Top products from r/AskFeminists

>1) Feminists constantly put out the idea of a 'rape culture', yet they ignore male victims of rape.

Funny, seeing as a huge indicator of rape culture is how male rape victims are ignored and marginalized by society at large. This has been part of feminist discussion pertaining to rape culture for a while, but continues to be conveniently ignored by male opposition.

>And affirmative consent is a major recent 'success' for feminism despite the fact that it would be almost impossible to prove consent was given. Plus, I don't hear a lot of feminists arguing against withdrawing consent after the fact.

Frankly, I think affirmative consent can be a wise precaution when engaging in sexual activity with someone you don't know very well, and you aren't very in tune with their habits, disposition and predispositions, likes and dislikes and how they display this via body language, etc. And even if you do know them, checking in once in a while is always a respectful and can never hurt.

As for withdrawing consent after the fact...I just really don't think this is as huge of an issue as dudes on Reddit make it out to be. Consent is something that is given or retracted in the moment. It doesn't travel through time like that.

>2)Events that focus on men are constantly being shut-down for the fear of 'misogyny', and yet those actions that silence those who focus on men are not declared as being against what feminism stands for.

Plenty of events that focus on men are extensions of beliefs or spheres which perpetuate misogyny and misinformation. You haven't given any specific examples, but feel free.

>3) Pointlessly gendered items (razors, toys, pencils) are said to be sexist, yet 'mansplaining', 'manspreading', 'manterrupting', and other like words are perfectly acceptable and not at all simply a way to shut down conversation and vilify men for being men.

"Mansplaining" and "manterrupting" have a rich and sordid history in the US. Rebecca Solnit, a historian and an activist, wrote an entire book on the subject. The term is new, the thing it describes is not.

>4) Dissent always seems to eventually be met with famous buzzwords like 'rape apologist', 'victim blamer', 'misogynist', 'toxic masculinity', and, again, these words absolutely aren't used to silence anyone who disagrees.

Sometimes these accusations are perfectly apt.

>5) The 'negative' portrayal and under-representation of women in movies, politics, sports, and music are major feminist issues while there's never any acknowledgment to the negative way men can be portrayed. A handsome, tall, fit, not too muscular, charming, confident, funny, smart, open, sexually appealing leading man in every movie isn't a problem at all.

No, it isn't. It's the frequency, coupled with the blatant objectification and sexualization of women's bodies, which make it a pressing feminist issue. Just as a single example; there's no real equivalent of a "dad bod" craze in terms of women's body types.

>6) Society is blamed for personal issues such as 'body-shaming', 'slut-shaming', 'fat-shaming', not encouraging women enough, and not providing women with enough idols to look up to.

...That's because this happens all the time. Slut shaming is real, fat-shaming is real, and body shaming is real. Doesn't take too much effort to look into these issues.

>Also, the idea that a woman can only idolize other women is pretty sexist, yet never challenged.

No one believes that girls can only idolize women, the pushback comes from the fact that there are representation issues in just about every facet of our culture (speaking from a US perspective). If there are relatively few women role models in any given career path, for example, then girls can internalize the idea that women aren't wanted or just aren't good at X thing, which becomes discouraging very early on in development.

>if a woman's uncomfortable with a scantily clad, thin woman in a bikini on a billboard, that that issue might be her own and not society secretly 'shaming' her into feeling bad.

Okay, but how many billboards have very thin, scantily clad women on them, and how many billboards have average or above average weight women in bikinis on them? Ever wonder why that is? Ever wonder why a person who is overweight might be distressed by the constant bombardment of often attainably thin body types, considering the immediate cultural association of "not thin" with "bad" (and not only "bad", but morally corrupt, stupid, and lazy?

>7) Men are disproportionately put in prison, victims of violence, punished more harshly when it comes to sentencing, and homeless to name a few, and those things are easily explained away by feminism.

Yes, feminism does have explanations to all of these things. Generally speaking, it can be boiled down to a mixture of classism, racism, and the implications of sexism and misogyny. Sexism against women affects men as well.

>Yet the idea of a 'pay gap' can only be the result of sexism and nothing more.

