Do you think feminism has gone too far?

StormWarrior

When feminism started, it was about equal rights, which is fair enough. But it seems to me it's going too far, and actually being detrimental to women. For example, women wanted the right to work so that they didn't have to totally depend on a man's goodwill. But now it's reached the opposite end of the spectrum. Women are pressurised (by the way society is run and also by other women) into returning to work after kids when some would rather stay home, and women who do stay home are looked down upon and b*tched about by other women.

Then there is the way women are expected to act like men these days. I think that when women are looked down upon for acting like women, rather than helping women's cause, that is actually hindering it. It's as if we're saying, "Women are not good enough they way they are, they should act just like men in order to be considered worthy." Blokes end up so confused that they seem unsure how they should treat women, which equals the death of things such as chivalry. Is there really anything wrong with a man opening a door for a woman or protecting and fending for her? Some men and women actually like that you know!

I don't know about all of you, but I personally hate the way I am expected to live like a bloke, and compete with blokes. Out of every 5 people who convert to Islam, 4 are women. I think that's pretty obviously a backlash against the feminazism that seems to be sweeping the western world. Just needed to rant about that, it is p*****g me off!

Sherifu

**** feminism


/hides from Thaed

mr kr0nik

Time of the month, is it?

useful_contacts

i for one will not be returning to work when i have my kids(well when they start school i will) but i wont have someone else raise my kids because im at work all day

I dont really care about feminism myself i have never been passed over for anything because im female and thats the way it should be.

However i dont like a man holding a door open for me or pulling out a chair for me it annoys me, i can do it myself.If i was heavily pregnant it would be different

Just my 2 cents

Bendihorse

IMO the very word itself is something that sets us apart from men, the very thing that feminists are trying to abolish. **** Feminism is right. Im glad i got the right to vote an all that, things had a long way to come, but i think they have got there now. Feminism is no longer about feminism, its about people looking for notice and wanting to be heard.

Dragan

Your Islamic stat is ever so slightly misleading.

Islamic males are FAR more likely to marry outside of their own religion, with the deal being the lass needs to convert. Try being an Islamic woman and striking up a relationship with a non-Islamic man. It's normally not very pretty ( in my limited experience of one attempted relationship and one attempted friendship with an Islamic lass, in neither case was her family impressed with my presence, even when just friends ).

As for Feminism, everything will always have it different sections, people viewing the main body of an idea as it suits them. Kind of silly to take a very broad social concept and tar everyone involved with the same brush.

Wazdakka

TBH

Macha

Feminism is about choice.

I'd like to see a source for those statistics of conversions to Islam. I don't believe it for a second.

Overheal

I cant remember who posted it or where but in a survey conducted for women: everyone that opted 'yes' that they expected to be paid us much as a man also said 'yes' on the survey when asked if their significant other should make more money than they do.

The mind boggles.

Dragan

taconnol wrote: »

Feminism is about choice.

I'd like to see a source for those statistics of conversions to Islam. I don't believe it for a second.

They are actually pretty accurate, but as i said previously they are a bit off without the correct background info over just the flat numbers.

If you can give me an hour or two i'll find some decent source reading for ya. (just have to finish up some **** for work ).

Macha

Wazdakka wrote: »

TBH

*Yawn*

Try to be a bit more original in your misogyny please. You're boring us.

Thanks Dragan. My mottos is 'Lies, damn lies and statistics'. You can skew them any way that suits you.

chopperbyrne

Overheal wrote: »

I cant remember who posted it or where but in a survey conducted for women: everyone that opted 'yes' that they expected to be paid us much as a man also said 'yes' on the survey when asked if their significant other should make more money than they do.

The mind boggles.

How is that confusing?

They want parity of pay with men doing the same job as them, but they want their significant other to have a higher earning job than them.

Typical female behaviour really!

StormWarrior

useful_contacts wrote: »

i However i dont like a man holding a door open for me or pulling out a chair for me it annoys me, i can do it myself.If i was heavily pregnant it would be different

Why? I feel that women who complain when men try to be chivalrous are ruining men for the rest of us.

