I need feminism because...

TINA1984

Lyaiera wrote: »

Yes. It's called "Intersectionality" and it's been a part of feminism since we moved from the Second Wave to the Third Wave.

So I presume then you want electoral quota's introduced for these minorities as well?

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

This is such bollocks. Every ****ing thread on feminism goes back to this despite it being explained that all of those issues stem from the way women were and continue to be treated. "Patriarchy" look it ****ing up.

I'm not suggesting that any of these stem from Feminism. I can fully accept that Patriarchy is probably at the root of most if not all gender inequalities, for both genders.

What I'm asking is; if Feminism is about gender equality, why does it ignore those gender inequalities that advantage women?

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that any of these stem from Feminism. I can fully accept that Patriarchy is probably at the root of most if not all gender inequalities, for both genders.

What I'm asking is; if Feminism is about gender equality, why does it ignore those gender inequalities that advantage women?

Straw feminists again.

Edit: And "Den y u call it feminism!?!"

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

Straw feminists again.

If you're going to try to dismiss what I'm asking as a straw argument, you might do me the courtesy of explaining why it is so, otherwise you just look like you're attempting to shout me down.

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you're going to try to dismiss what I'm asking as a straw argument, you might do me the courtesy of explaining why it is so, otherwise you just look like you're attempting to shout me down.

I said "Straw feminists" not "straw argument."

Also, no.

Strawberry Swan

runawaybishop wrote: »

What a retarded assumption.

Why? I took the time to write out my post and explain my position. If there is false logic in my argument let me hear it. And try not to use the word retarded, it's insulting on many levels.

TINA1984

TINA1984 wrote: »

So I presume then you want electoral quota's introduced for these minorities as well?

'Y U NO' reply to this question Lyaiera?

GalwayGuy2

This is such bollocks. Every ****ing thread on feminism goes back to this despite it being explained that all of those issues stem from the way women were and continue to be treated. "Patriarchy" look it ****ing up.

Not entirely sure I agree with the term patriarchy. Not saying women weren't second class citizens, or that men weren't in more authoritative roles, but it does seem to stress the structural authority, and ignore the more nebulous authorities.

Lyaiera

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Not entirely sure I agree with the term patriarchy. Not saying women weren't second class citizens, or that men weren't in more authoritative roles, but it does seem to stress the structural authority, and ignore the more nebulous authorities.

No it doesn't.

TINA1984 wrote: »

'Y U NO' reply to this question Lyaiera?

Because it's a stupid question.

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

I said "Straw feminists" not "straw argument."

How did my question have anything to do with 'straw feminists' then? The dismissal makes no sense.

Also, no.

Then why not take the time to actually respond to the question, because I've noticed it tends not to be.

Ambersky

I am kind of trying to keep a bit of distance on this one because I hate the way threads often go when feminism comes up it is so disheartening sometimes.
Like I have said earlier threads like "Have you ever been sexually assaulted" that ran on for ages should be reason enough to be able to say without any doubt that feminism is still valid and very necessary. If the sheer number of posters in that thread telling stories of their sexual assaults were not enough there were a number of other factors, for example many of the posters doubted that what they experienced could be called sexual assault, hadnt told anyone else, there were frequent interventions to try to minimise what women were saying and repeated attempts to change the subject to men get assaulted too.
The fact is it is still very difficult to hear anything from a womens perspective and where that space exists it needs constant moderation and protection otherwise it will be derailed.

On the word feminism. Feminism has always been a dirty word, always, right back to the time of the suffragettes and they were looking for something as basic as the right of women to vote. Myths about feminists being out to destroy society and the family in particular, about feminists being ugly or man hating, or too serious or not necessary etc etc have been popular since the 19th Century.
The fact that feminism has been scapegoated and misrepresented in so many ways, since its very beginnings and right up to the present, even in conditions where women didn't have the vote, is kind of evidence in itself of feminisms relevance. Feminists dont have to say anything outrageous to be accused of humourless destructive, man hating irrelevance they have been the accusations right from the first woman saying I think I would like to vote.
http://http://www.scienceomega.com/article/860/why-do-some-women-view-feminism-as-a-dirty-word

Here are some of the ways feminists were being blamed for being too angry, for looking like men and for wanting to take over the male role back in the 19th and early 20th Centuries.