I've provided you with links on this subject in your prior thread. The wage gap issue is complicated, but a large part of it comes down to gendered socialization and expectations.

>8) Women are treated like children by feminists by saying that without encouragement, a woman won't want to work in a STEM field.

This isn't treating women like children (this line of thinking reeks of concern trolling), it's treating people like what they are: the product of their surroundings and socialization, filtered through individual character traits and a genetic code. Everyone needs encouragement, but encouragement can look like a lot of things. Sometimes, the encouragement manifests as the prevailing unquestioning assumption that you're "built" for it, that you're brain is just "geared towards it naturally", sometimes this encouragement needs to be more literal.

>The possibility of hearing a sexist remark is enough to excuse a woman for not even trying to enter the field that she wants.

A sexist remark? Where there's one, there's many. Women have spoken out a lot about gendered opposition and sometimes blatant sexism in STEM fields.
The study "Professional Role Confidence and Gendered Persistence in Engineering" follows 288 randomly selected students who began their engineering degrees in 2003 at four universities, following their progress at 2007. The universities included: MIT, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, the Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering and Smith College. The findings of this study are consistent with other empirical research, finding that men are more likely to persist in engineering than women.

However, women are twice as likely to switch to a different STEM major than men. Interestingly, amongst the small proportion of men who switch out of engineering, they're more likely to go into a non-STEM major. This suggests that women's interest and proficiency in STEM is not the reason why they leave engineering, while this may be true for the men who leave engineering courses.

From the study:

>Professional Socialisation
The study argues that becoming a successful professional requires more than just technical skills. It also depends on professional socialisation. That is, how we learn both the practical and unspoken (tacit) expectations of what's required of us in our fields. We also need to be able to identify with the values and norms of our profession. This includes adopting the types of mannerisms, demeanour, and self-presentation (including dress) that's expected. The researchers write:

>"If a profession’s norms of interaction are highly masculine or perhaps even antifeminine... it may be more difficult for women to gain this type of confidence....

>Present findings show that early professional role confidence predicts persistence measured three years later. If women develop less confidence about their abilities to be successful professionals and express more ambiguity about their fit or comfort within the discipline, then women will remain in engineering at lower rates than men."

>Engineering still relies on, and rewards, stereotypes of masculine behaviour. Women not only have to navigate this culture, but they have the additional burden of "proving to others that, despite gendered expectations, they are skilled engineers."

And here's some anecdotal icing on that cake, just for funsies.

EDIT: Gold? Well, shucks. Thanks, stranger!

Tinder =/= promiscuity. It's just another tool to find partners, it's no different from finding someone in a bar or nightclub. If anything, it's less shallow because you can spend some time screening a person a bit more to make sure everything's kosher first.

I'm not a fan of hook-up culture, but for different reasons. Women generally don't get a lot of satisfaction from casual sex because their partners are less invested. Peggy Orenstein actually just wrote a book about this.

That being said, loving relationships are great, and so are hook-ups for the people who find satisfaction engaging in them. With the right partner, they can be a good way to figure out what you like.

The only things I would really discourage with a hook-up is snagging a hot person to pump your own ego, being a selfish lover, or using casual sex to gain validation. Being sex-positive doesn't necessarily mean being uncritically pro-promiscuity. It's just anti-shame.


Edit: ditched redundancies

Dude, all I can say is read this book, because I don't have time to quote all the studies mentioned in it:

Delusions of Gender:The Real Science Behind Sex Differences
by Cordelia Fine

I will address what I have time to off the top of my head:

>Mens' brains are, on average 10% larger. Wikipedia, Web M.D., DailyMail, reporting on research done by the University of Cambridge

Sir, brain size as a link to intelligence was a thing in Victorian times. But there is still no strong correlation between brain size and intelligence. if it were true, Elephants would be the dominant species of the land. Are you going to cite phrenology next?

>Men are better suited to withstand pain.

childbirth
Also you would not believe how often gender being primed in a study affects the results. Were these people told we're seeing who can stand more pain. Were men feeling their masculinity was at stake and withheld longer? Also why does this come into equality. When it comes to choice I have seen a hell of a lot more women endure.

