Feminists

Bottle_of_Smoke

liah wrote: »

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.

Would be in complete agreement with your general position, well put.

I think there will always be some discrepencies for both sides because to me equality or equality of opportunity is simply a concept we should aim toward rather than something we can comprehensively achieve, particularly in a capitalist system

Ambersky

Thanks to feminism the position of women worldwide has improved.
From the very beginning, even when women were looking for something as clearly reasonable as votes for women, they were slated for being crazy feminists, angry feminists, lesbian feminists, man hating feminists, selfish feminists, out of touch feminists, looney feminists, etc.

Feminists never got a popular press.





The top photo is a photo journalists actual record of a womans protest and the lower image is the kind of cartoon lampooning that was a popular expression of public opinion.
Suffragette is a term originally coined by the Daily Mail newspaper as a derogatory label for members of the late-19th and early-20th century movement for women's suffrage, or votes. However active members of the movement began to reclaim the word.
So even the word Suffragette was derogatory at one time, women have had to reclaim names for themselves ever since they began focusing on their own issues.

The caption "jump on him he is only a mere man" is interesting. The women were only looking for Votes for Women and it was seen as man hating.
Any advance that was proposed for women, the right to vote, the right to control the number of births, equal pay, divorce, abortion, education, etc all were initially met with the acusation that it was man hating.

The fact that people still have a problem with women and men who believe in and work for the equality of women, calling themselves feminists, shows me that focusing on the issue of women is still not on.
Words are only words and I believe when you find a passionate reaction to words that reaction is more interesting than the word itself.

It has been suggested that we need to look at things in more general terms.
One term for general is the generic, in language we are familiar with the use of the generic male, i.e. man, mankind, he, sons of god, brotherhood of man, etc.
Many studies have shown that male generic language is not interpreted as truly 'gender-inclusive
there is not only a male = people bias but also a people = male bias
Talking about women is heard as counter cultural, it is less familiar, it is experienced as “making an issue of it”. So we are asked to be more equal, more general, and where does general lead us but back to the generic which is more comfortable.

Again I will say in any marginalised or non dominant group, be it to do with Race, Class, Disability etc the women within that group will usually suffer a double disadvantage because of their gender.
Far from this being a way to ignore the other (male) members of the target groups improving the lot of women has been shown to improve the lot of children and men too.
For example programmes in Africa, to educate girls and women in agriculture, was proven to improve the diet of whole villages.
Traditionally girls received no education but women did the majority of the farm labour.

Feminism is not about a competition between women and men.
In many of the developed countries of the world huge improvements have been made in closing the gender gap.
This is a wonderful achievement for women and for men.
It seems the poorer and less educated the country the bigger the gender gap.
I would argue that its smart to be able to see areas where women are at a disadvantage and to work to improve the status of women in society.
I would argue that such action is the very definition of feminism.

Ms.Odgeynist

Ambersky wrote: »

Again I will say in any marginalised or non dominant group, be it to do with Race, Class, Disability etc the women within that group will usually suffer a double disadvantage because of their gender.
.

This statement can be interpreted far too many ways to be constructive.
Within deprived areas of our own cities and towns, women have it extremely tough.
However the population of Mountjoy consists of young males from a handful of estates. Surely they are doing a tad worse than their female peers. I'm not trying to diminish anyone's suffering, but comparing levels of suffering across the sexes is ludicrous, and in most cases exclusionary. It only serves to alienate one sex or another

Focusing on a sex is not helpful.

Morag

Gender not sex.

Ms.Odgeynist

Sharrow wrote: »

Gender not sex.

No, I said sex deliberately.
I think gender roles are something different.

But thanks for the reply.

Morag

Gender assumptions and gender roles are at the heart of a lot of issues in our society.


Feminism's time has not past, I don't we are post feminism yet as there are too many of the issues still out standing and untackled. It's is just about rights it is also about empowerment.

Count Duckula

I'm not really sure who you're preaching to, Ambersky. No one's disagreeing with you that women had a long struggle to obtain something resembling equal rights, and no one's saying that they should just settle down and "take what they've got".

