Gender, sexual orientation and power

[Ellemeno]

Chrissi, you sound like a wonderful mother.

[loneleeb3]

AS I have been reading some of these posts I think the main reason Lesbians are more accepted than gay males has been over looked. (if i didn't see this point and it was raised my apologies. I didn't read every post at length.)
I think it is because straight men find the situation of two women having sex incredibly hot!
That is the main reason it is accepted. Lets face it, for the most part this is a society dominated by straight males.I'm not trying to be sexist, i'm just statingthe facts as i see them.
If straight males were as disgusted by lesbians as they are by gay males Ellen wouldn't have a show much less be on the oscars. Ok, yes we have Rosie that most straight men hate but I think that goes to show there is an exception to every rule.

[delalluvia]

Ladies/women/tomgirls of all ages 

You've said it much better than I could have and I agree completely with your reasoning, this included:

And even those good accomplishments are questionable. Women have made great art, for example, and would have made still more. But sexist societies have a) kept them too busy with housework and child care to have time for art b) actively prevented them from making art c) suppressed what art they did make d) sometimes even forced them to credit males for the art they'd made.

Exactly.  How many famous men with great feats under their belts would have been able to explore/create/invent as they did had they been stuck with the childcare and domestic duties?  SOMEone was doing that for them - the women in their lives - and in turn sacrificed their chance at accomplishing more than just being a great washerwoman.  In the U.S. until the 20th century I believe, it was illegal for women to hold patents.  So all you see in the history of the US is men holding patents, men being the inventors.  Who knows how many of those men who hold patents, did so at the behest of their womenfolk because they themselves could not?

So what men and women can accomplish or have accomplished should be seen in the context of what each has been allowed to do.

In more and more animal studies of primates, it's seen that the usual inventors in simian societies are the young females.  They invent things and different ways of doing things.  The next to adapt to new ways are the mothers of the societies who then teach their youngsters.

The last and most conservative bunch to pick up new things and adapt to them after everyone else has?  The adult males of the society.

Makes me and anthropolgists and primatologists wonder if in early human societies, it was no different. 

From women, in many cases. Women have absorbed society's sexist messages, too. For example, many Afghani women are pleased to don a burkha and accept other restrictions. Many American women refuse to consider themselves feminists.

And the major reason for this is societies have developed that have no room for women who buck the system.  There is no culture of single women in poor Muslim countries/societies.  Women live with their families until they marry, then they live with their husband's family.  There is no cultural phase girls go through when they become women to spread their wings, fly and become independent members of society.  They're not supposed to be independent or free-thinking.  They're always to be under the control of some man.  And if they choose not to be?  You've heard the horror stories of what happens to such women.  At the very least, they will be threatened with the loss of their family's status, love and protection.  Where can they go?  In freer societies, a woman can, with regret, shrug and go make her life elsewhere, these women have no place to go.  Such societies are very controlling this way.

Nowadays, with secular law enforcement just starting to come down hard on those who commit 'honor killings' what is happening now, is if teenage girls start to buck their family's traditions, they start getting extreme harrassment from their families, ostracism, threats, until these poor girls - already hormonally on edge with puberty -  commit suicide.  And that solves everything.  The family 'honor' is protected and the family members are 'innocent' of any crime. 

Makes me sick. 

Is it any wonder women are quick to scamper under the bourka and hide?  Better to be a live dog than a dead lion.

and I agree with loneleeb's statement:

I think it is because straight men find the situation of two women having sex incredibly hot!
That is the main reason it is accepted. Lets face it, for the most part this is a society dominated by straight males.I'm not trying to be sexist, i'm just statingthe facts as i see them.

Straight men I know find lesbianism fascinating and titillating and don't think women are really lesbians.  They just haven't had a good enough fuck yet from a man.  Once they do, of course, they'll be 'turned around'. 
Yes, several men have told me this and one says this is one of his cherished goals in life.

Of course, they actually mean lipstick lesbians, not the Rosie O'Donnell type lesbians. 

Some straight men can be so deluded. 

[serious crayons]

they start getting extreme harrassment from their families, ostracism, threats, until these poor girls - already hormonally on edge with puberty -  commit suicide. ... Makes me sick.

