Who says feminism is dead?

Nevyn

I keep wondering why we don't have a grass roots or online feminist movement in this country.


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/who-says-feminism-is-dead-20100412-s3ei.html

Who says feminism is dead?

In 1994, feminist Anne Summers penned an open letter to the next generation of women asking them why they feel so alienated from the women's liberation movement. In it, she asks why young women do not fully appreciate the battles that have been fought on their behalf by older feminists. Summers writes; "Wouldn't [a young woman] acknowledge this? Wouldn't she feel something- gratitude? A debt? A responsibility to keep widening those choices for herself and her generation?"

Since then, a throng of feminists have remarked on the generation of young women who have thrived off the gains of feminism, while disowning the movement in the process.

On first blush it would appear that part of the answer to Summers' query lies in her own rhetoric. After all, when established feminists begin talking down to young women and painting them as apathetic, indebted ingrates, then young women who do identify with feminist aims and principles begin to feel increasingly alienated and reluctant to engage with the movement.

In the past two decades a type of elitism has crept into the ranks of feminism, with numerous senior feminists tut-tutting young women's motives, attitudes, dress and behaviour.

From where some young women now sit, the "old guard" has begun to look suspiciously like the patriarchal order it once opposed. And this intergenerational distrust has cut both ways.

On the one hand, old-guard feminists have questioned the political sincerity of young women who appropriate the feminist tenets of "choice" and "empowerment" to lend justification to their smutty "raunch culture" lifestyles. On the other side of the fence, many young women continue to resent being patronised and policed by older generation of feminists.

Several months ago, fellow gen Y feminist Gabe Kavanagh and I spoke at a conference about the generational schism within the Australian feminist movement.

Kavanagh argued that while feminism needs to be made more accessible to young women, many of "us" already do identify as feminists, but our work and politics are seldom recognised by more established feminists, and in many ways we are invisible to them.

According to Kavanagh, feminist ideals have remained somewhat consistent over time but our methods have changed considerably and this has produced a generational disconnect. Instead of protesting on the streets, as in the 1970s, today's young feminists campaign online. Instead of storming Parliament House, we go for jobs there.

Most importantly, Kavanagh concluded by stating that if the Australian feminist movement is ever to expand then new channels of communication need to be established to promote and consolidate understanding and respect between the various generations of Australian feminists.

The response to this speech was overwhelming and there was unanimous agreement that a forum needed to be set up to promote this intergenerational dialogue.

Kavanagh, now 24, and Rosa Campbell, 23, at the weekend co-convened the biggest feminist conference to be held in Sydney in 15 years. The conference was booked out with more than 500 people from all over the country attending — with others lining up outside.

My mother and I were not the only mother-daughter duo in attendance and there were grandmothers who attended with their granddaughters. Participants age ranged from 12 to 84 and a significant number of pro-feminist men also attended and spoke at the conference.

And they say feminism is dead.

Throughout the two-day conference it became apparent that it is highly simplistic to assume that attitudes unpack neatly along generational (or gender) lines. We also realised that while feminism is a movement marked by diversity and complexity, it is the commitment to examining the contradictions and nuances of argument found within feminism that makes for such a robust movement.

Anne Summers also presented at the conference. Interviewing her afterwards, I realised that I'd had her all wrong. Summers is not interested in patronising young women in the slightest. She is one of our greatest advocates.

Summers also pointed out that "there are more male and female feminists today than at any other time in Australian history". This fact flies in the face of every recent media article that claims that Australian feminism is in decline; the reality is just the opposite.

Summers reminded us that feminism is just as relevant today as at any other time in history (if not more so). We still have yet to achieve equal pay for equal work (with women receiving 84 cents in the dollar compared with male counterparts) and our reproductive rights have yet to be secured.

Similarly, the rights we have achieved continue to come under threat from the likes of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and other conservatives. Most of all Summers urged us to ignore the predictable, transparent media mockery directed at feminists, and to "just get on with things".

So while there is work ahead, it seems that feminism is in a far better state of affairs than what many in the media would have us believe.

Nina Funnell is a media researcher at the University of New South Wales.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Thaedydal wrote: »

I keep wondering why we don't have a grass roots or online feminist movement in this country.


