Feminists

Morag

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Surely only by defense lawyers and idiots!

But what do you do when society at large is populated by those idiot as you called them?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641310738

As for women who supported the way things were, yes there are a lot of them but that does not take from the work men and women have done to change laws, bring in rights and to enforce them and the work which still needs to be done.

I know that my grandmothers were feminists in their own way and at least one of my great grandmothers was as well. We have had brave and courageous irish women in the past, we need more of them now and those who are willing to support them.

diddlybit

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Surely only by defense lawyers and idiots!

It's true that we can describe these people as idiots, but unfortunately a collective group of idiots can send a very powerful message to the rest of society. The case that springs to mind is the one in Kerry, in which people of the community sympathised with a convicted rapist by shaking his hand in the courtroom.

Sinn Féin councillor Thérèse Ruane has said that the scenes in the Circuit Criminal Court in Tralee last week, which have outraged people across the country, underline the need for reform of procedures in the courts service. A large group of people, mostly middle-aged and elderly men, queued up inside the court last Wednesday to shake hands with a man convicted of sexual assault against a 22-year-old woman. They had to pass by the victim as they showed solidarity with the perpetrator.
Cllr Ruane said: “The courtroom scenes in Kerry have sent out a dangerous and very negative signal to victims, especially victims of sexual assault. Women who are the victims of a sexual assault will unfortunately now have cause to stop and think in the wake of this extraordinary display.
“This young woman was in court, surrounded only by a garda and a member of the Rape Crisis Centre as a large body of people, including the local priest, were allowed to embrace and shake hands with the perpetrator just minutes before sentencing him.

http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/20400

As rightly pointed out by the journalist, it sends a very destructive message to victims of sexual violence. We try to encourage women (and men) to report sexual assaults and rapes, yet these scenes could easily disuade people from going to the authorites and seeking prosecution as they will be ostricised by a sizable portion of their community. It's a horrible reflection of how many people in Irish society still view victims of rape and wasn't helped by the fact that the local priest particpated in this disgusting performance. :mad:

seenitall

Truley wrote: »

Often women do not face discrimination because of their gender but because of people's views on morality in general. I think feminists often make the mistake of viewing issues through a filter of gender discrimination when there is often much more to it than that.

"Morality" doesn't exist in an unbiased, completely objective vacuum in people's heads. I'd say that more often than not, it is directly influenced by the gender-biased (religious etc.) views which people accept unquestioningly as a given since they were taught them from a young age.

(Please note that "more often than not" only means that I believe there is still a sizeable proportion of populace whom I credit for using their own heads more than relying on culturally inherited stereotyping and categorising.)

gargleblaster

Regarding the couple of 'women did it too' arguments - those aren't very logical. As has been stated in this very thread, there are male feminists. In that same vein, there are also (of course) female chauvinist pigs.

Truley

seenitall wrote: »

"Morality" doesn't exist in an unbiased, completely objective vacuum in people's heads. I'd say that more often than not, it is directly influenced by the gender-biased (religious etc.) views which people accept unquestioningly as a given since they were taught them from a young age.

(Please note that "more often than not" only means that I believe there is still a sizeable proportion of populace whom I credit for using their own heads more than relying on culturally inherited stereotyping and categorising.)

Yes people inherit culturally inherited views about morality, I just don't think every issue that affects women can be solely put down to gender bias. I can imagine a multitude of different influences on something like the contraception ban; prevailing views on family structure, child rearing, economics, inheritance during a time of scarcer resources etc It's rarely simply a case of 'cos we don't like women.'

I just think people so often put on the feminism goggles and fail to see the bigger picture.

Ambersky

A lot of people seem to find it difficult to think in terms of systems rather than in terms of individuals or groups of individuals.
We live in a very individualistic and consumer based society which encourages seeing things only as an individual.
To see a system you have to step back a little and try to see how the pieces fit.
It’s not a men against women thing because it’s about a system that men and women are part of.
Women have their part in the recognising of areas where they are discriminated against, then they have the job of doing and saying something about it and changing the situation, making something new.
Men have their part in hearing the women, recognising the discrimination and then supporting the women in the changes necessary and also taking part in the creation of something new.

Systems are notoriously difficult to recognise when you are in them because they are what passes as normal.
Also people at the bottom of the system will often be afraid of change, will maybe be afraid of losing what little they have and will hold others back who try to bring about change.
Mothers putting their daughters forward for female genital mutilation or mothers telling their daughters that men dont want to marry a smart girl are expressions of this.

It was and is very difficult to get the catholic church to recognise that the abuse of children was systemic within church run institutions for example.
Compare the arguments around church and abuse with arguments around women and feminism.
In the list below you can think of either Patriarchy or Church run Institutions as the system.