CantGetNoSleep

Women will never be as good as men and should never be treated equall or given positions of power

Just look at the f*ck up Maggie Thatcher made, f*ckin c*nt

StormWarrior

So a question for the blokes, would you prefer a return to slightly more traditional roles?

Four-Too

Actually the feminist movement was encouraged in America so that the Government could tax men as well as women, and you know the bad things most of that goes towards - militarization, weapons upgrade, so-called "War on terror", also, the American army would be smaller if women were not part of it aswell. Women are killers now, not only men! The whole motherly thing seems to be diminished significantly also. Are women really happy with all this expected to work the same as men? Would they rather the man take responsibility for everything??

AngryBadger

Feminism is a set of ideals, as such I don't think you can say "feminism" has gone too far.

Now, is it fair to say that some groups/individual;s have taken the tenants of feminism and incertain circumstances stretched/warped them into something else which isn't really in the spirits of feminism, yes that's absolutely true.

Many women I encounter want equal rights when it suits them. If a situation arises where they're not happy they just turn on the water works. If a guy reacted like this he'd get a slap. And rightly so.

I'm all for equal rights, and in principle I'm all for something like the feminist movement. Unfortunately there are always going to be people who seek to exploit any system to further themselves without any regard for the spirit of the system.

Dragan

taconnol wrote: »

Thanks Dragan. My mottos is 'Lies, damn lies and statistics'. You can skew them any way that suits you.

As a man who makes his living doing stats i can only say you have a very deep understanding of my profession!

Having trouble sourcing that study i need to get for you and while i have pulled some decent numbers the pages they are on are so full of rubbish that i'm not bothered linking them.

I have emailed a mate of mine who sent me on the original study so as soon as she sends me back the link i will pass it on to you!

Slow Motion

StormWarrior wrote: »

So a question for the blokes, would you prefer a return to slightly more traditional roles?

Fcuk no! My OH earns more than I do!

EamonnKeane

Overheal wrote: »

I cant remember who posted it or where but in a survey conducted for women: everyone that opted 'yes' that they expected to be paid us much as a man also said 'yes' on the survey when asked if their significant other should make more money than they do.

The mind boggles.

Women in general go for older guys, so there's no real contradiction here.

Macha

Dragan wrote: »

As a man who makes his living doing stats i can only say you have a very deep understanding of my profession!

Having trouble sourcing that study i need to get for you and while i have pulled some decent numbers the pages they are on are so full of rubbish that i'm not bothered linking them.

I have emailed a mate of mine who sent me on the original study so as soon as she sends me back the link i will pass it on to you!

Statistician? Hmm...interesting! There was me thinking you spent all your time lifting heavy objects.

No rush the study at all. I'll be studying (statistics) at on my laptop all evening

Wazdakka

taconnol wrote: »

*Yawn*

Try to be a bit more original in your misogyny please. You're boring us.

Sorry for boring you :rolleyes:
I didn't post a serious argument for a few reasons..

1.) This is AH after all.
2.) There is no point..

At the end of the day True equality will never happen.
And thats not just due to the Feminazi's.
Unless women are happy accepting the level of discrimination that men show each other on a daily basis.

Wibbs

Dragan wrote: »

Islamic males are FAR more likely to marry outside of their own religion, with the deal being the lass needs to convert. Try being an Islamic woman and striking up a relationship with a non-Islamic man. It's normally not very pretty ( in my limited experience of one attempted relationship and one attempted friendship with an Islamic lass, in neither case was her family impressed with my presence, even when just friends ).

Not quite. It's because where a muslim man can marry a non muslim, but technically she can keep her faith too, if she's a jew or a christian(the pressure to convert is there though, overt or not). As far as I remember though the kids have to be muslim. Whereas a muslim woman simply can't marry a non muslim man. He has to convert beforehand. Dead handy way of increasing the faith through marriage and makes yet another point against of the much vaunted equality between the sexes that islam claims.

