Do you consider yourself a feminist?

Cavehill Red

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I did read the book, but with a critical eye I'd hasten to add. I found the subject matter and the author's point of view interesting but I don't think he quite 'gets' the female characters- they're less people in their own right than illustrations of the different guises of femininity under the male gaze, which informs my reading of the novel as a whole. I think it says more about Martin Amis as a man and his attitude to women than it does about feminism in general. As an aside, I think he does male characters and sexual tension brilliantly, in this and his other novels.

No, he probably doesn't get female characters. It's an accusation that's been thrown at him (with varying degrees of legitimacy) since day one and The Rachel Papers.
The Pregnant Widow is indeed about what Amis perceives as the negative developments arising from first and second wave feminism though, especially those which damaged impressionable young women at the time.
Largely he had his own sister in mind when he wrote the novel, but I suspect the haunting image of his cousin Lucy Partington, murdered by the psychopath Fred West, may be relevant there too.
His suggestion in the novel (on the one hand very patronising and on the other demonstrably true in some regards) seems to be that the liberation element of first wave feminism largely functioned to liberate men from previous sexual norms, whereas the liberation of women to enter the workplace turned out not to be a real liberation at all.

meeeeh

B0jangles wrote: »

Agree absolutely that no-one should be dictating how women in other countries choose to live their lives, but if we can help by, say donating money to be spent by local organisations, that is a non-patronizing form of support isn't it?

It depends what they do.

Da Shins Kelly

meeeeh wrote: »

But that is their battle to be fought. Not us westerners dictating others what they should feel and think.

Right, so we shouldn't comment on or show support for women who are publically flogged or executed for reasons ranging from wearing nail varnish to refusing to give up their jobs in Afghanistan or genital mutilation across Africa or the use of rape as a weapon of war in the Congo because that would be "dictating to others what they should feel and think"? These are human rights issues. If these acts are not publically condemned, nothing will ever change.

meeeeh

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Right, so we shouldn't comment on or show support for women who are publically flogged or executed for reasons ranging from wearing nail varnish to refusing to give up their jobs in Afghanistan or genital mutilation across Africa or the use of rape as a weapon of war in the Congo because that would be "dictating to others what they should feel and think"? These are human rights issues. If these acts are not publically condemned, nothing will ever change.

Or attack Iraq to top the despotic, homicidal maniac who is oppressing his own people and starting wars with neighbors?

I actually don't know and it's hard to make distinction between our ethnocentric views, economic interests, letting other cultures to evolve in their own way... We view our culture as superior to others but does that give us right to impose it on others who might feel that theirs is superior to ours.

WhyGoBald

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Right, so we shouldn't comment on or show support for women who are publically flogged or executed for reasons ranging from wearing nail varnish to refusing to give up their jobs in Afghanistan or genital mutilation across Africa or the use of rape as a weapon of war in the Congo because that would be "dictating to others what they should feel and think"? These are human rights issues. If these acts are not publically condemned, nothing will ever change.

Err... yes, where there is a human rights issue, certainly we should condemn, and act where possible, such as in the case of war crimes. But it's also right to be cautious of the increasing tendency by western societies to use the nineteenth century justification for intervening in other countries on 'humanitarian' grounds. It's a delicate balance, but there are issues that we can address that affect immigrant communities here and in Europe generally, such as female genital mutilation and honour killings.

Da Shins Kelly

WhyGoBald wrote: »

Err... yes, where there is a human rights issue, certainly we should condemn, and act where possible, such as in the case of war crimes. But it's also right to be cautious of the increasing tendency by western societies to use the nineteenth century justification for intervening in other countries on 'humanitarian' grounds. It's a delicate balance, but there are issues that we can address that affect immigrant communities here and in Europe generally, such as female genital mutilation and honour killings.

I'm not saying that we should barge in and dismantle their governments and start from scratch with our own vision, that would be absurd. But I do think that we have a responsibility in the West to make an issue of and condemn such acts and women here should take an interest in the plight of other women around the world and support them and I've found a lot don't. I was shocked to hear a friend say recently that she believes that gender equality is no longer an issue, which is an incredibly West-centred and self-absorbed position to be taking. Just because it doesn't effect us, doesn't mean it's not an issue. Women's issues are still hugely important in today's world, only now it tends to have an impact women in different parts of the world, more than us.

To be honest, I don't think we have any obligation to tip-toe around this stuff for fear of offending some people. Genital mutilation is wrong. Publicly executing or flogging a woman for any reason is wrong. Acting like it's a cultural difference and so we should just mind out own business is irresponsible.