Systems are enabled to continue by a process of
• Denial, that the bad things happen (rape, abuse, laws that prevent control of procreation, unequal pay and conditions, lower social status etc.
• denial that there was ever any intention for bad things to happen
• Amidst protests that the people involved are very nice and with witnesses to attest to their personal niceness.
• Amidst pleas to look at the good the system actually achieves and how necessary it actually is.
Claims of innocence, "We didnt know"
Blaming the events on a few rogue individuals not the system itself.
• Blaming the victims for making it all up, exaggerating things, going on about it too much.
• Amidst protests that it is the institution that is the victim in all this, it is the institution that is being attacked.

seenitall

Truley wrote: »

Yes people inherit culturally inherited views about morality, I just don't think every issue that affects women can be solely put down to gender bias. I can imagine a multitude of different influences on something like the contraception ban; prevailing views on family structure, child rearing, economics, inheritance during a time of scarcer resources etc It's rarely simply a case of 'cos we don't like women.'

I just think people so often put on the feminism goggles and fail to see the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is exactly what I was referring to - but the poster above mine put it in words so much more eloquently than I ever could :

"It’s not a men against women thing because it’s about a system that men and women are part of.

Systems are notoriously difficult to recognise when you are in them because they are what passes as normal.

Mothers putting their daughters forward for female genital mutilation or mothers telling their daughters that men dont want to marry a smart girl are expressions of this."

In other words, it's rarely simply a case of "we don't like women", because it is so often simply the case of "But..but...this isn't gender bias, it's perfectly normal, it's always been this way", etc.

Buceph

Ambersky wrote: »

A lot of people seem to find it difficult to think in terms of systems rather than in terms of individuals or groups of individuals.

Saying it's a system implies that there's active control over it. What little direct control we have over society (our laws) have recognised inequalities and tried to address them. The idea that there is a concerted, conscious effort to discriminate as a society has been addressed. There is no discriminatory act that is tolerated (you could argue abortion, but that's a particularly Irish thing and not really a Western World thing.) If you look at the development of legal systems in the west you'll see that laws are made on the basis of direct actions. Rigid proscriptions of acts, rather than basis a punishment on a failure to act. A huge amount of our legal system, and moral system is based on duties of care where a responsibility has to be proven before someone can be reprimanded. I have a responsibility not to harm you, but I have no responsibility to aid you if you come to harm. And I think that's the divide you bring up between systems and individuals. As a system we have responsibilities, as an individual we have freedoms. As an individual I have rights and can act according to those rights. But we have decided that certain things are good for us as whole and so we have created a system (government, judiciary, social welfare, the entire idea of "The State") to accomplish those goals. Those things are hard and fast. But individually I have no responsibility to you, unless it's proven I have a duty of care (a parent to a child, a doctor to a patient, the church mandates that priests have duty to their flock.) We can encourage people to take actions to benefit others, tax breaks for charitable donations, and Good Samaritan laws, but again that doesn't remove a freedom but encourages a societal benefit. There are some countries where you have a duty to act (most examples are in the case of traffic accidents.) But even then that duty rarely goes further than simply alerting emergency services.


So I think it's misleading to say there's a system. We as a society have decided that individual freedom trumps enforced behaviour. And enforced behaviour will immediately be identified as "Thought Police" and is a common theme of dystopias. So I don't think there's anything in regards to societal control that can be enforced without redifining the very nature of a society, which has far bigger implications than simple gender discrimination, so I would say there is no "system."

It's the difference between negative and positive liberty. Should we have freedom from control (freedom to die as is often directed at America) or do we have freedom to succeed. So far we can deal with freedom from control, we give rights and allow people to act within those rights. But it's extremely difficult to create legislation that enforces positive liberty without infringing on negative liberty, we have social welfare, and public health systems. To swap around the two systems would completely redefine the system. (And if you say that would be a good thing, I'd like to see a plan for it. Radical anything is all well and good, but what we have at the moment is the best we've ever had.)

Ambersky wrote: »

But be aware it is very difficult to talk about women without constant attempts of one kind or another to get back to the subject of men.

Do you mean the subject of men's rights, or the subject of oppression by a patriarchy? Because I believe that male and female freedoms and any oppression at the hand of either sex or a society is intrinsically linked. As I said earlier, gender discrimination is proscribed. And as part of that proscription surely something targeted at either sex needs to be an anathema, from both a legal and moral attitude. However, that's not to say that differences shouldn't be recognised. There's no point advertising breast cancer awareness at men and prostate cancer awareness at women. But looking at an issue as a singularly female or male concern isn't very beneficial.