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/who-says-feminism-is-dead-20100412-s3ei.html

Perhaps because men are treated as second class citizens nowadays.

Women used to get treated really badly, so the ranks of "feminism" were swelled. Nowadays they get treated equally in most areas, and favourably in many.

Opression is gone so the need for feminism isn't there. Sure there's parts of the world where women are treated appallingly but that doesn't fuel grassroots feminism here because people care more about themselves than Arab/African women,

Walls

It is because there is no belief that women are being treated poorly. The patriarchal system isn't perceived.

The_Minister

Bluntly: Because most women who actively self-identify as feminists are unpleasent.

Looking at the actual definition of a feminist, nearly all women are feminists, as are most men. If presented with the actual meaning of the word feminist, most people will call themselves a feminist.

That's grand.

But the problem is (and I don't include you in this), that most people who go around thinking "I am a feminist", who include feminist as part of their identity, tend to be anti-men and quite unpleasent.
I think most women just want to live feminism, but they don't want to call themselves feminist.

No-one wants a dirty label, and pointing to the dictionary meaning of feminism is as meaningless and dishonest as this post from the LGBT forum. Feminist is a tarnished label due to the extreme viewpoints put across by the leaders of the movement, and being a feminist now means more than just being in favour of equality between the sexes - it has connotations of a paranoid interpretations of all negative aspects of society as being due to an unconscious patriarchy (meaning its men's fault, even if they don't know it).

I think most women, now that the playing field is roughly equal, just want to focus on general equality.

Nervous Wreck

Thaedydal wrote: »

I keep wondering why we don't have a grass roots or online feminist movement in this country.

We do and have done for a few years now.

http://ragdublin.blogspot.com/

red herring

Sadly the ''feminist'' label has become associated with unattractive, overbearing, bra-burning man haters. This is such a pity because the women who led the feminist movement of the 70s, and the suffragettes of the early 1900s, were truly inspirational in their campaigns for equal rights.
I believe if we wish to be treated as equals to men we must therefore also make sure men are treated equally. This applies to circumstances such as sexual harrassment in the work place, etc. it is important we dont abuse the term ''sexist'' at every opportunity otherwise gender equality shall not be taken seriously.
The media today has a lot to answer for, women such as Paris hilton, and wags are dreadful role models for young women. The whole wags thing is part of a culture thats bringing gender equality back 50 years. Wags are objectifed and latch on to a wealthy footballer for power and status, instead of going forward and seeking status and power for themselves, independently. They are using their female sexuality to to find a man with money and power instead of using their brains and intelligence to get that themselves. This is a dreadful that we have young women of the 21st century doing this.
Many young women disown the feminist movement and want nothing to do with it, they would hate to be branded a feminist. this is because feminist has become associated with man-hating psycho. However what young women need to understand is we can be educated, equal, and liberated, we can campaign for gender equality where it is needed,- eg muslim countries, we can, but we must not spread hatred of men. Gender equality means just that- equality. we must not take away mens rights whilst promoting our own. We cannot be man hating tyrants, that just makes us no better than mysogonists.
I do agree many women today wince at the idea of calling themselves a feminist. I don't, because there is nothing wrong with the word in its original definition. I am not a psycho man-hater. It is peoples own fault if they choose to judge me before hearing my opinion (if they wish to) on the matter.

Bottle_of_Smoke

red herring wrote: »

I do agree many women today wince at the idea of calling themselves a feminist. I don't, because there is nothing wrong with the word in its original definition. I am not a psycho man-hater. It is peoples own fault if they choose to judge me before hearing my opinion (if they wish to) on the matter.

I agree with what you're saying, I'm just wondering, what is it about your beliefs/what beliefs or ideology do you have that make you a feminist?

seanybiker

I love feminists. Its so cute.

Honestly though. I find feminists are highlighting problems that arent there.

metrovelvet

What I dont get about these kinds of articles and calls for feminism is that it is so vague as to mean nothing.

What exactly are the problems identified that they want to see fixed? And how do they plan to fix them?

Is this just more battle of the sexes dressed up as politics?

Zulu

Exactly!

"Rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble... Something's bad!"
"Rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble... Something's bad alright!"
"Yea, we agree!"
"Wow, that was great."
<group hug>

Snowie

Is there a need for it ?

genrally over the past 20 if not 30 years women have prooved them selves to be as skilled able bodyied as most men, Take Ellen Mac Arthur shes sailed round the world on her own which is no easy feet bye any means if youve sailed a boat in and around fast net youle no what i mean thats tough and demanding she has and continues to show imence reazilance. Where women and men would admit defeat and call it a day...

take Mary McAleese a very strong willed intelgent woman.

Or maybe take extream sports women like the marano twins who are two female windsurfers from spain who are pushing the limits of the sport but are on par with there male counter parts. one of the two girls dida is a world champoin.

Or kirsty Jones from england a kite surfer shes a world champion kite surfer.....

Take single mothers they have a an even more difficult job to do then most yet they do it the same way as some men meet the challange the probelem was education . slowly changing?

These days you have to be either a idiot or a very strong willed moronic fool to think that women arnt up to par with men granted in some case's women can't lift heavy objects because they arnt phisically strong enough I can't lift heavty onbjects at times because i dont have the strength yet im sure if gem was my next door neighber and i asked her could she move something she do it with ease...


I always thaught the reason for women and feminiseim is to some how show that your every bit as able minded/bodied as the male counter parts weather thats in sport, academic or soically.

Wait a minite dont we see it every day women running countrys buisness and doing things that where once, told they couldnt.. they are now and slowly but surely industrys as well as sporting, spncers are seeing that...

granted habbits that predate 4 of my grandads... are slowly being changed but it takes work.. for god sake expecting every man to say right women are = as ideal as that may sound aint gonna ever happen copmpletely.

Raunch Culture 2010

I am 25 years old and had always thought, as popular culture would have us all believe, that men and women are now completely equal. Growing up it seemed an easier option to ignore the sexism and sexual bullying that I saw around me and to laugh along, to call other women '$luts' or b1tches and to joke about how outdated and ugly feminism is.

Now I still wear make up and adore the men in my life but I am a feminist who believes that to gain equal pay, equal opportunities and the right not to be fodder for physical, sexual and verbal mockery, scrutiny and abuse-(luxuries that women in 21st century Ireland still do not enjoy) feminism needs to be ressurected.

LittleBook

Thaedydal wrote: »

I keep wondering why we don't have a grass roots or online feminist movement in this country.

Eh, the article seems to have been addressed quite roundly already so I'll just refer to your question for now. Please take my opinion as someone looking in from the outside as I've been abroad for the best part of a decade and I'm happy to be contradicted/educated.

Why was there no grassroots feminist movement in Ireland? Well there was, the Irish Women's Liberation Movement. It only lasted a year but it had an enormous effect. I don't yet know the full story of this though ... Monday at Gaj's is on my buy list.

But I think Ireland just doesn't do "grassroots" and I'm guessing at three reasons ...

Firstly, most (not all) of the battles (for both women's and civil rights in general) had already been fought abroad and the gains had filtered back to Ireland.

Secondly, Ireland is an apathetic country as a whole, which will complain about everything but will DO nothing. I can't imagine another European government getting away with NAMA without some kind of national protest.

Thirdly, Ireland doesn't have a militant bone in it's body. In France the train services were on strike last week, the middle of the French school holidays. Did they suspend their strike when all air travel ground to a halt as well? Not a bit of it, back to work normally today I think.

In fact, if anything we despise militancy ... remember the outcry here when the passport office workers began working to rule? Media and internet outcry of course, no-one took to the streets.

I think the gist of the other posts is that in many ways "women's rights" has been subsumed by "civil rights". Nobody in their right mind believes anymore that women are inferior or don't deserve equal rights or respect and any campaigning to be done should be for all the people, not some of the people. Least of all the young women of Ireland, most of whom believe absolutely that they are the equals of their men ... job done ... for the most part.

