Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

With respect to all parties involved, I'm not even sure what this thread is about any more. It's kind of about the word "feminist," it's kind of about injustices that still are or are not part of modern life, and it's kind of a heated debate about an obsolete bit of fiction. I understand the need for discourse, but is this the most relevant way to go about it?

we should argue about who is right about it, whatever it is!

Vorpal, honestly, I think leaving in the footage you say I should have would strengthen my case—which I'm not sure you understand. But I think the editing is a minor quibble—we would both prefer that people see the whole thing. I have lots more to say and no time to say it right now. Let me just say, I'm not arguing that this single episode itself is terribly objectionable—rather that it is a cultural artifact that exposes the various cultural values in remarkably open conflict—and, like all television of the period needing to avoid controversy, resolves the story with conformity to the status quo. I think the show is a good example for a discussion on second-wave feminism precisely because this kind of story would be unthinkable today.

In other news: I thought I'd share this quote from President Hinckley on women, education, and careers. I think this is a good example of our current cultural values toward women and working:

You can include in the dream of the woman you would like to be a picture of one qualified to serve society and make a significant contribution to the world of which she will be a part. Set your priorities in terms of marriage and family, but also pursue educational programs which will lead to satisfying work and productive employment in case you do not marry, or to a sense of security and fulfillment in the event you do marry.

krebscout wrote:With respect to all parties involved, I'm not even sure what this thread is about any more. It's kind of about the word "feminist," it's kind of about injustices that still are or are not part of modern life, and it's kind of a heated debate about an obsolete bit of fiction. I understand the need for discourse, but is this the most relevant way to go about it?

I've been debating taking steps to keep this thread more "on topic" but have not done so, and I'll explain why.

In the original question, the asker implicitly gave a specific definition of the word "feminist" which then has been disputed by a number of parties here. This discussion has since become about a specific example of something that may or may not have demonstrated a need for a feminist revolution (second wave, to be specific) and I have allowed this to continue, as it is my feeling that we need to have a good understanding of the historical context in which these terms evolved in order to understand their meaning today.

So for now, continue the discussion, and I'm sure I'll be wading back in as well.

krebscout wrote:With respect to all parties involved, I'm not even sure what this thread is about any more.

In all honesty, I haven't known that for … most of the thread.

Dragon Lady wrote:

krebscout wrote:With respect to all parties involved, I'm not even sure what this thread is about any more.

In all honesty, I haven't known that for … most of the thread.

To me what this thread is about is a discussion of Hypatia’s question, “So, uh, what's wrong with being a feminist?” This was asked in response to a reader complaining about women who are being told at BYU “that marriage is a ‘stupid,’ ‘useless,’ ‘social construction’ that ‘isn’t worth my time.’” The reader implies that she is hearing these negative opinions about marriage from feminists.

We’ve discussed what it means to be a feminist and why some women self-identify as feminists. Since self-identifying as a feminist often involves having a sense that women have been or still are the victims of social injustice, we’ve discussed the reality of various social injustices. One of the perceived social injustices is an attempt to keep women down and prevent them from getting an education, or taking a job generally thought of as a man’s job. We’ve debated whether this has been a prevalent social attitude in the past by looking at the episode “Betty, Girl Engineer” in the series “Father Knows Best.” We’ve also discussed the fundamental differences between men and women.

Since being a feminist means different things to different people, you can’t really answer the question of what is wrong with being a feminist without someone replying that “But that is not what being a feminist means to me!” So, labels aside, here is what I think the reader was referring to when she complained about what the roommates, friends, and instructors were saying at BYU: http://lds.org/ensign/2011/01/fundament ... h?lang=eng

Dallin H. Oaks wrote: There are many political, legal, and social pressures for changes that confuse gender, deemphasize the importance of marriage or change its definition, or homogenize the differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness. Our eternal perspective sets us against such changes.

I think that for many of us feminism means supporting at least some of the kind of changes Elder Oaks says we are set against. I think the person who asked question #61430 had this kind of definition of feminism in mind, and if so, the article "Fundamental to Our Faith" by Elder Oaks explains what is wrong with this kind of feminism.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:In other news: I thought I'd share this quote from President Hinckley on women, education, and careers. I think this is a good example of our current cultural values toward women and working:

You can include in the dream of the woman you would like to be a picture of one qualified to serve society and make a significant contribution to the world of which she will be a part. Set your priorities in terms of marriage and family, but also pursue educational programs which will lead to satisfying work and productive employment in case you do not marry, or to a sense of security and fulfillment in the event you do marry.