I'll give two examples, you could argue that the media is very anti-women, that it says women need to beautify themselves to get a husband, and as a continuation of the beautification that they need to be chaste and offer themselves as a pure body to a man, something anyone would see is ****ing evil. But also the media shows the young guy as a sex-obsessed bufoon (it's been proven that men think about sex every ten seconds!) And it continually tells teenagers that they must get their end away at any opportunity. Then it hides it's faux-morality in the idea that the slutty women is great for partying with but ultimately shallow, and you'll find your true love with the darling, chaste nerd (who takes off her glasses and drops her hair and is suddenly beautiful.) And only then will the man have truly become a man. Women shouldn't be told they need to be a virginial beauty, and men shouldn't be told they need to **** to actualise.

My second example, my mother is a highly succesful professional, and broke every barrier in her workplace. My father is also accomplished. My mother works in an office, and works long hours. My father also works long hours, but works from home, so he can arrange his schedule to suit himself (to a certain degree anyway.) This meant that from junior infants until I was in the higher years in secondary school (and the same for my brother and sister) every day my father would collect me from school. He was the only father to regularly collect his children from school amidst all the mothers collecting my schoolfriends. The mothers would say two things, why isn't my father out providing for his family, and why wasn't my mother at home caring for us? Is that an issue of male or female discrimination, or just down right ignorance on everyone's behalf. The discrimination won't end until men are seen as equals in parenting, which means they'll sometimes be the primary carer. Maybe there's far more women who want to be seen as equals in the workplace, than there are fathers who want to be stay at home dads. But there's even discrimination in seeing the women as the downtrodden when success is determined to be having had a succesful career, rather than seeing equal success in raising a family whether that's because of primary carer who is a father or a mother.

I think these two areas are just some of the examples where the discrimination is pressed on both parties. And don't get me wrong, I'm in no way saying that men have it as bad as women, or as discriminated against as women (although part of it is from our misguided notions of what success is.) But I do think that the battle has long since been a simple case like with the Suffragette movement, and it's now far more complex.*



*And jokes like "make me a sandwich" are a symptom, of both genuine fear of equality (and the ensuing loss of privelage) and of absolute confusion and dismay that things still are the way they are, despite what's happened.

seenitall

Buceph wrote: »

*And jokes like "make me a sandwich" are a symptom, of both genuine fear of equality (and the ensuing loss of privelage) and of absolute confusion and dismay that things still are the way they are, despite what's happened.

I think you (partly) give people making these insulting jokes way more credit than they deserve. People who are "confused and dismayed" at the existence of discrimination (of all things! ) don't go out of their way to hurt or insult, only scared people do.

I also think that you have completely misinterpreted Ambersky's post (IMO anyway), it doesn't deal with legalities, the social welfare, the state etc, nor has s/he claimed anything contrary to what you do when you write about these things, it only addresses the systemic discrimination of women that is present in the society. From wikipedia: "Systemic refers to something that is spread throughout, system-wide, effecting a group or system such as a body, economy, market or society as a whole"; so I think that to say it is misleading to say there's a system is beside the point. Of course there is a system, we are surrounded by systems...

The discrimination that A. refers to (if you look at his/her bulletpoints) is about society's attitudes and justifications (and all different denial and evasion techniques that are completely outside the remit of law) of discriminatory acts which are not upheld by law but neither are they being treated as vigourously by law as they should be - those grey areas which allow for discrimination on the basis of attitudes not laws.

"gender discrimination is proscribed. And as part of that proscription surely something targeted at either sex needs to be an anathema, from both a legal and moral attitude." - good point, with "needs to be" the key words. There is still some way to go, especially with the "moral attitude" part.

Buceph

seenitall wrote: »

I think you (partly) give people making these insulting jokes way more credit than they deserve. People who are "confused and dismayed" at the existence of discrimination (of all things! ) don't go out of their way to hurt or insult, only scared people do.

I disagree, because eventually you get down to an argument of who gets to decide the person's intent, and that's something as a society we only see necessary when a grievous situation occurs.

I'd never say to someone in here "make me a sammich wommin." It would be the wrong place to do it, it's not the style of the board and it's not the style people want here. I might in After Hours, people expect jocularity in AH and I would be using it in a sarcastic manner, as self deprecation as though I'm an chauvinist who sees women as walking toasters. I don't think that, in After Hours (well, After Hours as I believe it was intended to be) I'd view the "society" to be in a playful, joking mood. But After Hours hasn't been like that for donkey's years, so it would be unwise to make such a joke.

I liken it to the joking we do with a friend of mine. This guy is in a wheelchair and we often joke that he "plays the cripple card" to get what he wants. We know our audience, the guy will announce himself that he's playing the cripple card, but we'd never make such a joke with someone we didn't know very well, or in a situation where joking wasn't the order of the day.

If you look at Scrubs for example, JD and Turks relationship allows the show to get away with a huge amount of what would otherwise be seen as a racist insults. We can see their relationship, we know there's no harm in it, in fact we know that JDs joking is often an attempt for himself to become closer to Turk's "cultural identity."