Raunch Culture 2010

Little Book I think you're spot on- I have been researching a PhD on female sexuality in Ireland for almost two years now and the overwhelming reason given in most historical and sociological texts for a lack of feminist activism in Ireland is that while in other countries women were fighting for suffrage, Irish women joined their men to fight for freedom from British Rule and a belief that once these men rose to power, they would automatically see that women were treated equally (as the quote below highlights)

“The men of our race who descended like us from a long line of martyrs in the cause of liberty, will not try to keep our rights and our duties from us and the day that Ireland stands free before the world, shall see our emancipation too” Bean na hÉireann 1 no.3 (Jan 1909)

Nevyn

“The men of our race who descended like us from a long line of martyrs in the cause of liberty, will not try to keep our rights and our duties from us and the day that Ireland stands free before the world, shall see our emancipation too” Bean na hÉireann 1 no.3 (Jan 1909)

That is a nice quote but that didn't happen.
The cathal barracks museum had a wonderful exhibit on irish feminism and it was wonderful to see all the pamplets, bagdes and many writings but the waves feminism in the 60s and 70s never seem to have happened here. It was like we were playing catch up in the 80s when contraception was finally made illegal and rape in marriage was finally a crime.

I do know about RAG, I am not an anarchist and I think they put a lot of people off with that label.

Or is it that this niche is just occupied by the National women's council, which most people don't know about,
one thing about their site is the lack of the F word on it.

Raunch Culture 2010

Thaedydal I completely agree with you that we were not granted emancipation with the emergence of the Free State- if anything 'the men of our race' were eager to ensure that women remained subservient by instating legal restrictions on women such as the marriage bar and not allowing them to serve on juries.

I also agree re: RAG- I absolutely respect the work that they are doing but I think that a less 'radical' or 'extreme' feminism probably needs to be developed to embrace women (and men) who do not hate men, who live their lives in the 21st century as workers and consumers. I think that many forms of visible feminism are non-inclusive that many women feel do not match the lives they are living

WindSock

Raunch Culture 2010 wrote: »

Thaedydal I completely agree with you that we were not granted emancipation with the emergence of the Free State- if anything 'the men of our race' were eager to ensure that women remained subservient by instating legal restrictions on women such as the marriage bar and not allowing them to serve on juries.

I agree with that. We just went from one oppressor to the next, in my opinion. Were women less free in the Free State?

Raunch Culture 2010

WindSock- I love it- can I use that question in my thesis?:D

WindSock

Sure, but you have to reference me

Sock.W., (2010) Boards.ie; The Ladies Lounge. Who Says Feminism Is Dead? pg.2

:pac:

Nevyn

We certainly didn't get the same reforums which the UK did, we lagged well behind due to it being a defacto catholic state. Which is the bit which had always puzzled me we went from having Countess Markiewicz in the thick of it all, to the church and state being hand and hand and women in a worse position.

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

Constance Georgine Markiewicz, Countess Markiewicz (née Gore-Booth; 4 February 1868 – 15 July 1927), was an Irish Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil politician, revolutionary nationalist, suffragette and socialist.

In 1918, she was jailed again for her part in anti-conscription activities. At the 1918 general election, Markiewicz was elected for the constituency of Dublin St Patrick's as one of 73 Sinn Féin MPs. This made her the first woman elected to the British House of Commons. However, in line with Sinn Féin abstensionist policy, she would not take her seat in the House of Commons.

Markiewicz was in Holloway prison when her colleagues assembled in Dublin at the first meeting of Dáil Éireann, the unilaterally-declared Parliament of the Irish Republic. When her name was called, she was described as being "imprisoned by the foreign enemy" (fé ghlas ag Gallaibh).[12] She was re-elected to the Second Dáil in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland elections of 1921.[13]

Markiewicz served as Minister for Labour from April 1919 to January 1922, in the Second Ministry and the Third Ministry of the Dáil. Holding cabinet rank from April to August 1919, she became both the first Irish female Cabinet Minister and at the same time, only the second government minister in Europe.[14][1] She was the only female cabinet minister in Irish history until 1979 when Máire Geoghegan-Quinn was appointed to the then junior cabinet post of Minister for the Gaeltacht for Fianna Fáil.

She was the rist female cabinet minister in 1919 but it was 60 years before there was another.

Raunch Culture 2010

It's a deal!

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

We certainly didn't get the same reforums which the UK did, we lagged well behind due to it being a defacto catholic state. Which is the bit which had always puzzled me we went from having Countess Markiewicz in the thick of it all, to the church and state being hand and hand and women in a worse position.