Wibbs

As for feminism, I feel if someone can do what they want to do and has the opportunities to do so, the contents of their pants matters little to me(unless I'm trying to get the leg over as an aside ). I've met dumb men and dumb women and I've met intelligent men and intelligent women. Same goes for strength, emotional balance etc. I'll call either as I see it.

The second either side start whining that their problems are because of their gender in a lot of cases with little cause then I get irritated. I'm actually more harsh on my own gender. When guys(esp guys out of their teens) whine about how they don't know how to be men it irritates. Not just about them but as much for the fathers(and mothers) that raised them and the society that doesn't show them how.

I do see how having children does restrict women though. It can affect their careers in a big way. Then again women are still not generally seen as the breadwinners so it can go both ways. I mean a stay at home mum is still far far more respected than a stay at home dad.

AngelinaJolie

Ah feminism... I thought it had nothing to do with me until I entered a male dominated work place and was refused entry to 'The Boys Club'. You know the one I'm talking about.. the 'we have a lot more in common because we both have penises, fancy a round of golf?' club. It's a daily struggle to be taken seriously and it's so subtle, that you do actually end of thinking, 'Am I mad? Is this happening or am I just thinking this because I'm a woman?' I don't even think guys are doing it consciously - it's just what they're used to. TBH having babies, going for the 'traditional role' seems like welcome relief. I know that this kind of thing goes on whole sale for guys too - too tall, too small, too fat etc etc but it's no joke to say that it's tough for a woman in a man's world. The Guardian have a section devoted to women's issues (which sounds very quaint, I know) but journalists like Rosie Boycott and (like her or loath her) Julie Burchill make some very interesting points on the position of women in society today. I do take solace in their words.
And I am afraid I am part of the anti-chivelry brigade. I ******* hate it when a man holds a door open for me. Such a simple gesture but it reinforces so many stereotypes - women are 'princesses to be rescued by a knight on a white horse'. If i have genuine difficulty opening a door, fair enough, or maybe it just so happens that i'm right behind the guy and to keep the door from banging in my face, he holds it open. But purposely holding the door while you stroll through - ugh. And the guys who normally do it are usually the guys who'll shag you and never call! And sorry to say I don't have much respect for the women who do like having the door held open for them, as a chivelrous gesture, of course.
Rant over!

BOOBLESS

Feminism for me has a lot to do with todays downfall in society. Feminism has destroyed the Family unit. Since women are pressured to go to work and earn a living so they can feel equal to men, the family unit has been hindered.

Back in the day the women stayed home looked after the house and took care of the children. The children are the ones who benefit tremendously because of their mother staying at home. The man went to work and looked after his family. The woman was/should be happy to take care of the house and children and the man goes to work, works his arse of in a ****ty job, but he is happy because he takes pride in looking after his family and providing. It was all about family and roles in the family marriage.

All that has since changed and look what has happened because of the feminists . Society is/has gone to the dogs. Kids are being brought up by Nannies and everyone else bar their parents. Kids run a muck because of the lack of parental supervision and suffer even more.

The children loose a sense of Family, a sense of What a Mum is and What a Dad is and what each roll their parents have. Alls the kids see is stressed out parents running around trying to work trying to rush through life forgetting what is really important in life, Family and kids. Not the 42 inch TV, two cars, 2 holidays a year... I could go on and on.

Ask one of these women who feel the need to be part of the working world... what about your children? They will say, sure I am doing this for them, to secure their future! Thats all well and good if you ask me, but the present is now and the best thing a mother can do for her children is spend time with them and be a mother.

Now, dont get me wrong, I am not saying women should be restricted to the home and chained to the kitchen sink, what am saying is because of Feminism, womens priorities have changed and the children and society will contunue to suffer which you can see now with your own eyes.