So reallly, I think it's a case of knowing your audience. If there's someone who could take offence from it but they find it funny, you've walked the line. And I think in some cases people who mean no harm, fail to walk the line too well

I also think that you have completely misinterpreted Ambersky's post (IMO anyway), it doesn't deal with legalities, the social welfare, the state etc, nor has s/he claimed anything contrary to what you do when you write about these things, it only addresses the systemic discrimination of women that is present in the society. From wikipedia: "Systemic refers to something that is spread throughout, system-wide, effecting a group or system such as a body, economy, market or society as a whole"; so I think that to say it is misleading to say there's a system is beside the point. Of course there is a system, we are surrounded by systems...

But outside of rhetoric, we have no other way of influencing the "system." And I'd argue that rhetoric or campaigning isn't enough of a control to accurately steer a system. I've studied organisational theory and systems theory as part of my degree, and systems have behaviours, methods and controls. If you look at it from a sciences point of few their are certain fundamental rules for the interactions, methods and behaviours of the system. We don't know all the rules but we try and discover what they are to effect the system. The methods of a societal system that we have direct control over are the mechanisms of the state, as determined by the people. Part of those mechanisms are the fundamental rules of the state i.e. the consititution and changing those fundamental rules is a serious process. And our constitution gives paramount position to freedom. So it relinquishes some of the control, so the boundaries of any system are disolved and extremely difficult to grasp. But one boundary we have agreed we don't have a mechanism to control is individuality and expression (except for some very limited ways, of which the blasphemy law is one abhorrent implentation of that control.) When what control we have of the system has gone as far as society allows it to we're faced with two options, either effect the system using the very freedoms that allow the undesirable effect (rhetoric, leadership, debate) or rewrite the fundamentals of the system. And that is radicalism, which I have yet to hear provide a convincing alternative.

The discrimination that A. refers to (if you look at his/her bulletpoints) is about society's attitudes and justifications (and all different denial and evasion techniques that are completely outside the remit of law) of discriminatory acts which are not upheld by law but neither are they being treated as vigourously by law as they should be - those grey areas which allow for discrimination on the basis of attitudes not laws.

Ambersky is blaming the freedoms we view as fundamental, so the lack of control of the system or the complete absence of a system for the problems. And I didn't see any alternative provided. Even if there was a radical proprosal it would need to convince me that abandoning something that society deems fundamental is necessary and that the effects aren't dangerous, and remember the fundamental is an equal access to freedom.

"gender discrimination is proscribed. And as part of that proscription surely something targeted at either sex needs to be an anathema, from both a legal and moral attitude." - good point, with "needs to be" the key words. There is still some way to go, especially with the "moral attitude" part.

I agree, but I don't think you can legislate for an individuals morals. I will fight to the death your right to debate with and argue for a change in an individual's or even a society's morals, but I would equally fight any system that prescribes an individual's morals.


With all that being said, I can see why some people would move towards radicalism, but I can't see how they would change our system without effecting the fundamental nature of what we deem just. But I'm open to ideas.

Elle Collins

darkman2 wrote: »

But this is the thing - what is a feminist?

A feminist, in the true sense of the term, is anyone, women or man, who believes that women are equal to men in their human value and ought to be seen to be and treated as such.

There are male feminists about, thank God, otherwise the world would be a pretty poxy place for women to live in.

seenitall

Buceph wrote: »

So reallly, I think it's a case of knowing your audience.

Agreed, that's why I used the expression "go out of their way to hurt/insult".

But outside of rhetoric, we have no other way of influencing the "system." And I'd argue that rhetoric or campaigning isn't enough of a control to accurately steer a system. I've studied organisational theory and systems theory as part of my degree, and systems have behaviours, methods and controls. If you look at it from a sciences point of few their are certain fundamental rules for the interactions, methods and behaviours of the system. We don't know all the rules but we try and discover what they are to effect the system. The methods of a societal system that we have direct control over are the mechanisms of the state, as determined by the people. Part of those mechanisms are the fundamental rules of the state i.e. the consititution and changing those fundamental rules is a serious process. And our constitution gives paramount position to freedom. So it relinquishes some of the control, so the boundaries of any system are disolved and extremely difficult to grasp. But one boundary we have agreed we don't have a mechanism to control is individuality and expression (except for some very limited ways, of which the blasphemy law is one abhorrent implentation of that control.) When what control we have of the system has gone as far as society allows it to we're faced with two options, either effect the system using the very freedoms that allow the undesirable effect (rhetoric, leadership, debate) or rewrite the fundamentals of the system. And that is radicalism, which I have yet to hear provide a convincing alternative.

Oh boy I really disagree with this, especially the bolded bit! We have no way of influencing systems, do we?? How convenient for some quarters of our society, then. But of course, you are wrong, because attitudes and morals, individual and social, do change, by way of campaigning, dialogue, and probably anything else that you, I suspect, deem "rhetoric". The very freedoms you are so fond of espousing are bolstered and furthered by "rhetoric" (I just noticed that the end of that paragraph of yours contradicts its beginning - first "rhetoric isn't enough" to bring about change in social consciousness, then later "we can effect the system" using it... - well, I agree with the conclusion!).