You seem determined to get everyone else here (women and men alike) to agree that there's still some titanic gender war still to be won.

Could I possibly suggest that it's attitudes such as that, which split men and women into such two distinct groups, that are now part of the problem? You seem to imply that even in other groups that are discriminated against, it is the women who are worse off, and by improving their lot we improve the lot of the whole group. Why can't we focus on the whole group to begin with? Why should we draw such strict gender lines and define people by them? Surely, in a truly equal world we wouldn't need to do that?

In my personal opinion, if you want people to treat women and men equally then you need to start considering them equally. Which means no longer reckoning them as entirely separate groups.

Ambersky

If anyone wants up to date information on the progress of women and areas of particular concern here is just one of the many sites you can browse through.
I dont see the point in trawling through looking for statistics because they would probably just be dismissed and if you are actually interested you can go read the information yourself.

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/

Its the United Nations Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality.
They seem to think there is important work to be done in focusing specifically on the position of women in all areas of life.
There is a vast amount of information here
Critical areas of concern are women and poverty, educaton and training, women against violence, women and health, women and armed conflict, women and the economy, women in power and decision making, human rights of women, the girl child, women and rural development, women and health, etc.

gargleblaster

Count Duckula wrote: »

Why can't we focus on the whole group to begin with? Why should we draw such strict gender lines and define people by them?

If we eliminate the classifications that enable us to see unequal or unfair treatment, then yes, that would make it seem as if things are fair, and we would attend to the needs of the whole group, rather than seeing that perhaps one side needs more or more urgent attention than the other. IMO however this seems counterproductive.

Right now males are falling behind in education in some countries. The effort is being made to find out why, and address the situation. If we didn't segregate male and female progress, we wouldn't know there was a problem.

Surely, in a truly equal world we wouldn't need to do that?

We do not live in a truly equal world. Hopefully someday we will, and we can stop comparing specific groups of people in order to determine if there is any unfairness to be addressed.

Count Duckula

Ambersky wrote: »

If anyone wants up to date information on the progress of women and areas of particular concern here is just one of the many sites you can browse through.
I dont see the point in trawling through looking for statistics because they would probably just be dismissed and if you are actually interested you can go read the information yourself.

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/

Its the United Nations Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality.
They seem to think there is important work to be done in focusing specifically on the position of women in all areas of life.
There is a vast amount of information here
Critical areas of concern are women and poverty, educaton and training, women against violence, women and health, women and armed conflict, women and the economy, women in power and decision making, human rights of women, the girl child, women and rural development, women and health, etc.

No one's saying it isn't important. I'm trying to argue that feminism and the fight for women's rights is not the be all and end all of equality; that you can attempt to end discrimination without doing it through gender.

Yes, the UN have a section on women because everyone acknowledges that women still have rights to fight for, particularly in the developing world. But they also have sections of many other thematic areas which need focus and attention in order to improve the lives of people.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here. If you're merely trying to imply that - particularly outside of the developed world - women still are lacking in fundemental equality, then I agree with you. I also agree that it is entirely right to address these issues.

However, if - as I have assumed - you are saying that the fight for women's rights is by far the most important of these issues, and that somehow all other inequalities will be normalised by proxy when women's rights are achieved, I must disagree.

Ms.Odgeynist

gargleblaster wrote: »

If we eliminate the classifications that enable us to see unequal or unfair treatment, then yes, that would make it seem as if things are fair, and we would attend to the needs of the whole group, rather than seeing that perhaps one side needs more or more urgent attention than the other. IMO however this seems counterproductive.

Right now males are falling behind in education in some countries. The effort is being made to find out why, and address the situation. If we didn't segregate male and female progress, we wouldn't know there was a problem.

We do not live in a truly equal world. Hopefully someday we will, and we can stop comparing specific groups of people in order to determine if there is any unfairness to be addressed.

But constructing groups within which to assign certain people can also be counterproductive.
There will always be another sub-group available - always.