I have total and full respect for women who stay at home with their children and look after the house and such. My wife is a stay at home mum, and I have so much respect for her its unmeasurable. Its a thankless job, same day in day out. I try my best to appricate my wife for what she dose and what she has given up for our Family and she is the same for me with the work I do to provide for my family. Mutual Respect and contentness with both our rolls in our FAMILY.

Feminism will be the death of the Common family, trust me.

Macha

BOOBLESS wrote: »

Feminism for me has a lot to do with todays downfall in society. Feminism has destroyed the Family unit. Since women are pressured to go to work and earn a living so they can feel equal to men, the family unit has been hindered.

Back in the day the women stayed home looked after the house and took care of the children. The children are the ones who benefit tremendously because of their mother staying at home. The man went to work and looked after his family. The woman was/should be happy to take care of the house and children and the man goes to work, works his arse of in a ****ty job, but he is happy because he takes pride in looking after his family and providing. It was all about family and roles in the family marriage.

All that has since changed and look what has happened because of the feminists . Society is/has gone to the dogs. Kids are being brought up by Nannies and everyone else bar their parents. Kids run a muck because of the lack of parental supervision and suffer even more.

The children loose a sense of Family, a sense of What a Mum is and What a Dad is and what each roll their parents have. Alls the kids see is stressed out parents running around trying to work trying to rush through life forgetting what is really important in life, Family and kids. Not the 42 inch TV, two cars, 2 holidays a year... I could go on and on.

Ask one of these women who feel the need to be part of the working world... what about your children? They will say, sure I am doing this for them, to secure their future! Thats all well and good if you ask me, but the present is now and the best thing a mother can do for her children is spend time with them and be a mother.

Now, dont get me wrong, I am not saying women should be restricted to the home and chained to the kitchen sink, what am saying is because of Feminism, womens priorities have changed and the children and society will contunue to suffer which you can see now with your own eyes.

I have total and full respect for women who stay at home with their children and look after the house and such. My wife is a stay at home mum, and I have so much respect for her its unmeasurable. Its a thankless job, same day in day out. I try my best to appricate my wife for what she dose and what she has given up for our Family and she is the same for me with the work I do to provide for my family. Mutual Respect and contentness with both our rolls in our FAMILY.

Feminism will be the death of the Common family, trust me.

Look feminism is about choice and not pigeonholing men or women into particular roles. Why should a man go out to work if he is happier at home? And similarly why should a woman stay at home if she's happier working?

I agree that society today is far from perfect but your solution to the problem appears to be pushing women back into their 'thankless' jobs, like it or not.

You seem to be a bit confused. At one point you say that women working today are totally stressed. Then you talk about what your wife has given up for your family. So in your opinion a woman is just doomed?

It isn't an either/or situation - or at least it shouldn't be. What we need are more flexible working conditions for men & women and more availability & accessibility of child-minding facilities. I don't understand why people think that little Johnny is going to grow up into an ASBO just because mummy there when he arrived home from school with some muffins fresh from the oven. I think you'll find that a lot of the people who exhibit anti-social behaviour in our society actually came from houses where neither parent worked - how do you explain that?

Another issue impacting on family life is the enormous urban sprawl that has emerged over the last 10 years that has led to 4, 5 even 6 hour daily commutes for people. You can blame the government & planning authorities for that - not women out exercising their right to work.

Wibbs

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

And the guys who normally do it are usually the guys who'll shag you and never call!

That's quite the most daft extrapolation I've read in a while and this is AH.

zuutroy

Load of ****e imo....women allowed on the men's golf tour...imagine if it were the other way around...murder! Most of the time feminism is only invoked when it suits them.
Augusta National have the right idea. No wimmens as members and they stand by it firmly.

Nevyn

AngryBadger wrote: »

Feminism is a set of ideals, as such I don't think you can say "feminism" has gone too far.

Now, is it fair to say that some groups/individual;s have taken the tenants of feminism and incertain circumstances stretched/warped them into something else which isn't really in the spirits of feminism, yes that's absolutely true.