Ambersky is blaming the freedoms we view as fundamental, so the lack of control of the system or the complete absence of a system for the problems. And I didn't see any alternative provided. Even if there was a radical proprosal it would need to convince me that abandoning something that society deems fundamental is necessary and that the effects aren't dangerous, and remember the fundamental is an equal access to freedom.

Again, I don't think s/he is doing anything of the kind. I don't see it in their post. They are simply pointing out how insidious the prejudice can be, functioning well enough within some of the systems of our society, based on social mores and attitudes. "Control" and "absence" etc. are your words, your area of expertise. As for alternative not provided, how is that an issue now? Do we have to have a problem solved, done and dusted at the beginning of a dialogue about its very acknowledgment?


I agree, but I don't think you can legislate for an individuals morals. I will fight to the death your right to debate with and argue for a change in an individual's or even a society's morals, but I would equally fight any system that prescribes an individual's morals.

Er... complete crossed wires, again. Where have I (or A. in their post) advocate prescribing an individual's morals??


With all that being said, I can see why some people would move towards radicalism, but I can't see how they would change our system without effecting the fundamental nature of what we deem just. But I'm open to ideas.

A question: do you equate feminism with radicalism? I'm asking because the answer would go a bit towards making sense of your posts to me.

Buceph

seenitall wrote: »

Agreed, that's why I used the expression "go out of their way to hurt/insult".

Glad we agree.

Oh boy I really disagree with this, especially the bolded bit! We have no way of influencing systems, do we?? How convenient for some quarters of our society, then. But of course, you are wrong, because attitudes and morals, individual and social, do change, by way of campaigning, dialogue, and probably anything else that you, I suspect, deem "rhetoric". The very freedoms you are so fond of espousing are bolstered and furthered by "rhetoric" (I just noticed that the end of that paragraph of yours contradicts its beginning - first "rhetoric isn't enough" to bring about change in social consciousness, then later "we can effect the system" using it... - well, I agree with the conclusion!).

All a system is a series of rules that control the behaviour of it's elements. Our system is based on a set of principles. The system is our laws, government, judiciary, etc., i.e. the state. The principles we base our system on is the constitution. One of the principles of our consititution is that freedom (of which equality is a corrollory) is paramount (leaving aside the role of the women in the state and all that crap we currently have.) To create that freedom and equality we have the state, our system which proscribes certain things that would infringe upon our freedoms and which would create inequality. Those are the controls of the system, used to mandate the behaviour of the elements of the system. This happens to be a system where the principles are that of a negative liberty mindset. As freedom is paramount we legislate against murder, because that would remove the victims freedom to live, but equally we don't proscribe morals or individuality as they don't infringe on anybody else right to life, so people are free to believe and act as they like, so long as it doesn't impinge someone elses freedom. As equality is a part of freedom, we legislate against discrimination in the workplace and in access to state services (seeing as the workplace and state don't have access to the fundamental freedom we are founded on.) However we don't legislate against an individuals actions where they have the freedom to choose who they associate with (doesn't hang around with feminists,) or what their opinions are and their ability to express that (announcing to the world "All feminists are man hating lesbians.") We see a dividing line between the individual who we can't control, and an entity that doesn't have the individual freedom like a workplace where their must be equality. (There are limitations and grey areas to all this, like an individuals right to provide for themselves.)

I'm arguing that the system we have, i.e. the state, has done all it can to legislate against discrimination without impinging on an individuals freedom. I believe Ambersky is arguing that there is a system of discrimination. But I would maintain that it certainly isn't the state that is this system of discrimination. So the only alternative is that it is the individual (and their freedom to associate, hold and express opinions, and form relationships, etc.) is that system of discrimination she alludes to.


I would further argue that the only way of controlling (please note that I'm purposely using the word controlling rather than influencing) this system of individuals would be to proscribe their actions which are discriminatory. And that this proscription would be an infringement of their freedom to hold opinions and express them. And seeing as freedom is the basis on which our system is founded, any law legislating against an individual's freedom would be a fundamental change in the principle on which we have founded our system/society. And because there is no way to control individuals who don't impinge on other's freedoms, and control is necessary for ther to be a system, their is no system of discrimination, merely individuals expressing their opinions.


To stop the system of discrimination Ambersky implies, we would need to infringe on the freedoms which are the principle of our society. And that's what I see as radical.


If you or Ambersky have a way of using the state (the system) to stop inequality that doesn't infringe on our freedoms, then I'd be delighted to hear them. And I would in no way consider them radical or extreme. Because they don't overturn the very principle on which the state is founded.