And not only our current cultural values, but our past cultural values.

And here, in a forum address titled "The Implications of Feminism for BYU", delivered on BYU campus in 1976, self-described moderate feminist Elouise Bell refers to President Oaks as *gasp* a feminist. This was just after President Oaks extended eligibility for the Presidential Scholarship to women (now the Thomas S. Monson Presidential Scholarship) — previously it had only been available to men. Also worth noting is that this was during second-wave feminism, and, as I have written about at length before, I think most contemporary Mormons would agree with most of the beliefs of second-wave feminism. Again: Feminism is fragmentary and complicated.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:And here, in a forum address titled "The Implications of Feminism for BYU", delivered on BYU campus in 1976, self-described moderate feminist Elouise Bell refers to President Oaks as *gasp* a feminist. This was just after President Oaks extended eligibility for the Presidential Scholarship to women (now the Thomas S. Monson Presidential Scholarship) — previously it had only been available to men. Also worth noting is that this was during second-wave feminism, and, as I have written about at length before, I think most contemporary Mormons would agree with most of the beliefs of second-wave feminism. Again: Feminism is fragmentary and complicated.

Did Sister Bell refer to President Oaks as a feminist? Perhaps so, as her definition of feminism is so broad that it includes virtually everybody.

Elousie Bell wrote:Let us begin, then, with a definition. What is a feminist? What are we talking about? What does it mean to say that Sister Bell is a feminist or that President Oaks is a feminist? Well, surely you could find in 1975 enough definitions to fill a semester's notebook. I'm not going to turn to any printed definitions but rather give you my definition, which I think is simple but useful for our purposes. In my understanding, a feminist is a person, whether a man or a woman, who believes that historically there have been inequities in the education and treatment of women in several or many spheres of society and who is interested in correcting those inequities as he or she sees them. That's about the extent of my definition of feminism. That's about as far as I'm prepared to go with a definition that will cover the views of the many different people I know who are concerned about feminism. To become more specific is to start to branch off into different aspects of feminism about which agreement varies.

Who in the world is not a feminist? While this broad definition suits her purpose in making feminism acceptable to everyone, it doesn't distinguish feminism from any other system of thought.

Reading Sister Bell's remarks leads me to believe that what makes her different is that she sees--lurking in nearly every textbook, hidden in public discourse, underlying our various social institutions, the implicit messages "we" send--a conspiracy to foster inequities. Differences that might be attributed to different interests or differences in the nature of men and women are viewed askance as inequities, no doubt brought about by our pernicious social institutions and the different ways boys and girls are raised.

Sharona Fleming wrote:I feel like you’re putting words in my mouth a little bit, Vorpal. You seem to suggest that I have no basis for self-identifying as a feminist beyond a book I once read, but I never said that. I did, however, say that a chapter in a book influenced me greatly. I have other reasons for believing as I do, but I don’t hesitate to say that research from people I respect has lead me to believe the things I do about gender issues.

That's all I intended to say.

I think you are making some assumptions about me and my position that couldn’t be farther from the truth. You don’t have to preach to me about the good ole’ days of television. You seem to have assumed that “Betty: Girl Engineer” was my first exposure to Father Knows Best or any 1950’s television. This simply isn’t the case. I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone my age who knows more about Leave It To Beaver than I do. Watching an hour or two of old television shows together was a favorite pastime of my family while I was a teen. Knowing that, don’t you think it’s a bit silly to be saying that I find Father Knows Best to be “inherently ‘evil’”? Quite the contrary, I find great enjoyment in watching older TV shows. But just because I enjoy them doesn’t mean I can’t think critically about what I see and discern that I don’t want to be viewed the way that women were viewed then.