I'm all for equal rights, and in principle I'm all for something like the feminist movement. Unfortunately there are always going to be people who seek to exploit any system to further themselves without any regard for the spirit of the system.

Well said.

Stormwarrior you are not the only one who has issues with the stance and tactic used by radical feminists, esp the radical isolationist feminist's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Personally I am a sex positive liberal feminist.

Feminism's many forms

Several subtypes of feminist ideology have developed over the years; some of the major subtypes are listed below.

[edit] Liberal feminism
Betty Friedan in 1960
Betty Friedan in 1960

Main article: Liberal feminism

Liberal feminism asserts the equality of men and women through political and legal reform. It is an individualistic form of feminism, which focuses on women’s ability to show and maintain their equality through their own actions and choices. Liberal feminism uses the personal interactions between men and women as the place from which to transform society. According to liberal feminists, all women are capable of asserting their ability to achieve equality, therefore it is possible for change to happen without altering the structure of society. Issues important to liberal feminists include reproductive and abortion rights, sexual harassment, voting, education, "equal pay for equal work", affordable childcare, affordable health care, and bringing to light the frequency of sexual and domestic violence against women.[59]

[edit] Radical feminism

Main article: Radical feminism

Radical feminism considers the capitalist hierarchy, which it describes as sexist, as the defining feature of women’s oppression. Radical feminists believe that women can free themselves only when they have done away with what they consider an inherently oppressive and dominating system. Radical feminists feel that there is a male-based authority and power structure and that it is responsible for oppression and inequality, and that as long as the system and its values are in place, society will not be able to be reformed in any significant way. Radical feminists see capitalism as one of the most important barriers to ending oppression. Most radical feminists see no alternatives other than the total uprooting and reconstruction of society in order to achieve their goals.[60]
Related terms:
Lesbian feminism

[edit] Separatist feminism

Main article: Separatist feminism

Separatist feminism is one form of radical feminism. It does not support heterosexual relationships because its proponents argue that the sexual disparities between men and women are unresolvable. Separatist feminists generally do not feel that men can make positive contributions to the feminist movement and that even well-intentioned men replicate patriarchal dynamics.[61] Author Marilyn Frye describes separatist feminism as "separation of various sorts or modes from men and from institutions, relationships, roles and activities that are male-defined, male-dominated, and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege — this separation being initiated or maintained, at will, by women".[62]

[edit] Sex-positive feminism
Susie Bright in 2007
Susie Bright in 2007

Main article: Sex-positive feminism

Both the sex-positive and sex-negative forms of present-day feminism can trace their roots to early radical feminism. Some feminists joined the sex-positive feminist movement in response to anti-pornography feminists, such as Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan and Dorchen Leidholdt, who argued that heterosexual pornography was a central cause of women's oppression.[63] Sex-positive feminism, sometimes known as pro-sex feminism, sex-radical feminism, or sexually liberal feminism, is a movement that was formed in order to address issues of women's sexual pleasure, sex work, and inclusive gender identities. The initial period of intense debate and acrimony between sex-positive and anti-pornography feminists during the early 1980s is often referred to as the Feminist Sex Wars. Other, less academic, sex-positive feminists became involved not in opposition to other feminists, but in direct response to what they saw as patriarchal control of sexuality, such as the organization Feminists for Free Expression.

Ellen Willis's 1981 essay, "Lust Horizons: Is the Women's Movement Pro-Sex?" is the origin of the term, pro-sex feminism. In it, she argues against feminists making alliances with the political right in opposition to pornography and prostitution, as occurred, for example, during the Meese Commission hearings in the United States. Willis argues for a feminism that embraces sexual freedom, including men's sexual freedom, rather than one that condemns pornography, consensual BDSM, and in some cases sexual intercourse and fellatio.[64]