A question: do you equate feminism with radicalism? I'm asking because the answer would go a bit towards making sense of your posts to me.

No. Not at all. Some feminists are radicals though, and they do want to overturn the basis of our society. I've never read of a viable alternative to a modern free democracy, so I have deep suspision of them.

If you're talking about influencing change through "rhetoric" (and by that I mean expression, debate, argument, protest, etc.) then I wouldn't in any way consider that radical. In fact that would be my preferred method of changing society (as opposed to the system I don't think exists. )

seenitall

Buceph wrote: »

Glad we agree.





All a system is a series of rules that control the behaviour of it's elements. Our system is based on a set of principles. The system is our laws, government, judiciary, etc., i.e. the state. The principles we base our system on is the constitution. One of the principles of our consititution is that freedom (of which equality is a corrollory) is paramount (leaving aside the role of the women in the state and all that crap we currently have.) To create that freedom and equality we have the state, our system which proscribes certain things that would infringe upon our freedoms and which would create inequality. Those are the controls of the system, used to mandate the behaviour of the elements of the system. This happens to be a system where the principles are that of a negative liberty mindset. As freedom is paramount we legislate against murder, because that would remove the victims freedom to live, but equally we don't proscribe morals or individuality as they don't infringe on anybody else right to life, so people are free to believe and act as they like, so long as it doesn't impinge someone elses freedom. As equality is a part of freedom, we legislate against discrimination in the workplace and in access to state services (seeing as the workplace and state don't have access to the fundamental freedom we are founded on.) However we don't legislate against an individuals actions where they have the freedom to choose who they associate with (doesn't hang around with feminists,) or what their opinions are and their ability to express that (announcing to the world "All feminists are man hating lesbians.") We see a dividing line between the individual who we can't control, and an entity that doesn't have the individual freedom like a workplace where their must be equality. (There are limitations and grey areas to all this, like an individuals right to provide for themselves.)

I'm arguing that the system we have, i.e. the state, has done all it can to legislate against discrimination without impinging on an individuals freedom. I believe Ambersky is arguing that there is a system of discrimination. But I would maintain that it certainly isn't the state that is this system of discrimination. So the only alternative is that it is the individual (and their freedom to associate, hold and express opinions, and form relationships, etc.) is that system of discrimination she alludes to.


I would further argue that the only way of controlling (please note that I'm purposely using the word controlling rather than influencing) this system of individuals would be to proscribe their actions which are discriminatory. And that this proscription would be an infringement of their freedom to hold opinions and express them. And seeing as freedom is the basis on which our system is founded, any law legislating against an individual's freedom would be a fundamental change in the principle on which we have founded our system/society. And because there is no way to control individuals who don't impinge on other's freedoms, and control is necessary for ther to be a system, their is no system of discrimination, merely individuals expressing their opinions.


To stop the system of discrimination Ambersky implies, we would need to infringe on the freedoms which are the principle of our society. And that's what I see as radical.


If you or Ambersky have a way of using the state (the system) to stop inequality that doesn't infringe on our freedoms, then I'd be delighted to hear them. And I would in no way consider them radical or extreme. Because they don't overturn the very principle on which the state is founded.





No. Not at all. Some feminists are radicals though, and they do want to overturn the basis of our society. I've never read of a viable alternative to a modern free democracy, so I have deep suspision of them.

If you're talking about influencing change through "rhetoric" (and by that I mean expression, debate, argument, protest, etc.) then I wouldn't in any way consider that radical. In fact that would be my preferred method of changing society (as opposed to the system I don't think exists. )

I disagree that Ambersky's post is "alluding to" anything at all or that it actually means anything more than s/he wrote in it; so all this about state/individual dichotomy (as if there existed no forces in-between these two exteremes of social unit!) is irrelevant for this subject, but it seems we can't find a common language on this. I will leave it to Ambersky to elaborate on his/her own post, I'm done here.

The only person you are arguing with is yourself. As for the last bit of your post that I bolded, I already elaborated on that in my last post addressed to you, but that has again gone unnoticed, it seems. C'est la vie...

Buceph

Ah balls. :o:o

I've just seen where I've been going wrong all day.

My humblest apologies.

The reason I've been being this thick is that I've been awake since Saturday with stomach problems (I'm just out of hospital and went straight from the hospital to a holiday with friends and got back last night with more pain.) I'm not trying to make excuses, I ballsed up, just giving the reason I ballsed up so epically.

The only person you are arguing with is yourself.

I've been doing a pretty good job of it too. :P


At least I figured out somethings in my own head.


:o:o:o

So morto!


:o:o

seenitall

sorry to read about the stomach trouble. I hope you feel better soon.

Ambersky

Ah Buceph thats one of the nicest posts I've read in a long time.
The ability to go hands up I made a mess of that, shows good charachter and wouldnt it be great if more people did it.
And so what! when you have a good mind it takes a bit of rummaging about to just simply figure out what you yourself think, let alone understand what anyone else thinks.