You said that what you saw in this episode is “He[Doyle] feels he ought to be allowed to make his own choices about his career and future, but he doesn’t feel that women deserve the same privilege. Instead, a woman should be content with being a pretty little wife to her husband. It’s her job to be there when he gets home merely because, as a male, he deserves her. … a woman should not seek employment because she might be taking some guy’s job…. males are entitled to nice, pretty wives simply because they work hard all day…. the old “separate spheres” mentality that has the potential to keep a woman an unwilling prisoner in her own home and a man uninvolved in the household. I can’t see equal partners in Doyle’s vision—how can I when he makes women out to be nice, pretty little things to be had by men?” I think we can agree that these things are inherently evil, can we not? That’s what I believe Paul Mavis meant when he said that some people see something inherently evil in this series.

I must confess that I don’t think it’s difficult to see what melbabi is talking about—these negative attitudes toward women that existed. I don’t think it can be denied that they cropped up in “Betty: Girl Engineer,” and I have seen it in other places in old TV shows too.

The negative attitudes mebabi talked about and I addressed were (1) women always wore dresses, (2) had dinner ready, (3) did all of the housework. Yes, it can be denied that they cropped up in “Betty: Girl Engineer.” I showed how women did not always wear dresses, the only meal time scene showed lunch was not ready when father came home, and the father shared in the housework. My wife also pointed out to me that we see in another episode that the son, Bud, was also expected to clean his room.

At that time it was the style for women to wear dresses. Why did they wear dresses? They did it because they wanted to look attractive to men. I think that shows a positive attitude, not a negative attitude. Styles change, but generally speaking women still want to look attractive to men. Good marital relations depend on each person trying to please the other person instead of only looking selfishly at what he or she wants for himself or herself. It would be nice to bring back more of that attitude of striving to make life more pleasant for those we love.

Having diner ready was a sign of love, not of meek submission to the will of a tyrant. Women supported their husbands and their families by doing their part in the relationship. Each had different roles to play, and success depended on teamwork. A family doesn’t function well when each person thinks he should be the star and is not willing to play well his position on the team. In the ideal family the role of father was not superior to the role of mother. The woman who thinks “Let him make his own dinner,” or, “how dare he expect anything from me?” is not being fair to the family.

It wouldn’t hurt a man to help with the housework, and sometimes men were a little insensitive to this. However, the modern idea that in order to be equitable the husband has to do at least fifty percent of the housework is not fair to the husband. In an equal partnership where the woman has agreed to stay home and take care of the kids while her husband works it is unequal to expect him to do all of his work for the family, and then share equally in all her work. A woman who stays home while her husband is providing for the family and does most of the housework is a positive attitude toward women. It shows that they are willing to live up to their part of the partnership.

For example, before Betty gets home and tells her parents her plan to pursue engineering, Jim and Margaret are discussing a dress Margaret has bought for Betty. Jim says something like, “Why do women love dresses so much? It seems so silly and simple-minded.” (Sorry I don’t have the exact quote, but I think my memory serves me well here.)

This is the way it goes.

Second scene. Anderson home. Margaret, Betty’s mother, is taking a dress out of a box. She is talking to Jim, Betty’s father.

Margaret: Isn’t it cute. I just couldn’t resist buying it for Betty. Oh, I hope she’ll like it.

Jim: Like it!? She’ll grab it and race from mirror to mirror swooning at every glance. Why do girls act so silly over dresses? It’s almost simple-minded.

Margaret: So that they can look feminine and trap some simple-minded male and get him to pay for all their silly dresses!

Jim: Touché! Touché!

Margaret: Actually, Betty is getting to the age where she needs some grown-up….

You see, what Jim is talking about is Betty’s typical response to getting a new dress, running from mirror to mirror and swooning at every glance. Of course Jim is exaggerating for comic effect, but this scene does help to establish the change in Betty’s attitude toward things like dresses. After her career decision she starts to wear manly clothes and tries to imitate men, which is a little upsetting to her parents. Jim is teasing Margaret with this dialogue, and Margaret teases him right back, winning this battle of wits.

Sharona Fleming wrote:Then when Betty comes in and shows no interest at all in the dress, her father acts astounded. “Betty, I’m not sure you understand,” he says. “This is a dress—D-R-E-S-S.” Don’t you think that sends a negative attitude about women? I realize it’s supposed to be somewhat humorous (and if I hadn’t the laugh-track would have clued me in), but where is the humor in a condescending attitude?