P.S: I don't mean to come across as pushy or anything, it's just I'm incredibly passionate about this stuff. Reading about what happens to women in places like the Congo makes me want to cry. The world is a f*cked up place for a lot of women and sometimes it's hard to appreciate how lucky we are.

Giselle

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

To be honest, I don't think we have any obligation to tip-toe around this stuff for fear of offending some people. Genital mutilation is wrong. Publicly executing or flogging a woman for any reason is wrong. Acting like it's a cultural difference and so we should just mind out own business is irresponsible.

P.S: I don't mean to come across as pushy or anything, it's just I'm incredibly passionate about this stuff. Reading about what happens to women in places like the Congo makes me want to cry. The world is a f*cked up place for a lot of women and sometimes it's hard to appreciate how lucky we are.

It always surprises me how often I'm accused of employing white/western/straight/female privilege when I question the plight of women in challenging parts of the world.

Its not a patronizing 'I know better' mentality, its concern for the human rights of people who have no voice, or no one listening to it.

Respecting other cultures shouldn't extend to tolerating culturally sanctioned abuse, ever, anywhere.

meeeeh

The danger is that us westerners often like to "save" people that don't want to be saved. Of course there is a place for organisations like Amnesty International and yes there are issues that should be tackled. But we do forget that our point of view is constructed in our culture and I strongly believe that no culture is superior to another and that different cultures should be able to evolve according to the wishes of their members and not how we in west want them to evolve. And if women in Muslim world feel the need to wear burka it's not my job to lecture them that they shouldn't.

Morag

meeeeh wrote: »

The danger is that us westerners often like to "save" people that don't want to be saved. Of course there is a place for organisations like Amnesty International and yes there are issues that should be tackled. But we do forget that our point of view is constructed in our culture and I strongly believe that no culture is superior to another and that different cultures should be able to evolve according to the wishes of their members and not how we in west want them to evolve. And if women in Muslim world feel the need to wear burka it's not my job to lecture them that they shouldn't.

I don't have a problem with muslim women choosing to wear a burka I do have issues with how in certain countries they are not allow to drive.

Da Shins Kelly

meeeeh wrote: »

The danger is that us westerners often like to "save" people that don't want to be saved. Of course there is a place for organisations like Amnesty International and yes there are issues that should be tackled. But we do forget that our point of view is constructed in our culture and I strongly believe that no culture is superior to another and that different cultures should be able to evolve according to the wishes of their members and not how we in west want them to evolve. And if women in Muslim world feel the need to wear burka it's not my job to lecture them that they shouldn't.

Well, there should be a choice at least. In a lot of these countries there isn't. And I'm sure there are many women in those parts of the world who would rather they didn't have to run the risk of being stoned for not wanting to quit their jobs. I honestly think that these people have no idea how badly they're being treated until they see how the rest of the world is living. Last summer my sister had a young guy from Saudi Arabia staying with her as a student learning English. At first he was scandalized by the sight of women driving cars, wearing short dresses or low-cut tops, by women being on an equal level to men in terms of domestic issues, by the idea of social drinking, etc. By the end of the summer, he didn't want to go home.

It's not about "lecturing" people, it's just about awareness. I think the internet and particularly social networking could have a part to play in that.

jaja321

Giselle wrote: »

It always surprises me how often I'm accused of employing white/western/straight/female privilege when I question the plight of women in challenging parts of the world.

Its not a patronizing 'I know better' mentality, its concern for the human rights of people who have no voice, or no one listening to it.

Respecting other cultures shouldn't extend to tolerating culturally sanctioned abuse, ever, anywhere.

Absolutely. Human rights is also often accused of being a western ideology, but in fact if you look at the constitutions of most countries in the world, similar language is used. Female genital mutiliation is against the law for example in Ethiopia, yet culturally it is widely accepted and the numbers of girls who have undergone FGM is staggering. Often people are not aware of their rights and raising awareness about the issue and challenging cultural acceptance of something that has such long-term health risks for women in later life can only be a good thing in my opinion.

meeeeh

Sharrow wrote: »

I don't have a problem with muslim women choosing to wear a burka I do have issues with how in certain countries they are not allow to drive.

But it's first on them to oppose that.

My opinion is that in general we should first deal with our own issues and then tell others how to sort out theirs.

WhyGoBald

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

It's not about "lecturing" people, it's just about awareness. I think the internet and particularly social networking could have a part to play in that.

I completely agree, and Saudi Arabia is somewhere I would never go for any consideration. Talking of which, something else that should be considered is whether the many Irish people go to work there have a role in legitimising or shoring up the abuses that go on there.