>The difference in laymans' terms, is that grey matter is associated with processing and depth of analysis, while white matter is associated with speed of response and speed of neural activity. I.e, men potentially process 6-7 times more heavily, while women process potentially 6-7 times less deeply, but at a rate that is potentially 10 times faster.

Well this is misleading as hell. You do dance around the fact at what it suggests, and what its assumed parts of the brain do, but negate to mention the overwhelming lack of evidence connecting these brains structures with measurable human behaviors. Humans have wildly varying brains, and on average which is they key word all over your argument, women and men can have different structure, but the structures being responsible for measurable differences? No, someone looked at it and said 'oh, must be why women are good at languages'. Also you speak as if all of these areas are mutually exclusive. That a person will be one way or another. But negate to include the numerous humans who are good at both languages and mathematics?

Interesting one researcher who is a big advocate of gender differences Simon Baron-Cohen, when discussing his tests for empathy quotients, and typing brains into a female and male type brain, was able to show (under his conditions of what a male brain is) that most men have a male brain. But even his research found that just under 50% of women have a female types brain. Research has consistently shown there is a great number of women who are much more similar to what we believe the average man is. So many in fact, that anyone who insists on segregating all people on the basis of gender is negating that their theories fall flat when faced with the people to whom 'on average' does not describe.

Generally your whole argument- (and its sad, because I can see how confident you are in this, you really do feel superior and justified in your neurosexism) - is flawed because nearly all of it is based and correlation and causation assumptions. (i.e - more men do maths, mens brains are different, therefore, mens brains make them good at maths) Well, Kids whose parents own coffee makers are proven to be are more intelligent, that doesn't mean proximity to coffee makers raises IQ.

You are not unbiased here. You had beliefs, and saw something to back them up, and took it, have you looked for flaws, have you actually tries to say 'now, is it possible this isn't so simple?) I'm guessing not, because you don't want to, you are comfortable with what you believe.

You don't want to think about poor controls, gender priming in exams, stereotype bias or anything that would require you to doubt yourself for a split second.

I'm proven to have a gender neutral brain. I don't fit female patterns, my psychiatrist suggested I have mild autism. What do you have to say about me and my right to equality?

Actually, I can't be assed to pull out my kindle and search for each of your points, seriously, just read the book.
It covers everything you've mentioned. With lots of cited research articles so you can double check it all. The point of the book is that we are astoundingly sure that science backs up sexism as a society, but under further investigation, most of the science can be debunked, and what little there is at best shows a slight margin. Socialization is overwhelmingly responsible for the result on which most assumptions are based.

Read that, then we'll talk.

I also recommend bad science by Ben Goldacre. Which covers the topis of people relying on studies way to easily and not realizing how shoddy the methodology is.

Also: opening up space and providing methodological instruments to allow for the academic study of men and masculinities - something that wasn't even on the horizon until early 3rd wavers rolled onto the scene.

If you're a dude looking for what the 3rd wave has done for men, I'd say that's a pretty big check mark right there.

Here are some resources for you to look at, if you're interested:

1. Masculinities, by R.W. Connell
   
2. The Men and the Boys, by R.W. Connell
   
3. Men's Lives, edited by Michael Kimmel and Michael Messner
   
4. Men and Masculinities, a peer-reviewed academic journal devoted entirely to the examination of men and men's lives.
   
5. Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, by Lisa Wade and Myra Marx Ferree. Features a whole lot of discussion about men and masculinities
   
   This is just the tip of the iceberg of academic research on men and men's lives, and the overwhelming majority of it is a direct result of the revolutions in feminist thought brought forth by what we now think of as 3rd wave feminists.
   
   Now bear in mind that this is all academic stuff, but think about what that means for a moment: each semester, tens of thousands of students from all over the world, are asked to think critically and sociologically (or anthropologically or psychologically, whatever your preferred brand happens to be) about men, men's lives, and the issues facing men and boys today. The textbook I'm currently working on has a whole chapter that focuses on the challenges young men and boys face in North American schools, and the textbook I'm using to teach a sociology of gender course this year devotes about half of its space to examinations of men of all shapes, sizes, orientations, and expressions. That's huge. That's really huge. It's huge because action - and activism - need to be grounded in knowledge, and that's what 3rd wave feminists have helped to provide; knowledge of the unique and often serious challenges facing men and boys today.
   