On another forum there use to be smileys that went around in a circle to give hugs.
I'd like to send hugs to you, in all our variety and difference.
Hope your tummy feels better soon. :):rolleyes::o:mad:: (:eek::cool::P:confused::pac:

Ambersky xx

MadameCholet

Sharrow wrote: »

cherub rock while I don't think it is right for one person to label another,
what you've said above reads to me as you being a feminist, but you don't seem to like the label.

Yeah it's interesting that independent, intelligent women will not embrace the label feminist. I'm actually proud to say I'm a feminist. Why the **** would I NOT be a feminist? Are younger women afraid that men won't like that in them? I don't think men would really think, ooooh what I want in a woman is that she be a feminist. A lot of younger women can be very intelligent, very independent, financially secure, they don't dumb down for men, they can argue rings 'round the blokes at the next desk earning 1.3 times what they're earning, but a 'feminist'? oh gosh NO. Unfortunately, women still seem to need men's approval more than men need women's approval.
:cool:

Logical Fallacy

MadameCholet wrote: »

Yeah it's interesting that independent, intelligent women will not embrace the label feminist. I'm actually proud to say I'm a feminist. Why the **** would I NOT be a feminist? Are younger women afraid that men won't like that in them? I don't think men would really think, ooooh what I want in a woman is that she be a feminist. A lot of younger women can be very intelligent, very independent, financially secure, they don't dumb down for men, they can argue rings 'round the blokes at the next desk earning 1.3 times what they're earning, but a 'feminist'? oh gosh NO. Unfortunately, women still seem to need men's approval more than men need women's approval.
:cool:

Often times the term "feminist" can place an unwanted restriction on your goals and ideals. I ,despite qualifying for the term "feminist", would never refer to myself as one...because i also care about racial equality, the dissolution of class and caste ideals and have done considerable amounts of work with regard to breaking down the idea that physical disabilities and mental illness should carry a large social stigma.

It's perfectly fine to be supportive of the ideals of feminism without needing to adopt the title as some sign of support for the "sisterhood"...whatever that is supposed to be.

A refreshing amount of people are beginning to look at the bigger picture, that the actual fight for equality is far bigger than simply picking one area of society and elevating them.

Ambersky

Logical Fallacy
Im sure you are familiar with this

Non-Sequitur
In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists

Idea
If you identify with those looking for equality for women you will have to disassociate yourself someway from those looking for equality in race, class, sexuality, religion and disability.
Problem
There are women in each of the non dominant groups mentioned.
Women in non dominant groups are often the most discriminated against and are often because of their double disadvantage the less refered to.
Women are often the most active in organisations working for other disadvantaged groups.
Women often put their own interests last.
Far from being a disadvantage taking up the interests and equality of women as a cause will further any work done in other organisations, one in helping the women there and two in understanding how one system of oppression works you will be better able to deal with another.

Logical Fallacy

Ambersky wrote: »

Logical Fallacy
Im sure you are familiar with this


Idea
If you identify with those looking for equality for women you will have to disassociate yourself someway from those looking for equality in race, class, sexuality, religion and disability.
Problem
There are women in each of the non dominant groups mentioned.
Women in non dominant groups are often the most discriminated against and are often because of their double disadvantage the less refered to.
Women are often the most active in organisations working for other disadvantaged groups.
Women often put their own interests last.
Far from being a disadvantage taking up the interests and equality of women as a cause will further any work done in other organisations, one in helping the women there and two in understanding how one system of oppression works you will be better able to deal with another.

"Often times"....I wasn't giving a concrete circumstance, merely stating why some people might be interested in the furthering of womens rights without feeling the need to adopt the term "feminist".

There was no given absolute in my post.

Bottle_of_Smoke

MadameCholet wrote: »

Yeah it's interesting that independent, intelligent women will not embrace the label feminist. I'm actually proud to say I'm a feminist. Why the **** would I NOT be a feminist? Are younger women afraid that men won't like that in them? I don't think men would really think, ooooh what I want in a woman is that she be a feminist. A lot of younger women can be very intelligent, very independent, financially secure, they don't dumb down for men, they can argue rings 'round the blokes at the next desk earning 1.3 times what they're earning, but a 'feminist'? oh gosh NO. Unfortunately, women still seem to need men's approval more than men need women's approval.
:cool:

It might be that its confusing for a lot of women. Definitions of feminism and what feminism means to individuals vary so much its pretty much a pointless label.

metrovelvet

I think everyone believes you should get the same pay for the same work. You dont need to be a feminist to believe that.

Feminism in the second half of this century became obsessed with reproductive rights.

While they had some good points they also helped to destroy the family and double the supply of employees to make it an employers market.