Daisy M

This thread is really enlightning, yes I am a feminist, much to my suprise!! I had been kindof of the opinion that a feminist was a woman who wanted to be the same as men, now I believe a feminist is a woman who wants to be equal to men while embracing the differences between the two genders.

Is this correct or any where near?

Da Shins Kelly

WhyGoBald wrote: »

I completely agree, and Saudi Arabia is somewhere I would never go for any consideration. Talking of which, something else that should be considered is whether the many Irish people go to work there have a role in legitimising or shoring up the abuses that go on there.

I think there's a big 'when in Rome...' attitude from Westerners there. Which I can understand, given the fear of what could happen should you flout the laws in countries like that.

Giselle

Daisy M wrote: »

This thread is really enlightning, yes I am a feminist, much to my suprise!! I had been kindof of the opinion that a feminist was a woman who wanted to be the same as men, now I believe a feminist is a woman who wants to be equal to men while embracing the differences between the two genders.

Is this correct or any where near?

I'd say its very close

I've observed lately that some young girls seem to think being feminist means adopting a cultural identity that has no room for the traditionally feminine.

Not long ago I was walking past two undergrads at a Uni I was visiting, and overheard one saying, quite seriously, that she could never be a feminist because she couldn't stand the idea of not shaving her legs!

An extreme, to be sure, but there is this loose idea among some younger girls (men too) that being a feminist involves wearing dungarees and being good at bricklaying, and shunning the patriarchal tyranny of makeup, high heels, or handbags .

Yet the freedoms and respect they thankfully take for granted every day of their lives. are theirs because of the hard fought and hard won battles previous generations of feminists waged on behalf of all women.

WhyGoBald

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I think there's a big 'when in Rome...' attitude from Westerners there. Which I can understand, given the fear of what could happen should you flout the laws in countries like that.

True, but I was thinking more of people who decide to go there for a few years to pack away a little nest egg, knowing that they are servicing, not the ordinary people, but the rich elites. Women who go to work as nurses, for example, are treated as a second class, though obviously not as badly as Saudi women are. Is it right to go knowing your function is to prop up a corrupt regime and to be mistreated.

yawha

Daisy M wrote: »

This thread is really enlightning, yes I am a feminist, much to my suprise!! I had been kindof of the opinion that a feminist was a woman who wanted to be the same as men, now I believe a feminist is a woman who wants to be equal to men while embracing the differences between the two genders.

Is this correct or any where near?

Depends on what you think the "differences" are, IMO.

What do you think they are?

Daisy M

yawha wrote: »

Depends on what you think the "differences" are, IMO.

What do you think they are?

Well first and foremost a penis:).
Seriously though without trying to generalise simple things like women usually can multitask better than men. More women that men will express a preference to be able to spend more time in the home if they have children. Men and women often have different interests it would be unusual to see a woman driving a souped up car. Take Katie Taylor as an example, what a wonderful Lady she is but she is in the minority in her field.
I suppose by difference I mean their interests, some careers are predominantly male some female possibly again reflecting how appealing these careers are to each of the sexes.

yawha

I would think that the feminist viewpoint would be to question why all of these divides exist, and understand how they arise, rather than embracing them.

How do you decide what you should embrace as a perfectly fine and normal difference between the sexes and a gender divide due to discrimination, prejudice or societal expectations? How many of these different interests are entirely due to how children are raised and treated by their parents based on their gender?

Daisy M

yawha wrote: »

I would think that the feminist viewpoint would be to question why all of these divides exist, and understand how they arise, rather than embracing them.

How do you decide what you should embrace as a perfectly fine and normal difference between the sexes and a gender divide due to discrimination, prejudice or societal expectations? How many of these different interests are entirely due to how children are raised and treated by their parents based on their gender?

To be honest I just get on with doing things I enjoy and I don't pay much heed as to whether they are traditionally male or female interests. I have a big interest in hair and makeup but my favourite reading and viewing material is the zombie genre, this usually has most but not all women looking at me like I have 10 heads.

When we built our house I was the one who spoke mainly with our builder because I had a better grasp of the whole concept than my husband. I think it suprised the builders but anything that needed discussing was gone through thoroughly with me.

My husband can Iron better than any woman I have ever met, he always had more stamina than me when it came to pacing the floors with a crying baby, he can gift wrap beautifully.

I could go on but you get the idea we each do what we are comfortable with/enjoy but usually my interests are more towards the traditional womens interests and his towards the mens.. I come from a farming background where the men worked outside and the girls helped in the house AND on the farm.

Crumble Froo

Wompa1 wrote: »

Oh so do you think other women judge you because you are a stay out home mom or something? I'm sure they don't, feminists fought for womens rights to choose for decades, it would be pretty hypocritical of any feminist to look down or put you down for your choices.