   So that's what 3rd wave feminism has done for men and boys in academia. I'm sure there are resources around online that can help expand on this.

I think part of it is that I’m not aware of this being taught in trade schools. Take this with a grain of salt, because my experience is with theater costuming in middle, high school, and college (including designing costumes for a play), home sewing, and historical re-enactment, but my major was neuroscience in college, so my knowledge is less extensive than a fashion major.

I have been sewing; however, for more than two decades.

That being said, Rosika Parker’s The Subversive Stitch makes a pretty good argument for the historic devaluing of sewing during the Middle Ages with concurrent social movements to restrict female power.

Here’s my perception of the hierarchies in the different careers and the education requirements (see further down)

1. fashion designer
   
2. line/season/show manager
   
3. higher level seamstress (might manage a couple outfits)
   
4. likely more layers of hierarchy
   
5. underlings (actually sewing the outfit parts)
   
   .
   
   
6. costume designer
   
7. levels of hierarchy (sorry)
   
8. underlings (actually doing most of the sewing)
   
   Here’s what I’m aware of for schooling (skewed because my experience is at a four year university)
   
   

• four year universities have majors in fashion design (which includes flat and dress model pattern drafting as well as rendering the patterns and concept art online), costuming (similar to fashion design but with more of a theater focus), and theater management (which includes designing concept art for plays, choosing and altering costumes, hair, and makeup)
  
  
• whatever the name for the fashion design seamstresses who manage an outfit for a fashion designer’s show is a one year masters program after four year university (for more info check out Zoe Hong on YouTube)
  
  
• theater set work (including costume making and alteration; not management) and (less sure for this) the actual sewing and embroidery work for fashion design is more of an apprenticeship area of work. You get hired already knowing how to sew and then receive on the job training to meet the costume designer’s standard (for theater and fashion design)
  
  
• and then there’s the tangential stuff like preserving and repairing historical garments for museums (likely masters maybe grad school) or working at historical sites like Jamestown, Williamsburg, etc. which from my understanding are also more of an apprenticeship (William & Mary undergrads are allowed to do this for the summer, so a college degree is not required)
  
  You might have better luck hunting down your local theater (you might be able to do this with fashion designer houses too; no idea) and asking for the required qualifications to be hired.
  
  For historical costuming, try an apprenticeship or membership with your local re-enactment society or SCA
  
  For learning how to sew (may not include pattern drafting, rendering patterns digitally, or concept art generation) try your local sewing machine service shop (search vacuum service shops too because they overlap).
  
  Here are some books to recommend:
  
  Fashion:
  
  For someone who already sews
  
  Here are ones I feel I have to include, but they’re kind of impractical:
  
  
  
• Patternmaking for fashion design by Helen Joseph Armstrong (textbook; too expensive to just buy)
  
  
• Draping for Apparel Design by Helen Joseph Armstrong (textbook; too
  
  Here are cheaper options
  
  
• Transformative Reconstruction by Shingo Sato
  
  
• Pattern Magic by Tomoko Nakamichi
  
  For learning to sew
  
  
• The Singer Complete Photo Guide to Sewing
  
  
• I don’t recommend Gertie Sews books for beginners because several of the patterns are misdrafted, also ignore older (pre mid 2000s) Burda Patterns because the seam allowances are wrong or inconsistent between patterns
  
  Historical Reconstruction
  
  For someone who already sews:
  
  
• Patterns of Fashion series by Janet Arnold
  
  
• Copies of historical fashion magazines like La Mode Universelle Ilustree (in French) and Harpers Bazaar are sold on EBay. They are only in one size and therefore require pattern drafting and alteration knowledge to use.
  
  
• Reconstructing History
  
  
• Laughing Moon

Of course it's "logical" for women to buy into patriarchy - but it's only logical after one has accepted that this is the way things are and they cannot change.