[edit] Anarcha-feminism

Main article: anarcha-feminism

Another offshoot of radical feminism is anarcha-feminism (also called anarchist feminism or anarcho-feminism), an ideology which combines feminist and anarchist beliefs. Anarcha-feminists view patriarchy as a manifestation of hierarchy, believing that the fight against patriarchy is an essential part of the class struggle and the anarchist struggle against the state.[65] Anarcha-feminists such as Susan Brown see the anarchist struggle as a necessary component of the feminist struggle. In Brown's words, "anarchism is a political philosophy that opposes all relationships of power, it is inherently feminist".[66] Recently, Wendy McElroy has defined a position (she describes it as "ifeminism" or "individualist feminism") that combines feminism with anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism, arguing that a pro-capitalist, anti-state position is compatible with an emphasis on equal rights and empowerment for women.[67] Individualist anarchist-feminism has grown from the US-based individualist anarchism movement.[68]

[edit] Black feminism
Angela Davis speaking at the University of Alberta on 28 March 2006
Angela Davis speaking at the University of Alberta on 28 March 2006

Main articles: Black feminism and Womanism

Black feminism argues that sexism, class oppression, and racism are inextricably bound together.[69] Forms of feminism that strive to overcome sexism and class oppression but ignore race can discriminate against many people, including women, through racial bias. The Combahee River Collective argued in 1974 that the liberation of black women entails freedom for all people, since it would require the end of racism, sexism, and class oppression.[70] One of the theories that evolved out of this movement was Alice Walker's Womanism. It emerged after the early feminist movements that were led specifically by white women who advocated social changes such as woman’s suffrage. These movements were largely white middle-class movements and ignored oppression based on racism and classism. Alice Walker and other Womanists pointed out that black women experienced a different and more intense kind of oppression from that of white women.[13]

Angela Davis was one of the first people who articulated an argument centered around the intersection of race, gender, and class in her book, Women, Race, and Class.[71] Kimberle Crenshaw, a prominent feminist law theorist, gave the idea the name Intersectionality while discussing identity politics in her essay, "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence Against Women of Color".

[edit] Socialist and Marxist feminisms

Main articles: Socialist feminism and Marxist feminism

Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg, 1910
Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg, 1910

Socialist feminism connects the oppression of women to Marxist ideas about exploitation, oppression and labor. Socialist feminists see women as being held down as a result of their unequal standing in both the workplace and the domestic sphere.[72] Prostitution, domestic work, childcare, and marriage are all seen as ways in which women are exploited by a patriarchal system which devalues women and the substantial work that they do. Socialist feminists focus their energies on broad change that affects society as a whole, and not just on an individual basis. They see the need to work alongside not just men, but all other groups, as they see the oppression of women as a part of a larger pattern that affects everyone involved in the capitalist system.[73]

Marx felt that when class oppression was overcome, gender oppression would vanish as well. According to socialist feminists, this view of gender oppression as a sub-class of class oppression is naive and much of the work of socialist feminists has gone towards separating gender phenomena from class phenomena.[74] Some contributors to socialist feminism have criticized these traditional Marxist ideas for being largely silent on gender oppression except to subsume it underneath broader class oppression.[75] Other socialist feminists, notably two long-lived American organizations Radical Women and the Freedom Socialist Party, point to the classic Marxist writings of Frederick Engels[76] and August Bebel[77] as a powerful explanation of the link between gender oppression and class exploitation.

In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century both Clara Zetkin and Eleanor Marx were against the demonization of men and supported a proletarian revolution that would overcome as many male-female inequalities as possible.[78]

See also: Gender roles in Eastern Europe after Communism

[edit] Post-structural and postmodern feminism

For more details on this topic, see Postmodern feminism.

Post-structural feminism, also referred to as French feminism, uses the insights of various epistemological movements, including psychoanalysis, linguistics, political theory (Marxist and post-Marxist theory), race theory, literary theory, and other intellectual currents for feminist concerns.[79] Many post-structural feminists maintain that difference is one of the most powerful tools that females possess in their struggle with patriarchal domination, and that to equate the feminist movement only with equality is to deny women a plethora of options because equality is still defined from the masculine or patriarchal perspective.[79][80]
Judith Butler at a lecture at the University of Hamburg.
Judith Butler at a lecture at the University of Hamburg.