I don't always agree with John Waters (Eek - came so far without his name being mentioned), but I do agree with him on one point.
The division is a construct in many ways. Why stop at the division between men and women. Why not do IQ tests and compare gifted people with us thickos, and then see if we can draw up some legislation to redress the imbalance between groups.

Its a facetious point in some ways but the principle is sound.
Its pointless grouping us in this way.

With respect to the developing world, I do agree that there are still massive inequalities that need to tackled directly, and in a gender specific way.

But I fail to see the benefit here.

whydoibother?

Feminism is a word that scares people. If feminist simply means someone who believes that women should be equal to men, then I would have thought the majority of women (and a many men for that matter) would be feminists.

But if you ask someone should men and women be treate equally, you will typically get a yes. If you ask the same person are they a feminist the response will be much more hesitant for fear of not wanting to be labelled angry man-hater.

gargleblaster

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

But constructing groups within which to assign certain people can also be counterproductive.
There will always be another sub-group available - always.

I don't always agree with John Waters (Eek - came so far without his name being mentioned), but I do agree with him on one point.
The division is a construct in many ways. Why stop at the division between men and women. Why not do IQ tests and compare gifted people with us thickos, and then see if we can draw up some legislation to redress the imbalance between groups.

Its a facetious point in some ways but the principle is sound.
Its pointless grouping us in this way.

With respect to the developing world, I do agree that there are still massive inequalities that need to tackled directly, and in a gender specific way.

But I fail to see the benefit here.

There are comparisons between people who score better on IQ tests and those who don't. Those are used to determine if there are any likely causes that can be addressed to help people score better on tests.

I don't know why it's viewed as bad to compare groups, I really don't. Sure some of the differences are meaningless, but those can be easily ignored (or indeed used by those unskilled at debate as red herrings), however the benefits clearly outweigh the very slight problems caused, or so it seems to me.

whydoibother? wrote: »

But if you ask someone should men and women be treate equally, you will typically get a yes. If you ask the same person are they a feminist the response will be much more hesitant for fear of not wanting to be labelled angry man-hater.

This brings to mind the comic posted above, which was used to attempt to shut women up and stop them seeking equal treatment in whatever area.

Ms.Odgeynist

gargleblaster wrote: »

There are comparisons between people who score better on IQ tests and those who don't. Those are used to determine if there are any likely causes that can be addressed to help people score better on tests.

I don't know why it's viewed as bad to compare groups, I really don't. Sure some of the differences are meaningless, but those can be easily ignored (or indeed used by those unskilled at debate as red herrings), however the benefits clearly outweigh the very slight problems caused, or so it seems to me.





This brings to mind the comic posted above, which was used to attempt to shut women up and stop them seeking equal treatment in whatever area. Strange how effective it still is.

Unfortunately our language leads us into 'either or' territory. And anyone, skilled or not at debating, would acknowledge that therein lies the problem at the heart of most debates around feminism. It is, more often than not, adversarial.

While cartoons are powerful debating tools to be sure, I think one example is enough in any thread. Very, very good cartoon though. Really, really good..........

gargleblaster

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Unfortunately our language leads us into 'either or' territory. And anyone, skilled or not at debating, would acknowledge that therein lies the problem at the heart of most debates around feminism. It is, more often than not, adversarial.

While cartoons are powerful debating tools to be sure, I think one example is enough in any thread. Very, very good cartoon though. Really, really good..........

Why is it adversarial? Why the everpresent desire to tell women in particular that they should stop examining any differences in treatment between sexes/genders, and just concern themselves with problems faced by people in general?

It is very sad to me to think of how much feminists all over the world have gone through to achieve as much as they have, and yet today people shrink back from the label. Despite the fact that we are still very clearly not living in that ideal world of equality in which we wouldn't need to examine any different treatment of any group.

Ms.Odgeynist

gargleblaster wrote: »

Why is it adversarial? Why the everpresent desire to tell women in particular that they should stop examining any differences in treatment between sexes/genders, and just concern themselves with problems faced by people in general?

