I need feminism because...

Shakespeare's Sister

Women like that are probably just trying to make lads fancy them - female equivalent of white knights.

Tbh I don't agree with some feminist views and some of it is universal concerns, not just feminist. But some of it is still important and women being "against feminism", as in the whole lot of it, are quite nauseating.

Shakespeare's Sister

YumCha wrote: »

I also need feminism for the endless discussions about whether rape culture exists even though there are numerous examples given over the entirety of this thread.

And also because almost every time I see rape culture brought up on the internet the discussion descends into terminology, even though adding together your definitions of rape and culture to define rape culture is about as useful as adding together definitions of green and house to define a greenhouse as a house painted green.

It's because of the word "rape" that people get hung up on the semantics. It does rape survivors a disservice to use the term so casually like that.

Tigger99

So why use the term 'rapey', which is such a disservice?

YumCha

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

It's because of the word "rape" that people get hung up on the semantics. It does rape survivors a disservice to use the term so casually like that.

Actually no it doesnt, since its first recorded use was 40 years ago, and both the book and documentary that are cited focussed on first-person accounts.

Also I fail to see how opposing things like rape jokes, victim blaming, and all the other things that fall under the rape culture banner would be frowned upon by victims

RDM_83 again

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Women like that are probably just trying to make lads fancy them - female equivalent of white knights.

Tbh I don't agree with some feminist views and some of it is universal concerns, not just feminist. But some of it is still important and women being "against feminism", as in the whole lot of it, are quite nauseating.

Isn't that a bit of a derogatory assumption, I spent a week last year working with a girl where we would ramble on about society and stuff, she was highly critical of feminism.
BUT if you didn't know that you would assume she would fit the mold of someone that should be very supportive of it. We were doing a physical job, covered in mud, in the rain, wearing builder type gear, she's deeply involved in the unionization process and was highly educated masters. All things that stereotypically and with some basis would be considered positive feminist ideals, but she didn't think 1st world/3rd 4th wave feminism represented her.

ps I get that me ascribing a womans opinion 2nd hand through a male view point is not something thats viewed as a positive, also I think she uses boards

meeeeh

YumCha wrote: »

Actually no it doesnt, since its first recorded use was 40 years ago, and both the book and documentary that are cited focussed on first-person accounts.

Also I fail to see how opposing things like rape jokes, victim blaming, and all the other things that fall under the rape culture banner would be frowned upon by victims

I've been a victim of a sexual assault or rape (depending on definition of rape) and a couple of sexual assaults and I absolutely despise therm rape culture. It does nothing for me and putting bad taste jokes and sexual assault under the same umbrella is a bit much IMO. And the people around me were nothing but understanding and supporting (men and women). But then again what do I know maybe I am just too eager to please men.

Lyaiera

First of all, I was never on a crusade. I simply posted something that happened and it seems to have hit a nerve with many people. Of course when people showed an interest in what I said I continued to discuss it. I find it very dismissive of people to think that just because I have an interest in something, something other people seemingly have an interest in as well that I am on a "crusade" and all the negative connotations that go with that. I got over the event quickly and most of my friends joined me in laughing at the stupidity of it. Including the person who was with me at the time who just laughed and rolled his eyes at the stupidity of it. The head bouncer that night also thought it was a ridiculous thing to say.

Secondly, I referred to rape culture as a way of highlighting the view that women are no more than their sexuality. Rape culture is the idea that women are reduced to sex objects. I would hope everyone is aware of the idea that rape is mostly a matter of dominance over another, and very little to do with the "intimacy" or even "enjoyment" of regular sex. It is about dominating another person. I found that reducing women to purely their sexual characteristics was a method of "putting women in their place" and was highlighting the way some people see others as a "conquest," someone whom they can have power over.

Shakespeare's Sister

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Isn't that a bit of a derogatory assumption, I spent a week last year working with a girl where we would ramble on about society and stuff, she was highly critical of feminism.
BUT if you didn't know that you would assume she would fit the mold of someone that should be very supportive of it. We were doing a physical job, covered in mud, in the rain, wearing builder type gear, she's deeply involved in the unionization process and was highly educated masters. All things that stereotypically and with some basis would be considered positive feminist ideals, but she didn't think 1st world/3rd 4th wave feminism represented her.

ps I get that me ascribing a womans opinion 2nd hand through a male view point is not something thats viewed as a positive, also I think she uses boards

I'm critical of aspects of feminism too - and it's about women's rights, not gender equality. But no way would I ever be against it in its entirety - when these women are fighting for/have fought for... Me!
That's what nauseates me about #womenagainstfeminism
They also spew misogynistic sentiment - imagine it; modern women being misogynistic. **** them.