Postmodern feminism is an approach to feminist theory that incorporates postmodern and post-structuralist theory. The largest departure from other branches of feminism, is the argument that gender is constructed through language.[81] The most notable proponent of this argument is Judith Butler. In her 1990 book, Gender Trouble, she draws on and criticizes the work of Simone de Beauvoir, Michel Foucault and Jacques Lacan. Butler criticizes the distinction drawn by previous feminisms between biological sex and socially constructed gender. She says that this does not allow for a sufficient criticism of essentialism. For Butler "woman" is a debatable category, complicated by class, ethnicity, sexuality, and other facets of identity. She suggests that gender is performative. This argument leads to the conclusion that there is no single cause for women's subordination and no single approach towards dealing with the issue.[17]
Donna Haraway, author of A Cyborg Manifesto, with her dog Cayenne
Donna Haraway, author of A Cyborg Manifesto, with her dog Cayenne

In A Cyborg Manifesto Donna Haraway criticizes traditional notions of feminism, particularly its emphasis on identity, rather than affinity. She uses the metaphor of a cyborg in order to construct a postmodern feminism that moves beyond dualisms and the limitations of traditional gender, feminism, and politics.[82] Haraway's cyborg is an attempt to break away from Oedipal narratives and Christian origin-myths like Genesis. She writes: "The cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family, this time without the oedipal project. The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust."[82]

A major branch in postmodern feminist thought has emerged from the contemporary psychoanalytic French feminism. Other postmodern feminist works highlight stereotypical gender roles, only to portray them as parodies of the original beliefs. The history of feminism is not important in these writings—only what is going to be done about it. The history is dismissed and used to depict how ridiculous past beliefs were. Modern feminist theory has been extensively criticized as being predominantly, though not exclusively, associated with Western middle class academia. Mainstream feminism has been criticized as being too narrowly focused and inattentive to related issues of race and class.[83]

See also: French feminism, Deconstruction, Poststructuralism, and Postmodernism

[edit] Postcolonial feminism and third-world feminism

For more details on this topic, see Postcolonial feminism.

Related terms:
Multiracial feminism,
Transnational feminism,
Postcolonialism,
Orientalism

Postcolonial feminists argue that oppression relating to the colonial experience, particularly racial, class, and ethnic oppression, has marginalized women in postcolonial societies. They challenge the assumption that gender oppression is the primary force of patriarchy. Postcolonial feminists object to portrayals of women of non-Western societies as passive and voiceless victims and the portrayal of Western women as modern, educated and empowered.[84]

Postcolonial feminism emerged from the gendered history of colonialism: colonial powers often imposed Western norms on colonized regions. In the 1940s and 1950s, after the formation of the United Nations, former colonies were monitored by the West for what was considered "social progress". The status of women in the developing world has been monitored by organizations such as the United Nations and as a result traditional practices and roles taken up by women—sometimes seen as distasteful by Western standards—could be considered a form of rebellion against colonial oppression.[85] Postcolonial feminists today struggle to fight gender oppression within their own cultural models of society rather than through those imposed by the Western colonizers.[86]
Taslima Nasrin: author, physician, and feminist human rights activist
Taslima Nasrin: author, physician, and feminist human rights activist

Postcolonial feminism is critical of Western forms of feminism, notably radical feminism and liberal feminism and their universalization of female experience. Postcolonial feminists argue that cultures impacted by colonialism are often vastly different and should be treated as such. Colonial oppression may result in the glorification of pre-colonial culture, which, in cultures with traditions of power stratification along gender lines, could mean the acceptance of, or refusal to deal with, inherent issues of gender inequality.[87] Postcolonial feminists can be described as feminists who have reacted against both universalizing tendencies in Western feminist thought and a lack of attention to gender issues in mainstream postcolonial thought.[88]

