes anything, but majority of policemen are male and if you want to knock it out of the local culture's psyche that "policemen = male" then you should educate the populace by showing that there are female police who can do the job. What many feminists do not understand that if they force a change in language, they're ironically making people focus on the sex of the person by labelling them differently. I don't need people to remember I'm a police "woman" if I'm working as a police officer, I need them to remember I'm a "policeman" (and "policeman" is much faster to say than "policewoman") who's job is to enforce the law and should be treated like any other police officer.

If there's anything I care about, it's the cultural attitudes and the methodology to counter them, because some of them ironically creates a different way for people to focus on the sex of the person and by putting that level of focus on the worker, it detracts from the original purpose of the worker, they're there to do a job, not to date, not to be some organisation's sign of virtue, but to work and get the job done properly. It's no different from TRAs forcing people to use their made up pronouns and keep saying how they just want "equality".

Edit: Wording

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

How I describe a male I want to date or myself is context dependent.

So, you're relying on sexist descriptions that are going to be understood in a sexist society. And you see no problem with that?

I assume you've never studied a non-germanic language

I am literally not a native English speaker, and I speak a gendered language. Just because I won't lie through my teeth and pretend that sexism isn't sexist doesn't mean I'm ignorant of other languages. Also, your whole "non-germanic" thing betrays your ignorance - grammatical gender is a common feature of Germanic languages, it's just that English did away with that (and lots of other Germanic characteristics).

Some Asian languages have a rule about how you address yourself depending on your sex (e.g. in Japanese, you're either allowed to say "watashi" or "boku" depending on the sex when speaking formally)

lol congrats on having watched anime at some time, truly your linguistic understanding is off the charts with that. None of this addresses the fact that gendered languages exist and inevitably work in favour of men.

They're just rules for people to address themselves or to address other topics, nothing more, nothing less.

And sexism is supposed to be ok because it's "in the rules"?

by some feminist logic, I should be offended and change some ancient rule in speaking.

I don't give a crap that misogyny is "ancient" or "traditional" or "in the rules". It was "in the rules" that women can't vote. It was "tradition" to kidnap your wife. Ancient rules never cared about women.

Some of them maybe are borne out of sexism, but that does not mean the user is going to be sexist because of them.

No, it means that language is normalising and furthering misogynistic views among people.

You're not going to fix anything by trying to change the language

You're just not going to exclude half the population from a ton of professions and humanity itself by virtue of being female. Seems like a good deal to me.

To not follow these language rules would be utter disrespect to the culture

I don't give a crap about how normalised misogyny is in a certain cultures. Misogynistic cultures can go fuck themselves just like misogynistic religions and other human inventions.

and actually make things harder to communicate with other users of their respective languages across different generations (to people from current to past generations).

I don't give a crap about old people wanting to preserve outdated sexist norms. Language changes literally all the time and people did not forget how to speak just because the language became different. You keep trying to appeal to tradition, despite said tradition always being sexist as fuck and demonstrating throughout centuries that it did not care about women.

It's like how people get offended when you call a female police officer "policeman" thinking that changes anything

It does. Not having "men" literally in the name of the profession is not excluding every woman in the profession by virtue of being female, and sending a message to every girl and woman that she's an aberration, an exception, a stranger in something distinctly male.

you should educate the populace by showing that there are female police who can do the job.

OR you could stop putting "man" into the word signifying the profession, instead of trying to convince people that female exceptions can happen too in something reserved for men.

majority of policemen are male and if you want to knock it out of the local culture's psyche that "policemen = male"

While there are practical reasons for men overwhelmingly being police officers, your argument claims that something being male-dominated justifies it being treated as exclusively male, failing to consider that maybe it's male-dominated because it's treated as exclusively male even down to the word itself.

What many feminists do not understand that if they force a change in language, they're ironically making people focus on the sex of the person by labelling them differently.

So, literally putting "man" in a word for "police officer" is not focusing on the sex at all...but removing the gendered word or saying "woman" is focusing on the sex?

The fact that people don't even perceive "man" as gendered, but suddenly hyperfocus on anything that even suggests a woman is a result of androcentrism, and it goes way beyond language. It's even apparent in medicine, where men are overwhelmingly used in studies, leading to ignorance of some facets of female biology. "Man" being equated with "human", while women are excluded as aberrations is the norm in most societies, because excluding and disregarding women has been so normalised through this "tradition" you keep mentioning.

I need them to remember I'm a "policeman"

So...it's important of everyone to remember you are a male police officer, but if you say you're a female police officer, then suddenly you're making it about gender and all your credibility disappears.

who's job is to enforce the law and should be treated like any other police officer.

Because "policewomen" couldn't enforce the law or be treated like other police officers unless she was treated as literally male?

Also, feminism advocates "police officer" instead of "policeman".

If there's anything I care about, it's the cultural attitudes and the methodology to counter them

Right. Normalised misogyny and androcentrism aren't problems, the ReaL PrObLeM is actually trying to counter them.

it detracts from the original purpose of the worker, they're there to do a job

  1. We do not live in a meritocracy. Men constantly benefit from sexist norms which characterise women as objects for their amusement/lust and themselves as competent and worldly. Stereotypes, language and presentation all play into that. And given how hostile male communities are towards women, no, they're not there to "just do a job".

  2. The fact that literally the same exact thing (gendering words) makes us "hyperfocus" on the woman, but treat the man completely neutrally is a problem, not some cute linguistic feature. In fact, even de-gendering words is seen as "focusing on the gender", anything that challenges the masculine norm is seen as "hyperfocusing on the gender", because men are seen as the norm, and women as aberrations.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

congrats on having watched anime at some time, truly your linguistic understanding is off the charts with that.

I see you've noticed my high level of linguistic expertise.