Re: rape culture - it's dismaying how dismissive people's arguments are regarding questioning of the term. It sounds like a culture of rape. Actual rape. Of course it's going to piss men off - put yourself in their shoes. Rape-embracing culture isn't even accurate, since it's not true.
Tasteless jokes about rape, victim-blaming - these disgust me... but it's a hell of a leap to say they signify a culture of rape.

constance tench

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Posters (particularly female ones) who suggest they need feminism like a hole in the head (as has been popular of late with some young, generally Western females online) undoubtedly deserve a response.

That response (which I find difficult to deliver without feelings of rage) is that they are looking at the world from a place of extreme privilege compared to most women on the planet. Feminism isn't about one woman out there who is happy with her lot and either experiences no sexism or doesn't recognise certain forms of subtle sexism. Feminism is about the bigger picture of global inequality between men and women. It's about shocking literacy levels among women in developing countries, about the gender pay gap (that DOES exist globally, whether it affects one personally or not). It's about young girls being worried and unhappy about their looks at younger and younger ages because of the image mass media throws at them (it's also about the image of what makes a "real man" shown to young males too). It's about the way female and male rape victims are treated. It's about how many women in this world are still seen and treated like property. It's about the chronic under representation of half the global population in politics and the corporate wolrd - to name a very brief view things.

Feminism is one of the most important social movements there is or ever was. It has evolved so much in the last number of decades and needs to continue to grow to include women of colour and other groups who may be marginalised by the "white, western female" image it has.

Women who think they don't need feminism are utterly misguided as to what feminism is and that is tragic. It's not about bra burning or hating men or wanting to be superior to men. That image, I believe, is one that men (#notallmen) have perpetuated in order to ignore uncomfortable truths, and sadly young women (and older women) have accepted it without much reasoned thought.

The really sad thing is that feminism has become such a taboo word. Many young women believe in most of the basic tenets of feminism but refuse to be associated with the word because of the stigma attached.

But this suggests that female politicians will only represent females...do you see a problem here?

Why do you think that is the case?

For a global, in-depth view... [interactive]
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-24650912

YumCha

meeeeh wrote: »

I've been a victim of a sexual assault or rape (depending on definition of rape) and a couple of sexual assaults and I absolutely despise therm rape culture. It does nothing for me and putting bad taste jokes and sexual assault under the same umbrella is a bit much IMO. And the people around me were nothing but understanding and supporting (men and women). But then again what do I know maybe I am just too eager to please men.

I'm a victim too.

My point was the term has been in use a lot longer than people seem to realise and it already has an established definition which people very rarely seem to refer to when they denounce it.

Personally I appreciate any continuing conversation against things that serve to minimise and silence victim's experiences, or are barriers to justice such as:
- A judge giving the rapist of a 14 year old girl a one month sentence because she seemed "older than her chronological age"
- The amount of suspended sentences and fines that have been dished out for sexual assault in this country (also if your abuser decides not to pay their fine, you have to chase them up yourself)
- Victim intimidation - the Listowel case was already mentioned in recent posts, but there was also the Maryville case where the victim's house was burned down

If you follow Everyday Sexism - the time they covered people's experiences in school was terrifying - the number of accounts from pre-pubescent girls reporting boys in their class calling them whores, sluts and saying much worse. No one is saying these remarks are as bad as the examples above - but they all point to a pretty bleak picture on display.

This is why I have no problems with rape culture extending across a wide range of experiences and behaviours - as it isn't just one isolated societal thing that leads to rapists getting off scot free, or women being fired for reporting sexual harassment, or being expelled from college for reporting a rape, etc. etc.

Also I did not say that anyone who disagreed with the term rape culture was doing it to please men.

Shakespeare's Sister

Think there's a mix-up re the "pleasing men" thing - I said it in relation to the #womenagainstfeminism lot, that they, or some of them, are probably trying to make guys fancy them.

I didn't use the word "rapey" casually by the way - I said "smash pussy" sounds that way - violent and forceful.

Rosy Posy

B0jangles wrote: »

If I was in that club and had to get help because I was being harassed, I wouldn't expect to get much help from a bouncer with attitudes like that.

This is what made me identify with Lyaiera's experience. I worked in a nightclub of the 'last chance saloon' ilk taking money and in the cloakroom and IMO the attitude that everyone in there is out for the ride/shift by the bouncers together with a misogynistic twist is what leads them to let people down in protecting them from predators. In fairness they see all sorts and have some women throwing themselves at them in an effort to get special treatment. But the amount of times I've seen a legless barely conscious girl being escorted out by a male 'friend' was way too often to be legit. The bouncers didn't give a shyte- in their eyes it was fair game. I'd often try to call them over and ask if they'd got their coat and try to establish if things were ok.

I get that people are freaked out by the term rape culture because it foists some of the stigma of a rapist onto the wider society who do not want to be held accountable. But while I think the terminology should be changed because it always descends into semantics, I believe the phenomenon to exist.

For me, one of my experiences of rape was almost more painful in the aftermath than the experience itself. At a party in my house I was legless drunk and went to bed. I woke up in the morning with a naked 'friend' in bed beside me who expected me to be delighted that 'we' had had sex.