Third-world feminism has been described as a group of feminist theories developed by feminists who acquired their views and took part in feminist politics in so-called third-world countries.[11] Although women from the third world have been engaged in the feminist movement, Chandra Talpade Mohanty and Sarojini Sahoo criticize Western feminism on the grounds that it is ethnocentric and does not take into account the unique experiences of women from third-world countries or the existence of feminisms indigenous to third-world countries. According to Chandra Talpade Mohanty , women in the third world feel that Western feminism bases its understanding of women on "internal racism, classism and homophobia".[12]. According to Sarojini Sahoo , “sexual liberty is a major question for third wave feminist in Europe and it is an important question but for the Asian African feminist”.[citation needed] This discourse is strongly related to African feminism and postcolonial feminism. Its development is also associated with concepts such as black feminism, womanism,[13],[89][90] "Africana womanism",[91] "motherism",[92] "Stiwanism",[93] "negofeminism",[94] chicana feminism, and "femalism".

[edit] Ecofeminism
Janet Biehl is one of the premier authors on social ecology
Janet Biehl is one of the premier authors on social ecology

Main article: Ecofeminism

Ecofeminism links ecology with feminism. Ecofeminists see the domination of women as stemming from the same ideologies that bring about the domination of the environment. Patriarchal systems, where men own and control the land, are seen as responsible for the oppression of women and destruction of the natural environment. Since the men in power control the land, they are able to exploit it for their own profit and success. In this same situation, women are exploited by men in power for their own profit, success, and pleasure. Women and the environment are both exploited as passive pawns in the race to domination. Those people in power are able to take advantage of them distinctly because they are seen as passive and rather helpless. Ecofeminism connects the exploitation and domination of women with that of the environment. As a way of repairing social and ecological injustices, ecofeminists feel that women must work towards creating a healthy environment and ending the destruction of the lands that most women rely on to provide for their families.[95]

Ecofeminism argues that there is a connection between women and nature that comes from their shared history of oppression by a patriarchal Western society. Vandana Shiva explains how women's special connection to the environment through their daily interactions with it have been ignored. She says that "women in subsistence economies, producing and reproducing wealth in partnership with nature, have been experts in their own right of holistic and ecological knowledge of nature’s processes. But these alternative modes of knowing, which are oriented to the social benefits and sustenance needs are not recognized by the [capitalist] reductionist paradigm, because it fails to perceive the interconnectedness of nature, or the connection of women’s lives, work and knowledge with the creation of wealth.”[96] Ecofeminism also criticizes Western lifestyle choices, such as consuming food that has traveled thousands of miles and playing sports (such as golf and bobsledding) which inherently require ecological destruction.

However, feminist and social ecologist Janet Biehl has criticized ecofeminism for focusing too much on a mystical connection between women and nature and not enough on the actual conditions of women.[97]

See also: Environmentalism

[edit] Individualist feminism
Wendy McElroy: Canadian individualist anarchist feminist.
Wendy McElroy: Canadian individualist anarchist feminist.

Main article: Individualist feminism

Individualist feminism is defined in opposition to, what writers such as Wendy McElroy and Christina Hoff Sommers term, political or gender feminism.[98][44] Some individualist feminists trace the movement's roots to the classical liberal tradition.[99] It is closely linked to the libertarian ideas of individuality and personal responsibility for both women and men. Some other feminists believe that it reinforces patriarchal systems because it does not view the rights or political interests of men and women as being in conflict nor does it rest upon class or gender analysis.[100] Individualist feminists attempt to change legal systems in order to eliminate class privileges and gender privileges and to ensure that individuals have equal rights, including an equal claim under the law to their own persons and property. Individualist feminism encourages women to take full responsibility for their own lives. It also opposes any government interference into the choices adults make with their own bodies, because it contends such interference creates a coercive hierarchy (such as patriarchy).[101][102]

Nevyn

Sherifu wrote: »

**** feminism


/hides from Thaed

Another sad lil Masochists hoping to get a trashing from me, funny how many of you lot there are