I might be tempted to think this was a condescending and negative attitude, except Jim’s attitude is totally justifiable based on what he knows about Betty. Her typical reaction, up until this moment in time, was to get all goofy and silly over a new dress. I think Jim thought that Betty was just so wrapped up in her own news that the reality of the new dress hadn’t sunk in. The humor in the situation is that we, the audience, know something about Betty’s news that makes Jim reaction look kind of silly.

Then, when Betty shares her aspirations about engineering, she is basically ignored by both of her parents: her father doesn’t look up from his newspaper and her mother fusses over the dress.

They parents do ignore Betty. This is explained in the following dialogue

Betty: Mother! Didn’t you hear what I said? I’m going to be an Engineer!

Margaret: Yes I heard you.

Betty: But you don’t believe me.

Margaret: Well certainly not. You’re joking.

Betty: Oh, am I? Well, do you know what I’m going to do all next week during spring vacation? I’m going to work with a county surveying crew.

Jim: Surveying crew!?

Margaret: Surveying crew!?

Betty: That’s right, a surveying crew.

Bud: Surveying crew!?

Betty: Oh, who asked you anyway?

Betty leaves chasing Bud up the stairs.

Jim and Margaret together: Surveying crew?

So, at first Jim and Margaret just think Betty is joking. The family does a lot of teasing and joking, so this is nothing unusual. The idea of Betty wanting to be an engineer is so foreign to the way she has acted for the last eighteen years of her life that they can’t believe she is serious. But when they realize that she is serious they certainly don’t ignore her. They are amazed and very interested.

Sharona Fleming wrote:I think this is the perfect example to demonstrate how Jim views the women in his life. In the first scene he calls women silly for caring about dresses, but then he completely ignores Betty when she talks about engineering. She wanted to be anything BUT simple-minded and silly, but her parents refused to take her seriously when she showed an interest outside of what they considered to be proper for a girl.

So, Jim views running from mirror to mirror and swooning over a new dress as silly, but as soon as he realizes that she isn’t joking about becoming an engineer they are intensely interested.

It seems to me that you are only focusing on a couple of lines from the Proclamation on Families when you say that 1950s TV sends the right message about gender.

I don’t say that 1950s TV sends the right message about gender. I say that this episode supports a role of fathers as having the primary responsibility to provide for their families, and mothers the primary responsibility of nurturing her children.

Yes, I realize that it talks about the roles of fathers and mothers, but you’re putting it in the context that all mothers must be stay-at-home-moms, and that all dads must be the sole bread-winners. My copy of the Proclamation doesn’t say how those sacred roles must be fulfilled. It never states that mothers cannot have careers or else they won’t be fulfilling their role as a nurturer.

Not at all. There will be some mothers who must work outside of the home, but the Church teaches that when women have small children they should not work out of the home unless it is absolutely necessary to provide the bare necessities of life. Your copy does say what ideally should be the primary role of fathers and mothers, which is what I am talking about.

It doesn’t say that fathers must be the “one with the career,” as you put it. It does, however, say “fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” Since it is never stated how those roles must be filled, I don’t think it’s right to say “the male should be the one with a career, the one who is out working to support the family…” and that’s the only right way to do it!

I think you are using the phrase “obligated to help one another as equal partners” to negate the sentences which come just before. It does state how these roles ought to (I don’t say “must”) be filled. A woman should prepare herself before marriage so that she can take up a career if the necessity arises through death, sickness, divorce or otherwise. And she should continue to learn and educate herself. But clearly the proclamation makes a distinction between male and female roles in a family.

Here are a couple of sources for more information on how to interpret the Proclamation. “The Family” by Henry B. Eyring, http://lds.org/ensign/1998/02/the-family?lang=eng and http://lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-cove ... d?lang=eng

I am staying largely out of this conversation, but the exact words used to define roles in the proclamation are for fathers to preside, provide, and protect and for mothers to nurture. These roles can be filled in many ways and do not preclude that of a stay at home father and a working mother. In some situations the best way for a father to provide for his family is to allow his wife to work.

I'd like to remind you, Unit of Energy, what it says in the recent (2000) "The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women, Part A," in Chapter 28. (Used (1) as a resource for Relief Society instruction on first Sundays and for home, family, and personal enrichment meetings; (2) as a supplementary resource for Young Women instruction; and (3) as designated, for “Teachings for Our Time” lessons on fourth Sundays.)