>So why is it that when men hold a sexist ideology, their positions are attributed to a well established (and by many, respected) ideology, but when women analyze the same information, and come to the same conclusions, is it assumed that she's internalized this completely irrational ideology that supposedly belongs to men alone, as if she's somehow been brainwashed and manipulated?

This is confusing - I think feminists would say both have been equally socialized (they wouldn't say "brainwashed") to believe patriarchal constructs. Part of the confusion seems to be that you're using "rational" to mean "self-interested." A man buying into patriarchy is purely self-interested, right, because he's reaching for the highest status in his given society, accepting no limitations on that status. Women who buy in are also trying to achieve the highest status possible in their society, and in that way are self-interested, but the woman is accepting that there are limitations for her. She is trying to be the highest-status subordinate. From that wider perspective, she's not acting in self-interest if she does not challenge her ultimately subordinate status. That doesn't mean it's irrational, but it does make buying into the patriarchy as a man vs. as a woman inherently different, because a man's position in patriarchy is by definition different from a woman's.

I think you could go further, though, and argue that men buying into patriarchy are not actually truly acting in their own best interests, because as we all well know, patriarchy hurts men too. But it's different from internalized misogyny because it's still completely self-interested within the logic of the system - within the way patriarchy defines value - if not truly self-interested in the context of other (more organic?) systems of value.

Edit: There are also different ways of "buying into patriarchy." My discussion above has in mind women who accept and embrace a very traditional feminine role. But there are also women that are what Ariel Levy has called "female chauvinist pigs", who essentially adopt a sexist masculine persona in order to try to achieve higher status than women are generally allotted in patriarchy (since, again, in patriarchy masculine>feminine). Again, this is completely rational within the context of patriarchy, arguably even more "logical" (self-interested) than the traditional woman's strategy, but as Levy points out:

>There's just one thing: Even if you are a woman who achieves the ultimate and becomes like a man, you will still always be like a woman. And as long as womanhood is thought of as something to escape from, something less than manhood, you will be thought less of, too.

> Feminism, at least on here, seems to completely ignore those factors and jump straight for 'social construct' with no evidence, no reasoning, and no discussion.

This is a false assertion on your part. There is a lot of very powerful evidence that gender is in fact the product of social forces and has very little to do with biology. This evidence emerges from decades of intensive research by sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and even biologists - who will often point out that while humans are a sexually dimorphic species, the extent of that dimorphism is fairly small.

One of the reasons you might not be seeing this evidence in discussions of gender online is because, frankly, having to stop a discussion to provide links to this exhaustive mountain of evidence every time someone with little knowledge of the material demands to see it is frustrating and tiresome. There are hundreds - thousands - of introductory textbooks from sociology, anthropology, gender studies, and psychology that talk about the social construction of gender; if you want to see the evidence, then look there. Most feminists accept the academic consensus that gender is primarily the product of culture, and because that consensus is grounded in the best possible empirical research, you should accept it too.

Or don't. I'm not your boss. But if you don't accept it, then you should accept that in rejecting the social construction of gender, you're also rejecting the preponderance of evidence, which might not be the best place to plant your flag.

>I think saying it's 100% socially constructed is probably wrong too...

Good thing that's not what most people are saying. Bodies exist. They are the things onto which we inscribe our cultural values. But they are also incredibly malleable and so they are shaped and reshaped by the dictates of culture.

Why do children raised in poverty have poorer health outcomes than those raised in middle class or rich environments? Because poverty correlates with poorer diets, fewer calories consumed per day, and a lack of regular access to gyms or after-school fitness programs. Poor bodies are shaped in different ways than rich bodies because of culture. I mean, hell, the foundation of epidemiology is the recognition that cultural forces have enormous impact on bodies.

Why are men bigger and stronger than women? Biology? Perhaps, but we also cannot overlook the fact that in our society - and in many others - men are expected to consume an average of 300-400 additional calories per day than women. Is this because men are "naturally" bigger and stronger than women, or are men bigger and stronger than women because they've historically had access to higher calorie diets (which we know result in bigger, stronger people)? Do men have more muscle mass because testosterone, or do they have more muscle mass because they are incentivized to be more muscled than women - who are treated worse if their own muscle mass begins to impact their perceived femininity? Men are supposed to be big and strong; women are supposed to be petite and "trim" or "fit but not overly muscled". Men know this and women know this, and our recognition of these normative standards will pressure us to sculpt our bodies in different ways.