Women who disasociated themselves from crazy feminists were portrayed as sensible even heroic for being able to stand up against their destructive (see the hammer brandished in the feminists hand) flag waving attention seeking behaviour. Women believing the anti feminist propaganda is nothing new.
Also there seems to be something a bit lesbophobic about how often women say they are not feminist as in the man hating lesbian variety.

J P Morgan Toledo

J P Morgan Toledo wrote: »

Sluts, both male and female ARE immoral. .

Define "slut" in this case. One thing I can never understand is the willingness of those to look down upon those that practice casual sex; be they male or female. Your morals are not the same as my morals. Or if you mean "slut" as in prostitution? Then as long as they are doing it willing and haven't been trafficked/tricked into it, then there is no problem with it. They provide a service and if legalized, strictly moderated, and taxed, then could bring in quite an influx of cash to the economy.

Mod

J P Morgan Toledo.

Re reg troll - banned.

ciara1052

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then why is Feminism so silent (bar some lip service) on issues where females (children and adults) aren't being treated equally to males simply BECAUSE of their gender, in areas such as parental rights, criminal sentencing, military service or domestic violence, for example?

It doesn't really sell the notion that Feminism is about gender equality when it's only about gender equality to the advantage of one gender.

This really bugs me - and it's why I dislike the word feminism - because people assume that you're aiming for the progression of one gender, and also because feminists are like a collective group of people -with a list of things we do and don't talk about.

Any feminists I know (not that we call ourselves that) are entirely in agreement with inequalities like those outlined in your post. Most 'feminists' would be

Is this 'Feminism' that is so silent a group of people?? All individuals can do is agree or disagree with people via their own opinion. I'm 20 - and as far as I know there isn't really a local 'Feminism' movement that I could correct for being silent.

Maybe there isn't an agreement between feminists - tbh I don't think it means one definitive thing anymore. I've always taken it as equal rights. (on phone - could probably have explained myself better with access to a computer)

The Corinthian

ciara1052 wrote: »

Any feminists I know (not that we call ourselves that) are entirely in agreement with inequalities like those outlined in your post. Most 'feminists' would be

I did concede that there is lip service to this effect. But that's all it is.

Maybe there isn't an agreement between feminists - tbh I don't think it means one definitive thing anymore. I've always taken it as equal rights. (on phone - could probably have explained myself better with access to a computer)

But if it is about equal rights, why does feminism never campaign where women might lose rights in the interests of equality? Paternity rights being a case in point.

After all, you can't represent equality unless you represent the rights of both genders, and that may mean representing issues in the interests of equality that may result in women losing traditional, patriarchal rights.

So how does one explain this inconsistency in the claim that feminism is about gender equality?

clairefontaine

upandcumming wrote: »

How is this a feminist issue?

Because they want quotas.

Why do we need more women in government? I have no idea what this assumption is based on. Ridiculous and sexist.

ciara1052

The Corinthian wrote: »

I did concede that there is lip service to this effect. But that's all it is.

But if it is about equal rights, why does feminism never campaign where women might lose rights in the interests of equality? Paternity rights being a case in point.

After all, you can't represent equality unless you represent the rights of both genders, and that may mean representing issues in the interests of equality that may result in women losing traditional, patriarchal rights.

So how does one explain this inconsistency in the claim that feminism is about gender equality?

But that's my point - you keep referring to 'feminism' for not doing these things. I do.I do represent the rights of both genders - is there some 'head of feminism' I should complain to? It's not just me - it's any feminists I know (not only female) that do these things - should we stop calling ourselves feminists?

It's like you've an issue with the ideology of feminism. All I can do - along with other 'feminists' is hold my own views and debate others. I didn't join some club that actively ignores men's rights if you get what I'm saying?

clairefontaine

Lyaiera wrote: »

This is such bollocks. Every ****ing thread on feminism goes back to this despite it being explained that all of those issues stem from the way women were and continue to be treated. "Patriarchy" look it ****ing up.