Just cos it would be hypocritical, unfair, or inconsistent, doesn't mean that women (or men) won't be judgmental. I'm not a mother, but have definitely come across this attitude before.

xDramaxQueenx wrote: »

I always assumed that being a feminist meant that you were well able to everything a man was doing, and more. Being independent as it were. Or is it okay to pick and choose when you want to be a feminist?

To me, this is the problem with the perception of feminism. I think that people tend to focus overly on feminism when in reality the important issue is equality. I will call myself a feminist hesitantly, because for so many people, a feminism is about bra burning, men hating and proving that women can be 'just as good as men'.

Feminism is about equal opportunity and mutual respect. It's about not being disadvantaged in society because of your sex or gender. It's about having options in life that are not determined by your sex or gender.

In my life, I think feminism was very important in realising, in my early 20s, how socialised gender divisions had shaped me personally, to appreciate how the expectations and encouragements of those around me based on my gender had helped to get me where I was today.

Cavehill Red

I'm a bloke. I'm not a feminist for that reason. Before people tell me that blokes can be feminists too, I'd just clarify that while that may be so, I'd be curious why a man wouldn't then describe himself as a humanist, or an 'equalist', or simply in favour of equality between genders.
I'm a single father, and I've been at the coalface of where feminism ceases to be about emancipating women and becomes being about obtaining and preserving superiority over men, in areas such as access to children.
I entirely understand the motive of self-interest, indeed expect it in most circumstances, which is why I understand why women would wish to be feminist.
Similarly, that self-interest in feminism on behalf of only one gender is why I am not, cannot and never will describe myself as a feminist. I believe in equality too much to consider myself feminist, and I lack the necessary self-loathing of my own gender to ally with a political ideology that in some circumstances seeks not equality but superiority over my gender.

Morag

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm a bloke. I'm not a feminist for that reason. Before people tell me that blokes can be feminists too, I'd just clarify that while that may be so, I'd be curious why a man wouldn't then describe himself as a humanist, or an 'equalist', or simply in favour of equality between genders.

Because they see the double standard in how women are treated in society and think it needs to be hightled and dealt with.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm a single father, and I've been at the coalface of where feminism ceases to be about emancipating women and becomes being about obtaining and preserving superiority over men, in areas such as access to children.

Please show where and how feminists or feminism are responsible for this when the it was the The Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 which made women sole guardians of " illegitimate infant" which was legislated and put in place by men and male judges which is the cause of this?

I do think that all fathers and children should have rights when ti comes to each other under law and just just children of married couples.

Several times I have tried to get actions on this going but I have found a lack of interest from men on this topic and paternity leave.
I don't see how it is a feminist interest to leave women holding the baby as it were and assuming that they are the automatic parent and guardian.


If there was a lobby group started I would happily help with it, and I don't see it as being a conflict with me being a feminist what so ever.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I entirely understand the motive of self-interest, indeed expect it in most circumstances, which is why I understand why women would wish to be feminist.


Similarly, that self-interest in feminism on behalf of only one gender is why I am not, cannot and never will describe myself as a feminist. I believe in equality too much to consider myself feminist, and I lack the necessary self-loathing of my own gender to ally with a political ideology that in some circumstances seeks not equality but superiority over my gender.

I think that you are misinformed as to what feminism is about if you think it is about making one gender superior to another.

Cavehill Red

Sharrow wrote: »

Because they see the double standard in how women are treated in society and think it needs to be hightled and dealt with.

That's not a one-way street, though.

Sharrow wrote: »

Please show where and how feminists or feminism are responsible for this when the it was the The Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 which made women sole guardians of " illegitimate infant" which was legislated and put in place by men and male judges which is the cause of this?
I do think that all fathers and children should have rights when ti comes to each other under law and just just children of married couples.
Several times I have tried to get actions on this going but I have found a lack of interest from men on this topic and paternity leave.
I don't see how it is a feminist interest to leave women holding the baby as it were and assuming that they are the automatic parent and guardian.
If there was a lobby group started I would happily help with it, and I don't see it as being a conflict with me being a feminist what so ever.

I'd largely agree with you. Nevertheless, my experience as a campaigner for father's rights is that organisations which represent, for example, single mothers or indeed single parents as whole tend to be highly resistant in practice to renovating legislation which currently provides women with enormous privilege over childrearing responsibilities.

There have been active campaigns to preserve the in camera courts. There has been little or no condemnation of the system whereby fathers can be denied access to their children on the basis of unfounded abuse accusations or the concomitant lack of legal redress upon mothers who make such accusations.