It is very sad to me to think of how much feminists all over the world have gone through to achieve as much as they have, and yet today people shrink back from the label. Despite the fact that we are still very clearly not living in that ideal world of equality in which we wouldn't need to examine any different treatment of any group.

Thats my point - if we're talking purely about the 'difference' between genders, then 'we' should be equally concerned about why it is that there are so many men in jail, involved in crime, turning to violence etc....

BTW, no-one is telling women they shouldn't be examining gender difference, I think the thread is about feminists, of whom many are men. Is that not an example of an adversarial position being taken.

If feminism is about equality, then it should be equally concerned with the situation men find themselves in.

I imagine the fact that men in jail, or involved in crime, or on drugs cannot be described as oppressed, and hence they are ignored? The injustice is no less.

Morag

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Thats my point - if we're talking purely about the 'difference' between genders, then 'we' should be equally concerned about why it is that there are so many men in jail, involved in crime, turning to violence etc....

BTW, no-one is telling women they shouldn't be examining gender difference, I think the thread is about feminists, of whom many are men. Is that not an example of an adversarial position being taken.

If feminism is about equality, then it should be equally concerned with the situation men find themselves in.

I imagine the fact that men in jail, or involved in crime, or on drugs cannot be described as oppressed, and hence they are ignored? The injustice is no less.

Classic derailing comment tbh.

Morag

Count Duckula wrote: »

I'm not really sure who you're preaching to, Ambersky. No one's disagreeing with you that women had a long struggle to obtain something resembling equal rights, and no one's saying that they should just settle down and "take what they've got".

You seem determined to get everyone else here (women and men alike) to agree that there's still some titanic gender war still to be won.

Could I possibly suggest that it's attitudes such as that, which split men and women into such two distinct groups, that are now part of the problem? You seem to imply that even in other groups that are discriminated against, it is the women who are worse off, and by improving their lot we improve the lot of the whole group. Why can't we focus on the whole group to begin with? Why should we draw such strict gender lines and define people by them? Surely, in a truly equal world we wouldn't need to do that?

In my personal opinion, if you want people to treat women and men equally then you need to start considering them equally. Which means no longer reckoning them as entirely separate groups.

But we don't live in that sort of a world yet, if we did the Price Waterhouse Cooper email scandal wouldn't have happened.

whydoibother? wrote: »

Feminism is a word that scares people. If feminist simply means someone who believes that women should be equal to men, then I would have thought the majority of women (and a many men for that matter) would be feminists.

But if you ask someone should men and women be treate equally, you will typically get a yes. If you ask the same person are they a feminist the response will be much more hesitant for fear of not wanting to be labelled angry man-hater.

Which is pretty much an excellent way to divide people and cut them off from the grass roots power base. It's been a very clever tatic to stop people and esp women from getting involved in feminism and empowering them.

Ms.Odgeynist

Sharrow wrote: »

Classic derailing comment tbh.

Hardly!
I've been discussing feminism throughout the thread. Gargleblaster was speaking about feminism being concerned with equal treatment for both genders. I was just looking for elaboration of the point.

This thread has descended unfortunately.

A shame.

Oh the wimmin and the min, will they ever get on????

Morag

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Patriarchy_hurts_men_too

"The patriarchy hurts men too" is a set of silencing or derailing tactics in feminist discussions. Forms can include, but aren't limited to doing these in a discussion about women's experiences or oppression:

pointing out that not all men benefit equally from the patriarchy
pointing out that performing masculinity can be difficult (being expected to be a romantic or sexual aggressor) or dangerous (being expected to be able to physically fight, being physically bullied)
pointing out that sexual violence happens to men too

All of these things are true, and they should be discussed, but insisting that men's problems be constantly acknowledged or centred in feminist discussions is a derailing tactic. Men are, as a class, the group advantaged by the patriarchy, and thus spaces discussing the experiences of women and non-binary gendered people are comparatively rare.

Rather than derailing conversations about and between women, whose who want to discuss male identity, masculinity and the patriarchy need to create new discussions in spaces that aren't marked as women-centred.