Feminism is a divisive ideology to keep us all fighting amongst ourselves while the elites stay elites.

Feminists worked for lesbians but I don't think it did much for straight family oriented women.

Stop with the victim politics.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

I did concede that there is lip service to this effect. But that's all it is.

But if it is about equal rights, why does feminism never campaign where women might lose rights in the interests of equality? Paternity rights being a case in point.

After all, you can't represent equality unless you represent the rights of both genders, and that may mean representing issues in the interests of equality that may result in women losing traditional, patriarchal rights.

So how does one explain this inconsistency in the claim that feminism is about gender equality?

In fairness I have heard feminists argue that you know we have equality when there are as many women on death row as there are men.

Such is their charm.

B0jangles

There's a pretty good anaolgy in this Jezebel article explaining why feminism is called feminism and not humanism:

Unfortunately, the reason that "fem" is a part of the word "feminism" is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as well—in its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can't make problems disappear just by changing "feminism" to "humanism" and declaring the world healed. That won't work.

Think of it like this. Imagine you're reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. They hold the majority of political positions, they make the most money (beast-bucks!), they dominate the beast media, they enact all kinds of laws infringing on the bodily autonomy of Flootches. Individually, most of them are perfectly nice beasts, but collectively they benefit comfortably from inequalities that are historically entrenched in the power structure of Beast Island. So, from birth, even the most unfortunate Fleetches encounter fewer institutional roadblocks and greater opportunity than almost all Flootches, regardless of individual merit. One day, a group of Flootches (the ones who have not internalized their inferiority) get together and decide to agitate to change that system. They call their movement "Flootchism," because it is specifically intended to address problems that disproportionately disadvantage Flootches while benefiting Fleetches. That makes sense, right?

Now imagine that, in response, a bunch of Fleetches begin complaining that Flootchism doesn't address their needs, and they have problems too, and therefore the movement should really be renamed Beastism. To be fair. The problem with that name change is that it that undermines the basic mission of the movement, because it obscures (deliberately, I'd warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches. It implies that all problems are just beast problems, and that all beasts suffer comparably, which cripples the very necessary effort to prioritize and repair problems that are Flootch-specific. Those problems are a priority because they harm all Flootches, systematically, whereas Fleetch problems merely harm individual Fleetches. To argue that all problems are just "beast problems" is to discredit the idea of inequality altogether. It is, in fact, insulting.

Article link: http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy

The Corinthian

ciara1052 wrote: »

But that's my point - you keep referring to 'feminism' for not doing these things. I do.I do represent the rights of both genders - is there some 'head of feminism' I should complain to? It's not just me - it's any feminists I know (not only female) that do these things - should we stop calling ourselves feminists?

Perhaps, because as far as the self-identifying media, feminist and 'equality' groups, and so on out who presently organize these social initiatives for gender quotas in politics, domestic violence centres that don't acknowledge violence against men, seek the abolition of custodial sentences for women while ignoring the vast disparity in sentencing that favours them and so on; certainly do behave that way. If you don't, maybe it's because you're not really a feminist. Or are you both? In which case it still returns us to the original question.

So maybe you should complain to them, because they're the public face of feminism and if people see feminists negatively, it's because of them.

But tell me this; of any marches or campaigns you may have been involved in, what percentage would have been for equality issue for men that may disadvantage women?

It's like you've an issue with the ideology of feminism.

I just feel it became morally bankrupt a few decades ago, when the message went from being about 'equality for women' and became about 'choice for women'.

The Corinthian

B0jangles wrote: »

because it obscures (deliberately, I'd warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches.

I'd question if that's really the case any more in the West.

But here's another story for you:

Consider a society composed of chimps and gorillas. Gorillas each are allotted 2 bananas and 5 oranges. Chimps each are allotted 4 bananas and 1 orange. Both bananas and oranges are of equal value.

It is clear from this that chimps are unequal to gorillas as overall they have fewer fruit. So consider the chimps campaign to redress this imbalance and as a result both are ultimately allotted with 3 oranges.