Relief Society Manual wrote:Mothers are encouraged to make raising their children their primary occupation, especially when their children are young. They should still prepare to be able to earn a living outside the home, however. Before the mother of small children considers working outside the home to provide the basic needs of her family, she should be certain those needs are valid. She should be sure they cannot be met through careful budgeting and home production. She should make every effort to stay at home with the children.

“Mothers who have young children in the home should devote their primary energies to the companionship and training of their children and the care of their families, and should not seek employment outside the home unless there is no other way that the family’s basic needs can be provided” (First Presidency letter to Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks; quoted by Dallin H. Oaks in “Insights,” Ensign, Mar. 1975, 56).

Source http://lds.org/manual/the-latter-day-sa ... s?lang=eng It seems to me that saying "the best way for a father to provide for his family is to allow his wife to work" is not a sufficient excuse, as long as the father is able to provide for the family's basic needs. This comes from the First Presidency in a letter to that old feminist Dallin H. Oaks (and quoted by Dallin H. Oaks and Jeffrey R. Holland). This is how I interpret the Proclamation, and it seems to be the way the Brethren interpret it as well. Of course the First Presidency letter predates the Proclamation by twenty years, but nothing I've heard the General Authorities say contradicts it. And this is found in the current "Relief Society Other Resources" material.

I am fully aware of what has been said, and I do plan on staying home, although my hobbies that will continue will most likely bring in a small income. Also, I do not appreciate my quote being taken out of context. I said in some situations. This is not a direct quote from the proclamation, but it is easily and clearly allowed for in the proclamation.

I don’t often read the forums, and I’ve never posted, so maybe that’s going to negate some of my credibility BUT…

I think Dragon Lady has a point when she calls for this thread to be closed. I’m not saying that because I’m personally postfeminist and I want to “ignore” the discussion(/shouting match?) of “what feminism is today and why,” but I think this thread is the perfect example of what brought Singleton to ask her question in the first place.

So, the feminists that Singleton lived with, worked with, and associated with felt one way about marriage, and she felt another. She has her opinions, and they have theirs. The trick is how to respect one another when we have unremittingly divergent ontological and ideological differences, and that’s what her question was ABOUT. She was realizing that what she was trying to do (have a shouting match) wasn’t solving any of the conflicts and she was asking for advice on how to respect these other women and how to respect their opinions.

I think this thread is evidence to how difficult that flavor of respect is to swallow.

Tim: From my perspective, Singleton's question was actually pretty combative (using feminist as a derogatory term, calling them agitators, talking about writing a masters thesis to prove them wrong)—and that set the tone for the conversation here. She was looking for ways to respond (i.e. arguments for her side) rather than an understanding. I think that if Singleton's question had been as generous and openminded as you imagine it, we may have started on another tone. I like the idea of conducting conversations with an overall goal of figuring out "how to respect these other women and how to respect their opinions" — I just don't think this value was operating at any point during the conversation.

Melbabi: I like this link, and I'm gonna save it for later.

One thing I find interesting about this thread is that while it may have degraded into an "us vs them" mentality (which I'm not even sure it has, but many seem to be perceiving shouting and a fair amount of heat, so it seems to fit the bill) it started out for me as an attempt to define those categories.

Many here take umbrage at Singleton and others who have, as Sauron has mentioned, considered feminist to be a derogatory term. For those who self-identify as feminists, this is an understandable and reasonable objection. To them, something that they hold near and dear to them and their self-identity has just come under attack. Consciously or not, emotions come into play and color the rest of the encounter.

For those who do not self-identify as feminists, the term may mean something completely different. (For evidence of this, I'll pull Katya's definition of feminism up again "Feminism is the radical idea that women are people." and point out that Singleton, as a woman, either falls into this definition or suffers from a form of self-dehumanization.) Their understanding of the title may be colored by experiences with extremists who have attacked them for their gender, era of childhood (hi ho), or simply for not being as extreme. Once again, emotions can quickly enter in at the first derogatory-seeming comment towards non-feminists.

The kicker is, they may have the exact same views as those who self-identify as feminists, but for whatever reason don't accept the title. And because what is separating us from them ends up being a rather arbitrary matter, any comment made has to potential to be taken as an attack, upping the emotional ante, and pushing for shouting match methods.