What I'm saying is that the cliches of "men are strong because biology, men like blue because culture" is reductionist to the point of being useless. The reality is far, far more complicated than this, but in the end, in light of decades of research into the question of nature v. nurture, the broad consensus is "a little bit of biology, and a whole boatload of culture".

It should be noted that not every study about gender is accurate or trustworthy. According to this book on neurological studies, often the studies without any rigourous methodologies get a lot of press because they promote existing ideas about the gender binary, while studies that do not conform to our existing idea of gender will get no press whatsoever, no matter how well executed the study was. It's worth examining the methodologies behind a study before believing that it holds water! (I highly recommend the book, if studies on gender interest you! It is so engrossing and well written, good for laypeople and more scientific folks alike!)

hey, not sure if you're trolling or being inflammatory while also ignorant.

> I think that this generalization is exaggerated to a level that is beyond ridiculousness. Where is the evidence to support this?

this is what makes me think you are trolling. you 'think' it's exaggerated, but why don't you show me some evidence to back up your opinions? let me give you quite a bit of evidence to support the feminist argument (aka, the truth):

The Second Sex

Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center

Women's Suffrage: A Primary Source History of the Women's Rights Movement in America

Modern Sexism: Blatant, Covert and Subtle Discrimination

I can give you a LOT of further recommended reading. This is absolutely an issue you should read a lot about before attempting to come into a safe place for feminist discussion and poison the conversation with ignorant, defensive and ultimately pathetic 'questions.' You are not here to be enlightened. You think women are the enemy. We are all humans, we all deserve to be equal.

Out of the goodness of my heart, here is a primer on male privilege, although until you open your heart, mind and eyes to equality, I won't hold my breath for you to take this seriously: How to Talk to Someone about Privilege

I don't want to infer anything about your relationship, but there is a book I'd like you to find: Communion: The Female Search for Love, by bell hooks (check your local library). She does a fantastic job explaining society's role in creating relationships - specifically those in which the males "don't believe" in feminism.

I once had the pleasure of hearing the feminist biologist, Marlene Zuk, speak. She was fantastic and I think you should check out her book [Sex on Six Legs] (https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Six-Legs-Lessons-Language/dp/015101373X)

Also, if you're not afraid of delving into psychology and neuroscience. I'd also recommend Cordelia Fine's [Delusions of Gender] (https://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494261794&sr=1-1&keywords=delusions+of+gender)

Skip the organizations.

The personal is political. Change yourself first.

Read books. Apply the knowledge you gain to your everyday relationships and interactions.

Analyze media. Gain an awareness of how women are portrayed in media (TV, movies, magazines, newspapers, social media and the internet, etc.). There are stark differences in the way males and females are developed, displayed, and interact with each other.

Study the social construction of gender and difference. Understand the separation of gender from sex.

Learn about the intersections of social identities and the matrix of domination.

Always ask questions. Never be shy - we are all here to learn, and help each other learn.

Radical feminism is an actual movement that has a history and certain parameters for ideology (the Wikipedia entry is extremely vague and does not do it justice). I'm sorry for being rude in my previous comment, but it just ticks me off when people on the internet think "radical feminism" means being feminist and angry, or feminist and extreme. Radical feminists tend to be all of those things, but simply being angry or extreme doesn't make someone a radfem. Words have meanings.

I took a look at the thread you linked. Apart from the academic jargon that means nothing in the real world (there was a lot of this), they're basically saying that although gender is socially made up/imposed, it also has real world consequences. Well, yes, every radfem in the world would agree with that. That doesn't mean that sex-reassignment surgery is the best way to go.

If a born-female wants to be masculine, she can; if a born-male wants to be feminine, he can. Why take hormones and change one's body? If you think about it, it's actually reinforcing really negative, sexist stereotypes ("I have a wee-wee but I like dresses and pink; I must be a girl because only girls can like dresses and pink").