You and me both, Sista. 

  In freer societies, a woman can, with regret, shrug and go make her life elsewhere

What's weird is that even Western women are not as free as we like to think. Women in this country, for example, theoretically have choices and freedom and legal protection. And those who are determined usually can exercise them. But there is STILL a lot of pressure on women to take on traditional domestic roles, and even educated, successful, ambitious feminists feel it -- particularly if they have children.

Somehow, it's still mostly women who abandon careers to stay home with the kids, effectively supporting their husband's advancing careers with their own unpaid labor. And even women who continue in their careers after having children, surveys indicate, still wind up doing the lion's share of domestic work.

BTW, none of the above should be taken as judgment or criticism of anyone's particular choices. I myself quit a full-time job to work part-time and stay with my kids. I have advanced in my career but made very little money. So I can see things from both sides. I know there are a lot of reasons to stay home with children, many of them personal and wonderful. But I also know that social pressures are among those reasons, including media images of idealized mothers and workplace limitations, that make work/family balance really difficult.

Sorry to ramble on, but that's one of my favorite soap boxes. I should add -- because I sometimes hear this accusation -- that I am in no way comparing the problems of women in industrialized countries with the truly horrific plight of women in traditionalist societies. (In something I read today, a writer expressed gratitude for not living in a time where she had to stay with her husband even if he broke her jaw -- undoubtedly that time is NOW for many, many women in the world.) My point is only that the problems here aren't quite as solved as people sometimes like to think. One writer called it the "half-changed world."

Straight men I know find lesbianism fascinating and titillating and don't think women are really lesbians.  They just haven't had a good enough fuck yet from a man.  Once they do, of course, they'll be 'turned around'. 
Yes, several men have told me this and one says this is one of his cherished goals in life.

Of course, they actually mean lipstick lesbians, not the Rosie O'Donnell type lesbians. 

Well put, Del! I bet that's why those men find it particularly titillating to watch women together who actually AREN'T lesbians.

[Clyde-B]

Katherine,

So do you want things to stay the same or change?

[delalluvia]

What's weird is that even Western women are not as free as we like to think. Women in this country, for example, theoretically have choices and freedom and legal protection. And those who are determined usually can exercise them. But there is STILL a lot of pressure on women to take on traditional domestic roles, and even educated, successful, ambitious feminists feel it -- particularly if they have children.

Somehow, it's still mostly women who abandon careers to stay home with the kids, effectively supporting their husband's advancing careers with their own unpaid labor. And even women who continue in their careers after having children, surveys indicate, still wind up doing the lion's share of domestic work.

Exactly right.  Women are free-er, but not completely so.  Want a great example?  Try Hillary Rodham.  Graduated top of her law school class - ahead of her husband to be - was a successful lawyer, made more money than her husband, but when he ran for president of the U.S., she actually had to take his name and tell the world that no, no, she really did like to bake cookies.   

So much for women's freedom in the States.

For a more personal POV?  My fiance was all for my working, all for my higher education, until he heard I was going to keep my maiden name when we got married.

He hit the roof.

He didn't even want me to hyphenate my name.  It was his name or nothing.  I chose nothing.  We didn't get married.

I started asking that question of many men and I found very very few men who want their wives to keep their own names.  They always use children as the excuse, but I counter that since women bear the children, 85 times out of 100 she does all the early childcare and rearing, that perhaps it would be easier for the husband to take the wife's name!

They never think this is logical or a good idea.

So their reasoning has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with the idea of title and ownership and leadership.

One of my fundamentalist conservative friends said that it was the man's responsibility to protect, instruct and shepherd his family down the 'right' path.  I suggested that perhaps the wives might prefer a partner in their marriage and not a shepherd.

[Clyde-B]

So their reasoning has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with the idea of title and ownership and leadership.
 

 
Yes!
In order to start controlling what is going on, it's necessary to understand what is really going on.
And power and control is what it's all about.

[Ellemeno]

 

And power and control is what it's all about.

But what about the hokey pokey? 

[Clyde-B]

But what about the hokey pokey? 

Well of course that too!!!   

[loneleeb3]

But what about the hokey pokey? 

You so silly!