A new lobby group, SPARK, started up recently to campaign against the cuts levied upon single parents. Inevitably, and depressingly, the organisation is entirely run by women, and the manhating rhetoric emanating from them renders them defunct as a body that could represent the interests of fathers and mothers equally. As a result, they have no interest in equalising parenting legislation in Ireland, because that would run against the current superior status in law that they possess. This is not equality. This is lip-service paid to equality. This is not representing single parents. It's representing single mothers solely.

If you can show me examples of where mainstream feminism advocates, campaigns for and endorses the stripping back of women's rights in order to create equality, I'll start considering myself a feminist. Until I see that, and I don't see it anywhere, I'll continue considering feminism to be a self-interested ideology for a gender which is not my own.

I have many overlapping interests with feminism in the area of equality. But when it comes to inferior rights of men being preserved, that's where I part company.

Sharrow wrote: »

I think that you are misinformed as to what feminism is about if you think it is about making one gender superior to another.

I think you've misread what I wrote.

Morag

I know very little about Spark other then they have done a protest, can you link me to anything of theirs back up the point you have made? Also do they list themselves as being a feminist organization?

Madam_X

I don't know. I mean... gender inequality/downright misogyny outside of the western world is atrocious in many societies, however, I don't see how concern for that and highlighting it (cannot actually believe someone said it's their battle to fight - try saying that to women who are repeatedly gang-raped from childhood onwards by the military in the Congo ) is feminist - it's just concern for abused people, who happen to be women.
Here in the western world, I know things are not perfect - in terms of gender bias (for either gender - but generally in different ways) however again, to rail against these things: I can't see how that's feminist. If the focus of feminism is only on women, then that's surely unfair, seeing as it prioritises one group over another, which flies in the face of equality. I know countries like Pakistan, the Congo, Somalia etc are extremely patriarchal, but men suffer there too, and that shouldn't be forgotten. A lot of the soldiers who commit heinous acts were turned into monsters from boyhood by the powers that be. Trying to help people living through such hell and creating awareness of their plights is not forcing western values on them btw - seems a contrarian thing to say, just for the sake of it.

So I don't identify myself as a feminist - maybe others see me as a moderate one though. I'm certainly not making that statement however so that I won't be seen as a man-hater bla bla, because obviously people, who think all feminists are man-haters, don't put much thought into things. Ditto people who use the term "feminist" as an insult. It's certainly not a "woman's world" here in the West either, the way some people like to pretend it is, however that is not to deny some women do have the upper hand in certain situations.
I can get defensive when there's woman-hating, but again, that's hardly feminist. I would certainly be defensive of men in the face of man-hating.

Wouldn't be anti feminist though (dur... I'm a woman) apart from the extremely aggressive stuff, but that's on the fringes, despite the notion it's so widespread - there are lots of types of feminism, much of it moderate. And I love chivalry, make-up etc and don't have a problem with women getting their kits off for money, but that's not going to cause me to dismiss feminism, as if the two have to be mutually exclusive.

Cavehill Red

Sharrow wrote: »

I know very little about Spark other then they have done a protest, can you link me to anything of theirs back up the point you have made? Also do they list themselves as being a feminist organization?

Like their facebook page and read back for yourself.

Also,

Cavehill Red wrote:

If you can show me examples of where mainstream feminism advocates, campaigns for and endorses the stripping back of women's rights in order to create equality, I'll start considering myself a feminist. Until I see that, and I don't see it anywhere, I'll continue considering feminism to be a self-interested ideology for a gender which is not my own.

Any examples?

Morag

http://www.irishfeministnetwork.org/1/post/2012/3/iwd-special-parental-leave-in-ireland-the-case-for-reform.html

flowerchild

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm a bloke. I'm not a feminist for that reason. Before people tell me that blokes can be feminists too, I'd just clarify that while that may be so, I'd be curious why a man wouldn't then describe himself as a humanist, or an 'equalist', or simply in favour of equality between genders.
I'm a single father, and I've been at the coalface of where feminism ceases to be about emancipating women and becomes being about obtaining and preserving superiority over men, in areas such as access to children.
I entirely understand the motive of self-interest, indeed expect it in most circumstances, which is why I understand why women would wish to be feminist.
Similarly, that self-interest in feminism on behalf of only one gender is why I am not, cannot and never will describe myself as a feminist. I believe in equality too much to consider myself feminist, and I lack the necessary self-loathing of my own gender to ally with a political ideology that in some circumstances seeks not equality but superiority over my gender.

I don't agree with your take on feminism, but that is cool.

I do think that there is discrimination against men in getting access to leave from work or changed hours for the purposes of parenting, and that this discrimination is more tolerated that other areas of discrimination.