None of this addresses the fact that gendered languages exist and inevitably work in favour of men.

Your victim mentality and lack of culture is showing here. By your logic, this shouldn't have happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/12/queensland-police-discriminated-against-200-potential-male-recruits-in-favour-of-women-report-finds

If it makes you feel better, maybe the sexism in our language has given women an overwhelming advantage in their applications /s.

I'm glad I never worked with them.

So, you're relying on sexist descriptions that are going to be understood in a sexist society. And you see no problem with that?

People are already saying "Gender non-conforming" which implies gender stereotypes exist. You said in another post "non-conforming woman" in another post") by the looks of it you have no problems using a sexist word to communicate. There's no need to be sensitive, it's just communication. None of the descriptions themselves are actually oppressive, unless you want to see it that way.

While you're at it, you might as well start being offended by the words "la nina " and "el nino" in meterological language, because "el nino" means "little boy and "la nina" means little girl and is sometimes called "anti- el nino" (maybe implying that it's evil because it's "female"? who knows) and the spanish fishermans and meterological researchers think about women and men when talking about climate changes /s,

I'm literally not a native English speaker, and I speak a gendered language. Just because I won't lie through my teeth and pretend that sexism isn't sexist doesn't mean I'm ignorant of other languages. Also, your whole "non-germanic" thing betrays your ignorance - grammatical gender is a common feature of Germanic languages, it's just that English did away with that (and lots of other Germanic characteristics).

My point still stands and I've never made a claim about germanic languages, I made a claim about non-germanic languages and you should still respect the language and the culture. By your logic I should feel offended addressing myself as "woman" in other cultural contexts.

Assuming you're not lying (I doubt it based off the style of your syntax, but I'm not going to argue as it's irrelevant), your claim on authority on language expertise is invalid, ignorance is not discriminate to any group. The fact you're very ignorant of language and culture and considering you feel that feminism should focus on restructuring an entire language, you sound like an oppressor, you may be from a much more oppressed society (I don't know and don't care if you are, this needs to be said), but that doesn't stop you from being an oppressor.

OR you could stop putting "man" into the word signifying the profession, instead of trying to convince people that female exceptions can happen too in something reserved for men.

OR, you can stop being so sensitive about how everyone speaks. Putting "man" isn't signifiying profession, it signifies the individual in the profession. It really fits, woman, man, human, they all have "man" in it. By leaving the word the way it is and showing that "exceptions" happen, it's not forceful to the general populace so there's less resistance to accepting it and it makes feminism less of a joke.

I don't give a crap about how normalised misogyny is in a certain cultures. Misogynistic cultures can go fuck themselves just like misogynistic religions and other human inventions.

You should if you're for equal rights, a culture is a system, if you try to break down the system to put in an entirely different one, people are going to stick to their current culture more as they're more familiar with it (and their lack of education and experiences) and there'll be more resistance, unless you're out to oppress males, in which case, down with misogynistic cultures, whatever makes you happy.

Right. Normalised misogyny and androcentrism aren't problems, the ReaL PrObLeM is actually trying to counter them

If you do not see the humour of someone trying to police how an educated experienced middle class worker or a low-socio economic class jobseeker talks like and what they prioritise, then you're out of touch with society and you're part of the problem. On the brightside, your goals make people laugh, I'm not saying I was the one laughing, but I had friends who were laughing, the average woman and man who are trying to get by and suppported feminism, until a feminist decided to introduce your brand of feminism, which is getting sensitive over 21st century English.

Also, feminism advocates "police officer" instead of "policeman".

I'm still calling female officers policeman and male ballet dancers "Ballerinas" (not the correct term because they're male). Just because feminism advocates it, does not mean feminism is right and just ( e.g. Would you say it's right and just if feminism starts advocating the killing of all male babies? Or every women deserve to win every child custody cases?)

it's important of everyone to remember you are a male police officer, but if you say you're a female police officer, then suddenly you're making it about gender and all your credibility disappears.

At this point, it just sounds like you're imagining me self-victimising (projecting much?). No I'm just doing a job and the word "Policeman" is already in everyone's subconscious majority prefer to use the word. I was here to do the work, my credibility is only in being able to enforce the law properly, not because I'm a woman.

We do not live in a meritocracy. Men constantly benefit from sexist norms which characterise women as objects for their amusement/lust and themselves as competent and worldly.

You're not just ignorant about society and culture, you're also ignorant about the entertainment industry. Males are also portrayed as dumbasses who deserve to recieve abuse and rape too (e.g. there was very little public outcry when Francine tried to rape Stan in "American Dad"). I don't deny women in general have it worse, but men don't exactly have paradise either (I don't care, but those are facts).

The fact that literally the same exact thing (gendering words) makes us "hyperfocus" on the woman, but treat the man completely neutrally is a problem, not some cute linguistic feature.

Just because the language "hyperfocuses" it does not mean the speaker is "hyperfocusing". I doubt you have communicated with those native speakers of those languages, I asked them and they told me it's just there, they don't really talk or think about gender at all, mind you they told me they advocate for gender equality before I asked them. Judging by what you said and tour other posts, I'm not surprised if you were indoctrinated by feminazis combined with a hatred towards males (and not a feminist who cares about gender equality), but then again, maybe your goal is not for gender equality, but for female supremacy.

You are surprisingly sexist towards women, I've never met anyone who thinks that non-gender conforming women are just being gender non-conforming to escape "male objectification", most of us actually just become gender non-conforming because of our personality and interests which happen to be "masculine" (whatever society's perception of what is masculine at the time), not because of male influence. Feminism encourages self-development without the need of permission or validation from male influence. Some of us objectify males (I do it anyway, really out of some sadistic level of misandry).

Edit: Wording

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

This is a great interpretation and explanation