So, i recognise mysogyy exists, I recognise rape laws need reform, I recognise the exploitation of women, etc, but Im damned pissed off at feminism and think they created as many problems as they solved.

Count Duckula

Ambersky wrote: »

Logical Fallacy
Im sure you are familiar with this


Idea
If you identify with those looking for equality for women you will have to disassociate yourself someway from those looking for equality in race, class, sexuality, religion and disability.
Problem
There are women in each of the non dominant groups mentioned.
Women in non dominant groups are often the most discriminated against and are often because of their double disadvantage the less refered to.
Women are often the most active in organisations working for other disadvantaged groups.
Women often put their own interests last.
Far from being a disadvantage taking up the interests and equality of women as a cause will further any work done in other organisations, one in helping the women there and two in understanding how one system of oppression works you will be better able to deal with another.

And whilst perhaps that is true, using the term "feminist" does somewhat suggest that your goals and ideals lie more in achieving equality for women and less so in other arenas of life. Your points are valid enough, but even throughout those there is a consistent theme that you are looking out for the rights of women in those minority groups, and that the rights of the others will fall into place with those.

Now that may be true, but for someone who just looks for overall equality for all people then identifying with one particular group suggests at least slight indifference for the others. Like Logical Fallacy, I meet the criteria for being a feminist. If explicitly asked whether I am a feminist, I'd agree that I was. But if someone enquired as to my general idealogical beliefs, I'd merely state I believed in equality for all.

I fully understand and appreciate that a woman will likely identify herself as a feminist in particular, as she will personally feel the affects of discrimination against her because of her gender and therefore feel most strongly in addressing that injustice, although I'm sure she'll ideally want equality for all. The same way those of oppressed racial minorities will likely feel most strongly about breaking free of discrimination aimed against them owing to their ethnicity. I am in the position of being discriminated against by no facet of society - I was born a middle-class, white male - and therefore all struggles appear equal in my head. I will support them, but at the same time I do not place the struggles of one discriminated group above those of another.

WindSock

A negative shift in the family structure is an unintended consequence of feminism.

Feminists don't work to destroy the family intentionally, however the previous structure to have women being domestic slaves was very much systematically intended.

WesternNight

metrovelvet wrote: »

Feminism in the second half of this century became obsessed with reproductive rights.

While they had some good points they also helped to destroy the family and double the supply of employees to make it an employers market.

Destroyed the family? How so?

And what would your solution be to the doubling of employees?

Ms.Odgeynist

It is a shame that men and women be treated as disparate groups, who's needs/rights should be looked at independently of each other.
Surely its time to look beyond any division based on sex. Even discussing issues based on two sexes creates as many problems as it could hope to solve.

There have been a few posts here alluding to systemic inequalities. This is where the work is required.

Just as the stereotype of 'woman as the weaker sex' has been demolished, surely its now time to abandon the notion of men as tough, strong and inherently violent.

Throughout the financial meltdown, we were bombarded with suggestions that had there been more women involved, there might have been less risk-taking, and the whole crisis might have been avoided. I don't know how others feel, but surely this kind of guff belongs in the past. Maybe there are characteristics inherent in each sex, but if there are I have not witnessed them.

Perhaps we need to start looking at the gender roles being assigned to our children. While I am as anxious as the next person to address any equalities that my female friends and colleagues face, I am much more concerned with the amount of young men who die violent deaths, become involved in crime, or end up in jail.

The notion that men are somehow 'more violent by nature' is surely as insulting to any intelligent person as is the notion that women are more sexually submissive than men, or more dependent.

In moving in that direction, and chasing justice and equality for every citizen, hopefully the word 'feminism' can be assigned to the history books.

WindSock

I agree with most of what was said there but I don't think the word feminism should be made obsolete.

There are too many negative labels attached to the word and to throw it away now would leave it as an out dated and belittled ideal that many wish to see it as, rather than a positive movement that mostly strives to make better conditions that suit both genders on behalf of the women's movement.

Bottle_of_Smoke

WindSock wrote: »

I agree with most of what was said there but I don't think the word feminism should be made obsolete.

There are too many negative labels attached to the word and to throw it away now would leave it as an out dated and belittled ideal that many wish to see it as, rather than a positive movement that mostly strives to make better conditions that suit both genders on behalf of the women's movement.

Its being used too long after serving its purpose, thats whats causing the negative connotations. If its abandoned feminists will be seen like the suffragettes.

liah

I'm not a feminist because I think the time for feminism is over and it's time for humanism.

Feminism, to me, is about equalising women's rights, which, in the first world, has been more or less done. There's some discrepancies here and there but I have a feeling they'll sort themselves out over the next generation or two.

Being a humanist makes more sense to me - it covers everyone, not just women, and I think that's what the end goal needs to be: recognizing we're all in this together, regardless of gender (or race or creed etc), and need to work together to change things for the better and put everyone on equal ground.