>>334188>Feminism works on the idea that even though a man's life isn't perfect, they generally always have the upper hand in society
Mmm, I haven't really seen this in modern theory. It was definitely the case in first-wave feminism, that this was how people thought of the power dynamic between men and women, but a lot of 3rd wave feminism recognizes that men are just as capable of being opressed as women. That's what intersectionality is all about.
> As such, being a man is a much more "high risk, high reward" scenario than being female. Yes. Your ability to climb socially is much better as a male, but if you fail you will also fall much, much harder.
There's a word in feministic theory for this paradox, and why it doesn't actually benefit women as much as it seems. It's called the golden cage. I'll just quote from a forum post.>The Gilded Cage is a concept used to explain the immobile position of women in society. The name originates from a classic painting of a woman surrounded in splendor, staring longingly through a window toward an open field. In feminist theory, it explains a simple idea: women are surrounded by "golden bars" which are said to be the benefits of their gender, but are also used to immobilize and degrade when necessary. It creates a duality in which sexually active women are desired, but can be deemed to be worthless sluts. Chaste women are lauded for their self-control, but are also mocked for being frigid ice queens. Quiet, passive women are ideal and yet also meant to be spoken over and ignored while loud, aggressive women are masculine-acting but irritating and bitchy. This concept is a good one to remember. You will often hear feminists talking about the lose/lose situation women enter into, where femininity is regarded as inferior by default so even perfect adherence to its rules will still leave women as secondary and unequal.
What is even more insideous is that once women lose sexual appeal, they are often no longer considered worthy of protection. What follows is a situaton in which someone already vulnerable from having their independence suppressed, is no longer capable of being dependent either. That's an intersection that men are not subjected to.
Although, it's true, males face disproportionate homelessness and suicide rates and all of this kind of stuff, and that's a tragedy. Again, something, that feminism actually aknowledges, though, and something which feminist writers attempt to adress in their models and theories. Pop feminism could possibly often miss this point, idk, I don't follow pop feminism so ardently.>>334188>This is because men are less "important" and more just meat props for action movies, where women are treated as a much more significant role when they are actually killed in a movie.
But conversely there's a long practiced tradition in cinematic and comic history of female hero archetypes or strong female characters being killed off to accesorize male storylines.
Male stories are centered in so many moves something like 8/10 oscar nominated movies fail the bechdel test. And the movies that do have women have them as props to male leads.
Whereas men may sometimes be props, women are by default the props. That's just well established fact. Although the death of the woman may seem important, you have to contextualize it as what it is, it's a mechanism by which the main character's story is made to be more compelling. The woman is interesting as an object or a possession, something which is lost, but not something which really thinks, feels or acts on it's own, at least we are not made to focus on that part, because that isn't interesting to the hero's journey.
Now this is changing, but only very recently has this change begun, largely because of modern feminism.
This post was edited by its author on .