This tactic is sufficiently well known that the acronym is sometimes used to identify it: PHMT.

Ms.Odgeynist

Sharrow wrote: »

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Patriarchy_hurts_men_too

That is without a doubt the weakest point I have ever come across.
The fact that the same point comes up repeatedly somehow suggests to you that it doesn't belong in the debate.
Genius. WikiGenius.

As I have stated, my intention is not to derail the discussion, up until the last post, I somehow had it in my head that I was involved in the discussion.

I consider myself feminist to the extent that I believe in equal rights/treatment for women.

But grouping of this manner results in the 'us and them' bs that creates so much strife throughout society. And there are many, very, very many who would disagree with the assertion that we live in a patriarchy. I know I don't

WindSock

Men who are in prison and are addicts may be victims of class oppression.


It is unfair to expect feminists to fight all wars. Feminists can't save the world against every type of injustice but they lend support to those who do, well I don't speak for all of course.

Count Duckula

WindSock wrote: »

Men who are in prison and are addicts may be victims of class oppression.

It is unfair to expect feminists to fight all wars. Feminists can't save the world against every type of injustice but they lend support to those who do, well I don't speak for all of course.

I've heard it said that men ought to be feminists too. I can understand that viewpoint - after all, a man who is not a feminist is essentially saying he enjoys his superiority and thinks that the status quo (of his superiority) should be maintained.

Yet, if a feminist is entitled to focus entirely on her own disadvantages in society and disregard others as simply "not her war", why should men not do the same?

I don't know; perhaps I'm being unfair. It just seems to me that some women's rights activists fight for women's rights and women's rights only. There's nothing wrong with that at all given that it will be women's rights (or indeed their lack thereof) that will be personally affecting them. The problem comes when they think everyone else should be paying it more attention that other types of discrimination, too.

Morag

Two of the best well read and most militant feminists I know are men and they self identify as feminists. They see how cultural and social mores and double standards and inequality has effected and effects the women in their life they care about. It's that simple.

To bring into a discussion about feminist the plight of others is unfair.
Yes I am aware of other types of discrimination and I try and raise awareness and support where I can but bring up other issues when the discussion is about women's issues is derailing and trying to undermine the discussion and those who do identify as feminist. I am a feminist, I am also an advocate for many other things but those aren't relevant in the thread about feminist.

It's like saying in a thread about rescuing and re homing cats that shame on those who do it as they are not rescuing other pets.

WesternNight

Count Duckula wrote: »

Yet, if a feminist is entitled to focus entirely on her own disadvantages in society and disregard others as simply "not her war", why should men not do the same?

Feminism was started by women for women. But anyone can be a feminist in the sense that anyone can actively support women's rights. Being one thing doesn't stop you being another (although obviously you can't be feminist and anti-feminist at the same time..). But each of those things is separate to the next, more often than not. So being a feminist doesn't automatically oblige someone to fight for everything else as well. Although I'm not sure why it's assumed that feminists don't fight for non-feminist causes...but that's neither here nor there really.

metrovelvet

Would you also expect Malcolm X to fight for the 1st ammendment rights of the KKK? Or the disenfranchised working class white American male?

Dudess

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.

Yeah, whatever about preferring not to define oneself as a feminist, and instead as a humanist/egalitarian (something I'd subscribe to myself) it annoys me when it's totally dismissed as man-hating, anti feminine, etc including by some women - they wouldn't have careers, educations, choices if it weren't for it. While I personally don't view it as particularly relevant any more in the developed world (and I'd view the abuse and subjugation of women in other societies as more of a human rights issue) its importance historically should never fade.

CoolGirl101

Absolutely despise the 'feminists' of today, they think women are better than men, not equal.
We have rights already, why the hell are we trying to take others' away?

rainbow kirby

CoolGirl101 wrote: »

why the hell are we trying to take others' away?

Nobody's trying to take anyone else's rights away.

Links234

CoolGirl101 wrote: »

We have rights already, why the hell are we trying to take others' away?

can you explain how feminists are trying to take anyone's rights away?