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



She was the rist female cabinet minister in 1919 but it was 60 years before there was another.

This is my problem with the whole thing. We praise women when they make it in the man's world, when they adapt and defer to the masculine model. Why dont we praise the first man to knit and intricate cable sweater, stay at home 24/7 with a child for five years? Etc etc. Why? because the woman's world isnt worthy of admiration.

Zulu

A question I have: (for arguments sake) why do we slate WAG's and the like of Paris Hilton?

Are they making their own choices, and taking advantage of their situation. Isn't that not what was strived for in the first place?

Albeit in a manner we all don't agree with.

WindSock

They can do what they ruddy well like as far as I am concerned. I just don't go for that sort of lifestyle myself though.

Emme

Zulu wrote: »

A question I have: (for arguments sake) why do we slate WAG's and the like of Paris Hilton?

Are they making their own choices, and taking advantage of their situation. Isn't that not what was strived for in the first place?

Albeit in a manner we all don't agree with.

They're making choices but those choices don't necessarily empower them in the long run. I agree that WAGs might come out of it with more money than a woman who slogged her guts for her entire career as a scientist who set up a research laboratory carrying out life-saving research but at the end of the day the scientist can turn around and say that she has indirectly saved lives through her work and paved the way for other scientists to follow in her path, some of whom may be women. Her self-esteem derives from her achievements and isn't caught up in her appearance and trying to hold onto an oversexed sportsman who will inevitably stray.

LittleBook

Zulu wrote: »

A question I have: (for arguments sake) why do we slate WAG's and the like of Paris Hilton?

Are they making their own choices, and taking advantage of their situation. Isn't that not what was strived for in the first place?

Albeit in a manner we all don't agree with.

Because we're not supposed to use the gifts that, until feminism came about, were the ONLY way to get what we wanted. We're only supposed to use the avenues that feminism opened up for us ... education, careers, etc. Using your connections, your sexuality or your appearance to get on in life is a no-no for many feminists.

But really everyone should be free to choose their own path in life and their own identity without being judged for it. For me, that's the heart of feminism.

The fact that these women are famous but contribute little or nothing to society is not actually their fault.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Raunch Culture 2010 wrote: »

I am 25 years old and had always thought, as popular culture would have us all believe, that men and women are now completely equal. Growing up it seemed an easier option to ignore the sexism and sexual bullying that I saw around me and to laugh along, to call other women '$luts' or b1tches and to joke about how outdated and ugly feminism is.

Could you elaborate a bit. Men are victims of sexism and sexual bullying in many areas. Full equality is in reality a concept. What you're really expecting here is people to stop being dicks. Institutional sexism can be stopped (and has been in Ireland imo) but individual sexism can't because humans aren't typically reasonable or rational.

Now I still wear make up and adore the men in my life but I am a feminist who believes that to gain equal pay, equal opportunities and the right not to be fodder for physical, sexual and verbal mockery, scrutiny and abuse-(luxuries that women in 21st century Ireland still do not enjoy) feminism needs to be ressurected.[/QUOTE]

In what way do women not get equal pay or equal opportunites? They have an advantage over men in most areas. Advertise as a male nanny/au pair and see how many responses you get.

Getting a flat/house to rent is also far easier for women.

I'm sure some women get overlooked because of the potential to get pregnant but one can sympathise with employers to some extent in this respect. Perhaps if feminist movements put their efforts into real equality and demanded paternity leave was equal to maternity leave there would be no reason for a business to choose men over women.

So if its really just equality - something I'm all for; why label yourself a feminist? I'm a man who agrees women should have equal opportunities/pay in every area, does that make me a feminist?

Nevyn

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So if its really just equality - something I'm all for; why label yourself a feminist? I'm a man who agrees women should have equal opportunities/pay in every area, does that make me a feminist?