Yet the chimps have not actually campaigned for equality in the long run, but for equality only where they were disadvantaged. In the short term their interests and the aim of equality coincided, but as time went on the two diverged. Had they sought equality in the long run they would have had to sacrifice their relative advantage in bananas, so that both they and the gorillas would have 3.

But they didn't.

Wibbs

Troll posts removed

B0jangles

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'd question if that's really the case any more in the West.

But here's another story for you:

Why is it the reponsibility of the chimps to do the gorillas campaigning for them? Surely if the gorillas feel that they have been unfairly treated it is up to them to campaign on thier own behalf?

ciara1052

The Corinthian wrote: »

Perhaps, because as far as the self-identifying media, feminist and 'equality' groups, and so on out who presently organize these social initiatives for gender quotas in politics, domestic violence centres that don't acknowledge violence against men, seek the abolition of custodial sentences for women while ignoring the vast disparity in sentencing that favours them and so on; certainly do behave that way. If you don't, maybe it's because you're not really a feminist. Or are you both? In which case it still returns us to the original question.

So maybe you should complain to them, because they're the public face of feminism and if people see feminists negatively, it's because of them.

But tell me this; of any marches or campaigns you may have been involved in, what percentage would have been for equality issue for men that may disadvantage women?

I just feel it became morally bankrupt a few decades ago, when the message went from being about 'equality for women' and became about 'choice for women'.

I can understand that - but it's not necessarily fair to kind of tar 'feminists' as a group of women with serious entitlement issues (All the benefits - none of the sacrifice) - as not all of us are like that.

(quoting is awkward so I've kind of replied on a point by point basis)

As for the self identified media - just because someone labels themselves as feminist doesn't mean they represent me as a feminist. I don't like gender quotas. I haven't heard decent arguments in favor of them. Issues like not enough male teachers/female politicians can be addressed in far better ways. I haven't had a conversation with someone who thinks domestic abuse is limited to females (Not arguing they don't exist - idiots everywhere - but I certainly don't associate with them - wouldn't call them feminists) and so...

The issue is that these people themselves aren't really feminists - it's not me that isn't the feminist. Sure I could argue that domestic violence effects women more - but by excluding one gender totally from the discussion?? Not really logical. Totally unfair.

How could I be both? Tbh it comes down to how you define feminism. I'm not going to argue that there's one set in stone definition.

Thing is - there might be people in the media that have their own view and opinions that identify as feminists - but I can only disagree with them and argue that their particular views aren't very fair. They may have other feminist based views - I can only disagree with the ones I disagree with. There isn't a union as far as I know....

Do I have to march/campaign to be a feminist? :eek:
I go to discussions/talks - I'll sign things I support - argue against things I don't. Tbh the more recent arguments regarding feminism would include issues like inequalities in parental rights/military service in certain countries etc.

upandcumming

Links234 wrote: »

that a huge section of the Irish people are under represented in our government? how is it not?

So you're saying the current representatives are not doing their job?

Playboy

B0jangles wrote: »

Why is it the reponsibility of the chimps to do the gorillas campaigning for them? Surely if the gorillas feel that they have been unfairly treated it is up to them to campaign on thier own behalf?

Well you just proved his point then.. feminism isn't about equality, it's about one gender furthering it's own cause even if it's at the expense of the other sex.

B0jangles

Playboy wrote: »

Well you just proved his point then.. feminism isn't about equality, it's about one gender furthering it's own cause even if it's at the expense of the other sex.

Equality is not a zero-sum game, men don't lose rights just because women gain them.

ciara1052

Playboy wrote: »

Well you just proved his point then.. feminism isn't about equality, it's about one gender furthering it's own cause even if it's at the expense of the other sex.

I'd have argued that is wasn't feminism. Isn't exactly fair to define it as such based on an article?

clairefontaine

B0jangles wrote: »

Why is it the reponsibility of the chimps to do the gorillas campaigning for them? Surely if the gorillas feel that they have been unfairly treated it is up to them to campaign on thier own behalf?

The metaphor is flawed and validates divisive assumptions.

Chimps and gorillas don't raise families together, dont exist within families together. This is why both sides are so divisive. The narratives are all either or, not both/and.