The trans "argument" usually relies on the de-bunked idea that people are born with "male" or "female" brains. Putting aside the obvious sexism of this argument, it's actually not scientifically valid (link to an awesome feminist book on neurology that shows how our brains adapt to our environments via something called neuroplasticity, and we are not born with inherently "masculine" or "feminine" brains): http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244/

And finally, yes, radfems hate the word "cis". It's an insulting world that implies women are privileged for a) being born female and b) being socialized into femininity (gender role), which is just ritualized submission.

Instead of just getting rid of them, I think we should supplement them with stories like Dealing with Dragons, Ella Enchanted, and other books with positive messages.

http://www.amazon.com/An-Introduction-Womens-Studies-Transnational/dp/0072887184
This is my textbook for my intro class; there are a lot of interesting articles pertaining to history which should help you out

Actually the research is there and a lot of is very reputable stuff carried out by psychologists with controls and peer review and so on.

For example did you know that when a woman is taking a test in a male-dominated room of people also taking the test, her score (once you control for natural aptitude which the researchers are able to do statistically) is inversely proportional to the number of men in the room?

Stuff like this is all around us. Men don't know it and don't see it, and therefore don't think it exists. Women know it exists, but men don't listen to us.

Source

The Meaning of Freedom and Other Difficult Dialogues.

The Abrahmson Effect.

Men Explain Things to Me.

Sex at Dawn! More about sexuality and evolutionary biology (is that a thing?) but way relevant.

The evidence is all around you.

There are many more that exist, of course, but here are some of my favourites:

Bitchfest - A collection of essays from Bitch magazine

Female Chauvanist Pigs: Women and the rise of raunch culture by Ariel Levy

Men explain things to me - Rebecca Solnit

Backlash - Susan Faludi

Bad feminist by Roxane Gay - I'm just in the middle of reasing this now, really enjoying it.

Second wave feminism (from the 1960s to the early 1980s) was about getting women into the workplace (even blue collar jobs) and creating legislation to prevent discrimination in the work place. Susan Faludi's Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women has examples in her chapter on work. Here if you look at the excerpt offered on page 398 and 405 she looks at the struggles blue collar women faced and how they fought to succeed.

Sccording to Kate Millett’s “Sexual Politics,” Germaine Greer’s “The Female Eunuch,” and Shulamith Firestone’s “The Dialectic of Sex, the institution and practice of marriage and the nuclear family is awful and should be dismantled. And since these books were written the number of two parent households has indeed plummeted. Forty percent of American children are now born to single mothers. This rate of non-marital births, combined with the nation’s high divorce rate, means that around half of all American children will spend part of their childhood in a single-parent home.

> Most of the academic feminism I have read words it as the exact opposite. ... Are you suggesting that the feminine has usurped the masculine as the normative?

One of my Women's Studies classes used an older edition of Men's Lives. Some of the essays described "growing up male" as the struggle to not be feminine. Schoolyard bullying (among males at least) tends to pick on boys who are insufficiently masculine. Long before boys know what sex or sexuality is, or even how to spell it, they're gender policing each other.

So a couple of things:

1.) Just because something happened out of necessity, doesn't mean we should KEEP DOING IT.

2.) In a way you are saying male aggression makes male aggression necessary. I don't say this flippantly or to blame the victim. I am pointing out how this is a self reinforcing cycle that can only be disrupted by outside forces, namely the criminal justice system. There is a strong correlation between how much of the population can rely on the governement for justice, and how much inter-personal violence there is in that society.

>"they are not men and the look like girls" their words.

I doubt that's "their words" in any meaningful sense. They may have said them, but they didn't one day decide themselves that men can't be men if they look girly, and that looking feminine is bad. Someone taught them that.

I get that kids might not like the dolls to look excessive, but defining that as feminine/effeminate, or letting them define it as such without a conversation sends an entirely wrong message to the kids.

Anyway, here's some dolls:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01682HQCS?ref_=fsclp_pl_dp_7

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07FFKHH82/ref=alp_dpwidget_a_m_?th=1&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B075VVJY45/ref=alp_dpwidget_a_m_?th=1&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER