I need feminism because...

YumCha

If you haven't seen it, there's been a lot of coverage of what happened when the ARU Feminist Society and CUSU Women’s Campaign asked students at Cambridge University why they need feminism:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ailbhemalone/18-reasons-we-still-need-feminism

There was also an amazing article in The Guardian written by a 17 year old who started a feminist society in her school, and they decided to do their own version of the project - but were met with abuse and intimidation from their male peers, and then their school asked them to take their "I need feminism because" photos down, and issued a statement where they didn't condemn the boys' behaviour at all, but instead said the girls were compromising their safety...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2013/jun/20/why-i-started-a-feminist-society

So why do you need feminism?

GalwayGuy2

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...minist-society

Does the society have a website?

YumCha

No, but you can view their photos contributing to the project here

--Kaiser--

One of the placards reads " I need feminism because we all need an equally beautiful wife", is this a joke? Do feminists want all women to be considered equally attractive?

fits

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

One of the placards reads " I need feminism because we all need an equally beautiful wife", is this a joke? Do feminists want all women to be considered equally attractive?

speaking for every single feminist in the world - yes, yes we do.

Wait... no we don't.

confusticated

Where's that one? You sure it was "wife" and not "life"? I saw that...

jaja321

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

One of the placards reads " I need feminism because we all need an equally beautiful wife", is this a joke? Do feminists want all women to be considered equally attractive?

Its reads "I need feminism because we all need an equally beautiful life"

eviltwin

Love the articles, thanks for the link. I was talking to my 16 yr old, proud to be a feminist, daughter about this issue just a few days ago. It seems that the younger generation out there haven't just given up on feminism but are actually embarrassed by it. Its seen as a dirty word.

For years we've had to deal with men telling us that feminists are men haters, you can kind of understand that attitude from men to an extent but when young girls are saying it its scary.

It bothers me greatly that there is no young feminsit movement out there, what do these girls think is responsible for the fact they can go to college, use contraception etc. Do they think these rights were just handed to us on a plate or what?

Potatoeman

She seems to be blaming the boys for some of the girls eating disorders and accusing them of pressuring them into sex.
These are very inflamatory statements which she does not present evidence for. Not really surprised about the backlash. If she was more constructive rather than making accusations she would probably not have these responses.

ASnailInMyNose

I need feminism because i want true equality for men

meeeeh

There are quite a few spoofs of this thing around. Some are funny. It's a bit too much women vs. men for my liking. Not the photos but tha articles. Surely they can't be surprised that there will be abuse or bullying on a FB page aimed at teenagers. Where were they last 20 years?

Morag

Women were told it wasn't' needed, sure they had the equal pay act and laws against discrimination, turns out it takes more then that to change sexism.

Potatoeman

Morag wrote: »

Women were told it wasn't' needed, sure they had the equal pay act and laws against discrimination, turns out it takes more then that to change sexism.

Men are legally discriminated against under family law.

eviltwin

Potatoeman wrote: »

Men are legally discriminated against under family law.

Hopefully that will change. The government are looking at changing the law so fathers are automatic guardians of their children regardless of marital status which will help, the ending of the in camera rule will also help.

Things don't change overnight but they do change. It something women have known for years, our rights didn't just get given to us, it took fighting and pressure and waiting, a lot of waiting. That's something men will have to get used to

YumCha

Potatoeman wrote: »

She seems to be blaming the boys for some of the girls eating disorders and accusing them of pressuring them into sex.
These are very inflamatory statements which she does not present evidence for. Not really surprised about the backlash. If she was more constructive rather than making accusations she would probably not have these responses.

The preface to that is "pressures associated with our gender" - and she only mentions 'peers' in relation to them pressuring her schoolfriends into sexual acts.

If the thing that alarms you the most about that statement is that some unidentified unknown "peers" are being falsely accused, then something is really really wrong here.

meeeeh wrote: »

Surely they can't be surprised that there will be abuse or bullying on a FB page aimed at teenagers. Where were they last 20 years?

The photos were part of a Facebook group called "Who needs Feminism UK" which is not specifically teen focussed. And why should anyone, especially a group of 16/17/18 year old girls have to expect to be bullied?

ted1

eviltwin wrote: »

Hopefully that will change. The government are looking at changing the law so fathers are automatic guardians of their children regardless of marital status which will help, the ending of the in camera rule will also help.

Things don't change overnight but they do change. It something women have known for years, our rights didn't just get given to us, it took fighting and pressure and waiting, a lot of waiting. That's something men will have to get used to

The ending of the in camera rule will be a disaster, I think it does a great job at protecting the young, in many cases had the in camera rule not being in place people would have been to embarrassed to bring cases

cletus van damme

ted1 wrote: »

The ending of the in camera rule will be a disaster, I think it does a great job at protecting the young, in many cases had the in camera rule not being in place people would have been to embarrassed to bring cases

quite the opposite actually
the in-camera rule means that judges in family court have no scrutiny in their behaviour or judgements.

We have quite a successful method of anonymity in criminal trials (like rape trials) .
Yet the trial itself and the justice can be seen to be done.

As somebody who has been through family court (and I won so I'm not bitter) some judges behaviour is outlandish and disgraceful.

Ending the in-camera rule will shine a spotlight on the injustices inherent in the family court

eviltwin

ted1 wrote: »

The ending of the in camera rule will be a disaster, I think it does a great job at protecting the young, in many cases had the in camera rule not being in place people would have been to embarrassed to bring cases

In camera was for a good reason and in theory its great but its not working in practice. There is no reason why the system can't still protect the vulnerable while allowing transparancy that is so badly needed in the family law courts which are a total shambles at the moment tbh.

fatmammycat

Potatoeman wrote: »

Men are legally discriminated against under family law.

Who created these law, do you think?

Ambersky

to get it back to "I need feminism because".
Just looking at the number of locked/ hijacked threads here at times tells me why I need feminism.

“What’s the worst possible thing you can call a woman? Don’t hold back, now.
You’re probably thinking of words like slut, whore, bitch, **** (I told you not to hold back!), skank.
Okay, now, what are the worst things you can call a guy? Fag, girl, bitch, pussy. I’ve even heard the term “mangina.”
Notice anything? The worst thing you can call a girl is a girl. The worst thing you can call a guy is a girl. Being a woman is the ultimate insult. Now tell me that’s not royally ****ed up.”
— Jessica Valenti, Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters

Ok maybe thats being a bit provocative and saying what the heck to all of the what about the men stuff that seems to take over whenever feminism is mentioned here. The following quote I really like and think of as a good comment on a lot of discussions on feminism and makes a point I have been trying to make over and over but it does it more eloquently I think

I think our generation of feminists have lost the idea of there being an oppressive structure (patriarchy) which moulds and controls the actions of individual women. So when we say “High heels are oppressive, they are a way of controlling women’s bodies, preventing us from being able to run and deforming our feet” a lot of women hear this as “Women who wear high heels are all stupid and not proper feminists. They are gullible stooges of patriarchy!” This is because Western women have been brought up in a culture that emphasises individualism and personal choices and ignores the coercive social and cultural structures and hierarchies within which those choices are made.
The criticism is not of individual women and the question is not whether individual women do or don’t choose to wear high heels. The criticism is of the patriarchal system that coerces women into wearing high heels and that denies women a genuinely free choice as to whether or not to wear high heels.

http://http://lionessclub.tumblr.com/post/53447907619/we-live-in-a-really-weird-era-of-feminism-in

Feathers

eviltwin wrote: »

It bothers me greatly that there is no young feminsit movement out there, what do these girls think is responsible for the fact they can go to college, use contraception etc. Do they think these rights were just handed to us on a plate or what?

It's interesting that you see it as a bad thing if young women think that the movement is no longer needed. Surely the point of feminism is to make itself irrelevant? There's a difference too between your two points there — respecting the work done by women before them doesn't necessarily mean they see a need to continue it in the same vein.

clairefontaine

I don't need feminism. I need affordable childcare.

fatmammycat

clairefontaine wrote: »

I don't need feminism. I need affordable childcare.

Without feminism you wouldn't need afordable childcare as you would be the one minding said children.

Feathers

fatmammycat wrote: »

Without feminism you wouldn't need afordable childcare as you would be the one minding said children.

Without feminism having ever existed, not without feminism now.

clairefontaine

fatmammycat wrote: »

Without feminism you wouldn't need afordable childcare as you would be the one minding said children.

Nonsense. I am the one minding the children anyway. Women went into the workforce because of economically driven forces, not feminism.

If it didn't make money for people it wouldn't have happened. Doubly the supply of employees and you get cheaper labour.

Feminists and men's rights groups need to stop with the ideologies of apartheid and start thinking more collaboratively.

clairefontaine

eviltwin wrote: »

In camera was for a good reason and in theory its great but its not working in practice. There is no reason why the system can't still protect the vulnerable while allowing transparancy that is so badly needed in the family law courts which are a total shambles at the moment tbh.

If they abolish the in camera rule then they should move all rural family court cases to Dublin. Too small communities out there.

eviltwin

Feathers wrote: »

It's interesting that you see it as a bad thing if young women think that the movement is no longer needed. Surely the point of feminism is to make itself irrelevant? There's a difference too between your two points there — respecting the work done by women before them doesn't necessarily mean they see a need to continue it in the same vein.

That would be fine if there was no need for feminism but there still is and its a worry when the next generation either can't or won't see it.

Feathers

eviltwin wrote: »

That would be fine if there was no need for feminism but there still is and its a worry when the next generation either can't or won't see it.

There'll always be a need to address social imbalances, but that doesn't necessarily equate to the need for a feminist movement. Taking chlidcare as an example given — it could be presented as a "women's rights" issue. On the other hand, it could be seen as one affecting stay-at-home parents, gender neutrally.

Moving away from separate, binary men's/women's rights positions is surely a good development.

YumCha

eviltwin wrote: »

That would be fine if there was no need for feminism but there still is and its a worry when the next generation either can't or won't see it.

I'm confused - are you saying that the girls in the Guardian article are part of this? Or that they're in the minority?

eviltwin

YumCha wrote: »

I'm confused - are you saying that the girls in the Guardian article are part of this? Or that they're in the minority?

No I went slightly off topic and was talking about my observations of girls my daughter goes to school with who think feminism is redundant and embarassing.

clairefontaine

Feathers wrote: »

There'll always be a need to address social imbalances, but that doesn't necessarily equate to the need for a feminist movement. Taking chlidcare as an example given — it could be presented as a "women's rights" issue. On the other hand, it could be seen as one affecting stay-at-home parents, gender neutrally.

Moving away from separate, binary men's/women's rights positions is surely a good development.

They need to start thinking in terms of family.

fatmammycat

clairefontaine wrote: »

Nonsense. I am the one minding the children anyway. Women went into the workforce because of economically driven forces, not feminism.

If it didn't make money for people it wouldn't have happened. Doubly the supply of employees and you get cheaper labour.

Feminists and men's rights groups need to stop with the ideologies of apartheid and start thinking more collaboratively.

That sounds like libertarian claptrap to me; Situations change, war changes the amount of available working people, both male and female: democratic will shaped the employment position too: without feminism and women fighting for our rights, including workers' rights, you would have no need to worry about the payment of children's needs, you simply would hardly be allowed compete with men in the average workforce.

Potatoeman

YumCha wrote: »

The preface to that is "pressures associated with our gender" - and she only mentions 'peers' in relation to them pressuring her schoolfriends into sexual acts.

If the thing that alarms you the most about that statement is that some unidentified unknown "peers" are being falsely accused, then something is really really wrong here.



The photos were part of a Facebook group called "Who needs Feminism UK" which is not specifically teen focussed. And why should anyone, especially a group of 16/17/18 year old girls have to expect to be bullied?

It reads like an accusation which would explain the hostile response. There will always be different social pressures on teenagers but eating disorders are more about the individual than the pressures peers place on them.
It's not alarming, it just seems like she made accusations and didn't like the backlash.

YumCha

Potatoeman wrote: »

It reads like an accusation which would explain the hostile response. There will always be different social pressures on teenagers but eating disorders are more about the individual than the pressures peers place on them.
It's not alarming, it just seems like she made accusations and didn't like the backlash.

I'm going to try this one more time - she didn't say the boys caused eating disorders. I still don't know how you can come to that conclusion.

And if you don't think girls being coerced into sexual acts is alarming, and that the act of victims telling their stories actually justifies backlash then I hope to god that all the women in your life somehow evade being part of the 1 in 5 adult women who will experience sexual assault, lest they come to you for help and you tell them that they need to present evidence.

Femme_Fatale

How is feminism still needed in the West? Genuine question, not being smart. I know there are certain things which affect women simply because of their gender, ditto for men. I'd believe in focusing on both together, rather than it being a case of "Them and us".

Feminism is needed in Afghanistan because women are actually subjugated simply because of being women (although some might argue that that's not just a gender issue but a human rights one).

Not that I have any time for women viewing feminism as a dirty word. I can't stand that attitude.

Potatoeman

YumCha wrote: »

I'm going to try this one more time - she didn't say the boys caused eating disorders. I still don't know how you can come to that conclusion.

And if you don't think girls being coerced into sexual acts is alarming, and that the act of victims telling their stories actually justifies backlash then I hope to god that all the women in your life somehow evade being part of the 1 in 5 adult women who will experience sexual assault, lest they come to you for help and you tell them that they need to present evidence.

I said it reads like an accusation which would explain the backlash. Publishing something that can be interpreted as an accusation will get a response.

Morag

I need Feminism because I have to have conversations about Sult Shaming with my kids.
I need feminism as I have less rights to health care then a man.
I need feminism as I have less control over my fertility then a man.
I need feminism as there are not enough women in our government.
I need feminism as my sexual past will be used to paint me as immoral
and not a credible witness if I ever need to try and report someone for rape or sexual assault.

GalwayGuy2

Feminism is needed in Afghanistan because women are actually subjugated simply because of being women (although some might argue that that's not just a gender issue but a human rights one).

I wonder is it good to call it "Feminism"? To my mind it has it's roots in western politics, and could be perceived as "Western Hegemony".

spurious

Wasn't feminism always a human rights issue?

clairefontaine

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

How is feminism still needed in the West? Genuine question, not being smart. I know there are certain things which affect women simply because of their gender, ditto for men. I'd believe in focusing on both together, rather than it being a case of "Them and us".

Feminism is needed in Afghanistan because women are actually subjugated simply because of being women (although some might argue that that's not just a gender issue but a human rights one).

Feminism cannot do anything to stop what is happenning to women in Afghanistan, or to the men who make jokes about Mohammed either.

Also they can't be seen to change too much about Islam for being labelled islamaphobic.

Femme_Fatale

spurious wrote: »

Wasn't feminism always a human rights issue?

So why a focus just on women, why not a focus on all affected due to their gender?

Morag

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Feminism_101

Although improvements have been made, particularly in the last 50-100 years, men and women are not always treated equally. Our society still has systematic biases against women in some regards. Some of these systematic biases against women have the side effect of harming some men, but they are still biases against women.

Lyaiera

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

So why a focus just on women, why not a focus on all affected due to their gender?

Feathers wrote: »

There'll always be a need to address social imbalances, but that doesn't necessarily equate to the need for a feminist movement. Taking chlidcare as an example given — it could be presented as a "women's rights" issue. On the other hand, it could be seen as one affecting stay-at-home parents, gender neutrally.

Moving away from separate, binary men's/women's rights positions is surely a good development.

Are you for real? Let's keep arguing about the name of what we want to do. That'll mean we're certainly able to start working on what we want to happen in about 50 years time or so. Never mind that the first time the issues of child care, bodily and working rights were addressed was with feminism.

It's the same with LGBT rights in the UK. A weird revisionist history where "Stonewall" the gay rights organisation take their name from the Stonewall Riots where women, both cis and trans were instrumental in what happened.

It's obvious you have no care whatsoever about people's actual rights when all you are concerned with is arguing about the name given to something. "Feminism" has been arguing for a system where there is equal consideration for women and men for 50 years, more than likely 100 years and probably even longer than that.

If you're only concerned with finding the right name for the argument for equality for everyone then you're not concerned with it at all.

Femme_Fatale

Lyaiera wrote: »

It's obvious you have no care whatsoever about people's actual rights when all you are concerned with is arguing about the name given to something.

No it isn't. In the West, feminism was obviously hugely important and valuable and welcome until quite recently, but I think it just reinforces the gender divide now; I'm not saying there aren't issues that affect us because of our gender, but we are not second-class citizens overall like we used to be.

Lyaiera

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

No it isn't. In the West, feminism was obviously hugely important and valuable and welcome until quite recently, but I think it just reinforces the gender divide now; I'm not saying there aren't issues that affect us because of our gender, but we are not second-class citizens overall like we used to be.

So what you're saying is let's abandon the entirety of the good feminism has done, and still does in the name of women who have suffered and instead adopt a new name.

I'm cool with that if you can find a name that would suit. A name that would recognise the historical significance of feminism. And a name that would continue to recognise that it is the supposedly female role in life that is seen as lesser.

clairefontaine

Lyaiera wrote: »

So what you're saying is let's abandon the entirety of the good feminism has done, and still does in the name of women who have suffered and instead adopt a new name.

I'm cool with that if you can find a name that would suit. A name that would recognise the historical significance of feminism. And a name that would continue to recognise that it is the supposedly female role in life that is seen as lesser.

What female role are you referring to?

Lams

Lyaiera wrote: »

Are you for real? Let's keep arguing about the name of what we want to do. That'll mean we're certainly able to start working on what we want to happen in about 50 years time or so. Never mind that the first time the issues of child care, bodily and working rights were addressed was with feminism.

It's the same with LGBT rights in the UK. A weird revisionist history where "Stonewall" the gay rights organisation take their name from the Stonewall Riots where women, both cis and trans were instrumental in what happened.

It's obvious you have no care whatsoever about people's actual rights when all you are concerned with is arguing about the name given to something. "Feminism" has been arguing for a system where there is equal consideration for women and men for 50 years, more than likely 100 years and probably even longer than that.

If you're only concerned with finding the right name for the argument for equality for everyone then you're not concerned with it at all.

Lets not kid ourselves, feminism hasn't really been arguing for equal consideration for men and women, it has been arguing for improved rights of women even if those rights advance inequality.

clairefontaine

Lams wrote: »

Lets not kid ourselves, feminism hasn't really been arguing for equal consideration for men and women, it has been arguing for improved rights of women even if those rights advance inequality.

It's been arguing for all sorts of things, like their being no difference between the sexes and wearing skirts is a sign of internalised oppression, that men are redundant, and your husband is a potential rapist.

B0jangles

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's been arguing for all sorts of things, like their being no difference between the sexes and wearing skirts is a sign of internalised oppression, that men are redundant, and your husband is a potential rapist.

Are straw feminists are hiding in YOUR closet?

http://www.harkavagrant.com/?id=341

We only ask the hard questions most people are TOO AFRAID to ask!

WinterSong

http://areyouafeminist.com/

Feathers

Lyaiera wrote: »

It's obvious you have no care whatsoever about people's actual rights when all you are concerned with is arguing about the name given to something.

That's exactly the point I was making, though from the opposite angle - someone was annoyed that young women weren't identifying with the term feminism. So long as the issues themselves get addressed, does it need to be given an umbrella name of "feminism"?