Yes it does if you also belief in self determination

Raunch Culture 2010

The following statistics (see www.partnershipsinaction.org) might help to explain the global inequalities experienced by women in the twenty first century:
Property owned by women 1%
Working hours performed by women 66%
Food produced by women 50%
Income received by women 10%

That's why I label myself a feminist- because equality has yet to be achieved

Bottle_of_Smoke

Raunch Culture 2010 wrote: »

The following statistics (see www.partnershipsinaction.org) might help to explain the global inequalities experienced by women in the twenty first century:
Property owned by women 1%
Working hours performed by women 66%
Food produced by women 50%
Income received by women 10%

That's why I label myself a feminist- because equality has yet to be achieved

That's laughable. No one's claiming there's global equality. Places like Africa might as well be on another planet. It's offensive to women there to claim you're somehow in the same boat as them.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes it does if you also people in self determination

what? think a word or two missing

Silverfish

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's laughable. No one's claiming there's global equality. Places like Africa might as well be on another planet. It's offensive to women there to claim you're somehow in the same boat as them.

We may not be, but if we can't discuss how it does affect our lives, in the Ladies Lounge of all forums, where can we?

To everyone, if have nothing to add other than dismissing the discussion, then please don't post, you could start a thread in Humanities or TGC instead.

Thank you.

Nevyn

While many would say women have equal rights the fact is that what the laws are and what company's hr polices are often paint a very different picture of what women have to work in every day and put up with.

There is still work to be done in changing attitudes we are not there yet, every times a woman is belitted or undermine by a derogatory comment that references her gender it effects us all as a society.

I think women have it harder cos they and others think that the 'work' of feminism is done and finished when honestly it's not, the hard part starts which the changing how people think now that there are some laws.

Which is hard to do when women don't share or talk about the struggles they face everyday so they feel they are alone, out of place and don't have a support network and are just expected to like it or lump it or be branded as a man hater reactionary or as a victim.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/16/reader-beatdown-on-thick-skin/

Ah, thick skin. When I read Amanda’s post, the phrase jumped out at me because much of my senior thesis in college focused on the idea of “thick skin.” For my thesis, which was about women who work in male-dominated professions, I interviewed women who worked on the trading floors of Wall Street, arguably one of the most statistically and culturally male-dominated workplaces in America. What I was interested in was how those women adapted their behavior, from how they dressed to how they worked, in order to survive and thrive in an often hostile environment. The answer: Thick skin.

During my thesis research, the concept of “thick skin” was constantly invoked by subjects. Dana, 30, had extensive experience on several trading floors. She explained that “you definitely need thick skin, because working on the trading floor, if you take anything personally, you just can’t, there’s no point in your working there.” Alana, twenty-five years old and in sales for Credit Suisse, warned that “You can’t be easily offended…you can’t be a prude and work on the trading floor. You have to develop thick skin.” The phrase came up again and again, and I realized after a while that it was no coincidence. A belief in the need for “thick skin” was a kind of shared narrative among all these women, a story they told themselves and each other in order to survive on the trading floor.

More importantly, “thick skin” was a way for women to ignore behavior that they might otherwise interpret as sexual harassment or discrimination. Alana described one male colleague, a trader “who’s very old-school, just because he didn’t start his career in the P.C. generation… the old-school guys will wink and call me ‘sweetie’ or ‘honey’ and wink. And if I were easily offended, then that would be sexual harassment.” But because Alana isn’t “easily offended,” because she has thick skin, that colleague isn’t a sexual predator. He’s “old-school.”

The women I interviewed were trying their best to succeed in a hostile environment, and that often meant adapting and changing their own behavior rather than demanding that the environment be adapted and changed for them. This is understandable, given that they were very much in the statistical and cultural minority. But when men like the commenter on Hess’s post suggest that women develop a thicker skin, they’re asking women to adapt to a hostile environment rather than asking themselves the hard questions about what they, as men, need to do to change that environment.

Of course, there’s an argument to be made that women who invoke thick skin are making it easier for men to do so, and are therefore being complicit in the ongoing hostility of the environment. And I’m not letting those women entirely off the hook, because the thick skin narrative is used, by men and women alike, to divide women into two groups: the reasonable women, and the victims. When I asked Alana about how other women might have responded to that “old-school” colleague, she talked about women who had filed sexual harassment and discrimination suits against her firm and other Wall Street firms. “I think that women who take that attitude are really at fault, because if you approach everybody like a victim, you’re not going to get anywhere… If you can fit in, and not call attention to the fact that you’re a woman… it’s better to just not call attention to the fact.”

The irony is that these women don’t need to call attention to the fact that they’re women – they’re being sexually harassed for that very reason. Women who accept sexual harassment, be it at work or on the street, have “thick skin” and are “reasonable.” Women who don’t are “victims” who “can’t hack it.” At work women are faced with two equally unpleasant choices: suffer harassment or discrimination in silence, or speak up and be branded a thin-skinned victim who makes all the other women look bad. On the street, speaking up comes with the added danger of a physical attack. It’s a no-win situation that we face on the way to work, on the way home, and every moment in between. “Thick skin,” as handy a survival method as it might be, is not a solution: the solution is to change the acceptability of harassment and discrimination.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Silverfish wrote: »

We may not be, but if we can't discuss how it does affect our lives, in the Ladies Lounge of all forums, where can we?

Right... don't see where I did that. Did dismiss a poorly made point but the discussion? Nope, was fairly cordial.

Thaedydal wrote:

“The men of our race who descended like us from a long line of martyrs in the cause of liberty, will not try to keep our rights and our duties from us and the day that Ireland stands free before the world, shall see our emancipation too” Bean na hÉireann 1 no.3 (Jan 1909)

That is a nice quote but that didn't happen.

Raunch Culture 2010 wrote:

Thaedydal I completely agree with you that we were not granted emancipation with the emergence of the Free State- if anything 'the men of our race' were eager to ensure that women remained subservient by instating legal restrictions on women such as the marriage bar and not allowing them to serve on juries.

Just one very very important thing to note here. What Bean na hÉireann were referring to by Ireland standing free never actually happened - Helena Moloney who edited that magazine was an Irish Socialist Republican and a colleague of James Connolly(Athiest/Socialist/Irish Republican)

The constitution of the free state however was written by Eamonn de Valera, a deeply religious Catholic.

Now obviously we'll never know, but had the Republicans succeeded(and if they introduced a democracy), I think women would have suffered far less oppression with them writing the constitution compared to what the papist free state introduced.

Silverfish

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Right... don't see where I did that. Did dismiss a poorly made point but the discussion? Nope, was fairly cordial.

Dismissing someone's point as 'laughable' is not cordial.

And on-thread is not the place to argue moderator warnings.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Silverfish wrote: »

Dismissing someone's point as 'laughable' is not cordial.

And on-thread is not the place to argue moderator warnings.

Ok I won't reply to this comment but genuinely in the last one I only figured the bit after the bold text was a mod warning. I thought the bit after quoting me was just a reply.

Jules

It was a reply and a direct warning to you, which was why the second part was address "to everyone". If you continue at this you will banned.

Dudess

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Perhaps because men are treated as second class citizens nowadays.

I really disagree with this. I wholeheartedly acknowledge that yes, men have to put up with crap when it comes to certain aspects of life merely because of their gender (fathers' rights being the biggie, also next to no services for men experiencing domestic abuse, and the way men can be depicted in advertising/music videos/television series is appalling) but their gender is to their advantage when it comes to other aspects of life. And 100% the same for women. This does not mean the members of either gender are treated as second class citizens - in the western world anyway.

I really wish domestic/sexual abuse support services could be gender-blind though...

As for feminism, I obviously hold dear the original ideals, but I feel women's rights is much more of a concern for certain non western societies today. Feminism has become distorted down through the years into something quite ugly at times. I acknowledge some of this though is actually projected upon it by its detractors (male AND female). That said, I cannot stand when women who are educated and holding down careers sneer at feminism.

WindSock

Dudess wrote: »

That said, I cannot stand when women who are educated and holding down careers sneer at feminism.

Well it is bet into us all, male and female from an early age that feminists are fat ugly dykey butch men hating nazis. Who'd want to associate themselves with something like that?

Feminism as a subject seem to be very confusing to me...it seem to be all over the place and to too broad to be cohesive.....

I think we forget how privileged we are to live in a rich western country, this occurred to me recently when i was reading an article about girls in Africa saying home from school when they have their periods because they couldn't afford sanitary protection...a small charity was providing they with washable sanitary towels and soap....such a small thing as sanitary towels was making a huge difference to their lives...something we in the rich west take utterly for granted!!!

on the other had when i read about the culture in parts of India keeping girls from getting a secondary education...i start off by being interested then the article goes on about male teachers, cultural expectations, history, women being expected to work in the fields etc...i get kinda turned off because it's so huge and how do you change things like that.... then if people in the rich west comment its seen as cultural imperialism....