Another interesting thing I see about this thread is that consensus (or at least understanding) seemed to be reached a couple of different times. Due to the bifurcated nature of the conversation, it continued onward, allowing more misunderstandings to be revealed (or old ones resurfaced). While I don't mind the former, it does make a cumbersome thread even more unwieldy. Perhaps one solution could be found in breaking the thread into two or three sections? One topic seems to be the level of gender discrimination in the 50s as shown by mainstream Hollywood. Another is the biological nature of nurture. Perhaps another would be the continuing discussion on interpretations of the title feminist, though that seems to have not been directly commented on recently.

In general, I think feminism is a form of activism. If you are not an activist about feminism, you are not a feminist. Maybe you agree with the movement, maybe not. But in my mind, it doesn't really matter what your views are because the distinction has more to do with how actively you are pursuing the cause. You could take two people who believe the exact same thing, but maybe only one of them would qualify as a feminist. As such, I think the terms activist and feminist (or hippie, beatnik, treehugger, etc) are frequently used in degrading contexts because people are frequently annoyed by activism itself. They don't want to be pestered with your fliers and rallies, so that's basically what they're trying to express.

As an aside, I've always found the gender roles topic to be immensely interesting. There are some aspects that are totally perplexing to me. For example, if you try to get males to do something that is clearly anti-masculine, you will likely get a huge backlash. But why? Why is it such a big deal? It's just a color. It's just a style of clothing. It's just a toy. It's just a hobby. But we try to make these things into so much more than that. And that's something I'll probably never fully understand. But then again, lots of people probably think I'm a tomboy because I enjoy things like mountain biking and fishing. And I couldn't care less.

Unit of Energy wrote:I am fully aware of what has been said, and I do plan on staying home, although my hobbies that will continue will most likely bring in a small income. Also, I do not appreciate my quote being taken out of context. I said in some situations. This is not a direct quote from the proclamation, but it is easily and clearly allowed for in the proclamation.

Sorry, I certainly did understand you to mean "in some situations." I had no intention of taking you out of context and making it look like you meant "in all situations." I guess I need to proofread more carefully and try to understand better how my intent might be misunderstood. My point was that the First Presidency says in no situation where the husband can provide for the basic needs of the family should the woman work outside of the home if she has young children. In some cases the husband may not be able to provide, and that would be different.

thebigcheese wrote:In general, I think feminism is a form of activism. If you are not an activist about feminism, you are not a feminist. Maybe you agree with the movement, maybe not. But in my mind, it doesn't really matter what your views are because the distinction has more to do with how actively you are pursuing the cause. You could take two people who believe the exact same thing, but maybe only one of them would qualify as a feminist. As such, I think the terms activist and feminist (or hippie, beatnik, treehugger, etc) are frequently used in degrading contexts because people are frequently annoyed by activism itself. They don't want to be pestered with your fliers and rallies, so that's basically what they're trying to express.

As an aside, I've always found the gender roles topic to be immensely interesting. There are some aspects that are totally perplexing to me. For example, if you try to get males to do something that is clearly anti-masculine, you will likely get a huge backlash. But why? Why is it such a big deal? It's just a color. It's just a style of clothing. It's just a toy. It's just a hobby. But we try to make these things into so much more than that. And that's something I'll probably never fully understand. But then again, lots of people probably think I'm a tomboy because I enjoy things like mountain biking and fishing. And I couldn't care less.

I think that is a very good point about a real feminist is also an activist. Including that in the definition would certainly reduce the number of people who could be called a feminist, I think.

I also have found gender roles to be a very interesting topic. Are you wondering about why males really object to something like, say, wearing a pink shirt or wearing something feminine looking? Or why do some males strongly object to knitting or quilting or some other hobby generally considered feminine? In my opinion some males are just a little concerned about looking like they may be girlish. Maybe that comes from growing up and being teased unmercifully if you don't conform to the boyish image, if you are a boy. Perhaps boys need to reassure themselves that they are boys, because they may sometimes feel a little girlish. How does that line go in the movie, "It takes a man really secure in his masculinity to walk that way (or wear that, or whatever it is). Anyway, it is really interesting.

vorpal blade wrote:Or why do some males strongly object to knitting

Random fact of the day, did you know that knitting used to be a manly activity? Girls weren't allowed to do it. Men would actually be trained in knitting (probably as an apprentice?) before they could become master knitters!