Then i get a bit disappointed with women ( your see a lot of posts on board like this )....for whom a huge part of there lives is about getting a man, keeping a man, making a man happy...

okay rant over:D

Zulu

mariaalice wrote: »

Then i get a bit disappointed with women ....for whom a huge part of there lives is about getting a man, keeping a man, making a man happy...

Why? This is what we do!
Replace man with woman, and it's the same.
What's your problem with human nature?

i didn't mean it in a bad way....this a an example a girl i know in work was telling me she and some friends of her had gone to a spa hotel for the weekend...one of her friend dropped out between the booking and weekend because she meet a guy and the guy wanted her to do something with him...so she canceled the weekend with her friends to spend it with the guy!!
then apparently another one of her friends said it would be much better fun to be on the weekend away with a man!!...she was the one who made the comment to why o why dose so much of woman's life resolve around men...got me thinking about this...

Zulu

Peoples lives revolve around those they love. She choose to change her plans so she could spend time with someone she loved (more than her friends at least).

This isn't a feminist issue.

Is it?

Dudess

Zulu wrote: »

Peoples lives revolve around those they love. She choose to change her plans so she could spend time with someone she loved (more than her friends at least).

I get the impression the guy was someone she had just met though...

Zulu

Yea, so though?!?
Lets face it this happens the whole time. New guy/girl appears on the scene. Guy/girl gets slagged for being under the thumb or what have you. And we all give out because we're (the friends) supposed to be there when it all goes south.

This is a bug bear of mine.

Of course we're supposed to be there! And we should be bloody happy for them too boot!! So what if it doesn't work out, thats life, thats what it's all about: making mistakes.

(That said, there is of course the situation where the new partner is bad news, and love is blindness...)

/end rant.

Apologies - but this isn't perceived as a feminist issue, is it?

It might be trivial in the great scheme of things we could be concerned about, but it is a feminist issue....what about all the women magazines that have articles called...how to keep him coming back for more!! or how to give him a better orgasm!!....they are my personal bug bare....they are a symptom of the same thing....

I am all for relationships that are loving and intimate.... but it is not the be all and end all of anyone's life.

The Chessplayer

I'm a feminist.

Ah no not really, but I'm always amused by lads who trumpet feminism in a desperate attempt to curry favour with the opposite sex

Dudess

WindSock wrote: »

Well it is bet into us all, male and female from an early age that feminists are fat ugly dykey butch men hating nazis. Who'd want to associate themselves with something like that?

Absolutely - and I wouldn't even consider myself a feminist in today's western world, but it's such a narrow, dismissive view of feminism when the original tenets of it led to the lives we enjoy today.
High-profile examples of successful women who have feminism to thank for this, yet who sneer at it, are Margaret Thatcher and Anne Coulter.

The Chessplayer wrote: »

I'm a feminist.

Ah no not really, but I'm always amused by lads who trumpet feminism in a desperate attempt to curry favour with the opposite sex

Nevyn

There are plenty of feminists esp in america who will disagree with you saying Anne Coulter is a feminist and there are women would would never called themselves a feminist who'd disagree as well Anne Coulter being one of them.

Dudess

Good god I'm not saying Anne Coulter is a feminist at all - rather she's one of those anti feminist women who very much enjoys what feminism helped to achieve. Ditto Thatcher.

Seren_

I remember being in a college seminar last year, and the lecturer asked us would any of us identify as feminist. Not one of us put our hands up (and it was mostly women there). That got me thinking, so I did a bit of research about feminism, and now I would call myself one.

Although women are definitely on a much more equal footing in Ireland than in the past, there still is a lot of areas in which women are treated unequally. Personally, the illegality of abortion in this country would be one of the major issues for me. I think it's unfair that a woman is not allowed to go through with a safe and legal abortion, if that's what she chooses.

Many women and men fought hard to get society where it is now, to accept women's right to vote, go to college, whatever... I guess I just feel kind of bad that feminism (even that of the past) has such a bad view from people of my generation.