Rape culture is our mutual friends counselling me not to call it rape because he was so drunk (he also went through my knicker drawer).

Rape culture is people telling me that it's ok because he actually 'likes' me.

Rape culture is him justifying it because we had a ons several months previously (which I had articulated my regret for the next morning. A mistake that I owned at the time as I had consented).

Rape culture is my boyfriend at the time saying that he didn't have to exact his bloody revenge (at my behest- I did not want to fuel the drama) because we weren't exclusive.

Were any of these people responsible for the rape? No. Were they responsible for this pos getting away with zero social consequences (some bright spark recently seated us at the same table at a wedding) while my morality was called into public question, and getting the message that this kind of behaviour is acceptable. Yes.

meeeeh

YumCha wrote: »

I'm a victim too.

My point was the term has been in use a lot longer than people seem to realise and it already has an established definition which people very rarely seem to refer to when they denounce it.

Personally I appreciate any continuing conversation against things that serve to minimise and silence victim's experiences, or are barriers to justice such as:
- A judge giving the rapist of a 14 year old girl a one month sentence because she seemed "older than her chronological age"
- The amount of suspended sentences and fines that have been dished out for sexual assault in this country (also if your abuser decides not to pay their fine, you have to chase them up yourself)
- Victim intimidation - the Listowel case was already mentioned in recent posts, but there was also the Maryville case where the victim's house was burned down

If you follow Everyday Sexism - the time they covered people's experiences in school was terrifying - the number of accounts from pre-pubescent girls reporting boys in their class calling them whores, sluts and saying much worse. No one is saying these remarks are as bad as the examples above - but they all point to a pretty bleak picture on display.

This is why I have no problems with rape culture extending across a wide range of experiences and behaviours - as it isn't just one isolated societal thing that leads to rapists getting off scot free, or women being fired for reporting sexual harassment, or being expelled from college for reporting a rape, etc. etc.

Also I did not say that anyone who disagreed with the term rape culture was doing it to please men.

I think nobody sane is denying that there is a way to go, that sexual violence is underreported and unde prosecutted and there is often too much empathy for rapists and too little for victims. Rape culture though implies that rape is accepted as a way of life and not as something wrong. Btw I think that is why there is some much discussion on definition of the term. It paints everyone with the same brush. And when it does they become defensive and you loose their support for what you want to do.

Btw in case of 14 year old, the rapist eventually got 9 years because other individuals disagreed with that individual judge.

Lyaiera

Rosy Posy wrote: »

This is what made me identify with Lyaiera's experience. I worked in a nightclub of the 'last chance saloon' ilk taking money and in the cloakroom and IMO the attitude that everyone in there is out for the ride/shift by the bouncers together with a misogynistic twist is what leads them to let people down in protecting them from predators. In fairness they see all sorts and have some women throwing themselves at them in an effort to get special treatment. But the amount of times I've seen a legless barely conscious girl being escorted out by a male 'friend' was way too often to be legit. The bouncers didn't give a shyte- in their eyes it was fair game. I'd often try to call them over and ask if they'd got their coat and try to establish if things were ok.

I get that people are freaked out by the term rape culture because it foists some of the stigma of a rapist onto the wider society who do not want to be held accountable. But while I think the terminology should be changed because it always descends into semantics, I believe the phenomenon to exist.

For me, one of my experiences of rape was almost more painful in the aftermath than the experience itself. At a party in my house I was legless drunk and went to bed. I woke up in the morning with a naked 'friend' in bed beside me who expected me to be delighted that 'we' had had sex.

Rape culture is our mutual friends counselling me not to call it rape because he was so drunk (he also went through my knicker drawer).

Rape culture is people telling me that it's ok because he actually 'likes' me.

Rape culture is him justifying it because we had a ons several months previously (which I had articulated my regret for the next morning. A mistake that I owned at the time as I had consented).

Rape culture is my boyfriend at the time saying that he didn't have to exact his bloody revenge (at my behest- I did not want to fuel the drama) because we weren't exclusive.

Were any of these people responsible for the rape? No. Were they responsible for this pos getting away with zero social consequences (some bright spark recently seated us at the same table at a wedding) while my morality was called into public question, and getting the message that this kind of behaviour is acceptable. Yes.

I was raped when I was 15. I firmly believe it was because of "rape culture." I believed I was "male" at the time. My girlfriend forced herself on me. She wanted sex. I didn't. She saw me as a man and therefore as someone who invariable wanted sex. I doubt she's thought of that incident once in the past ten years and would be shocked that I consider it rape. And to be clear, I hold her absolutely no ill will. She was as much a victim as me.

Not only does rape culture view women as providers of gratification, it also stereotypes men as lustful creatures with no control. Rape culture is absolutely damaging. The phrase "rape culture" is not.

Tasden

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Think there's a mix-up re the "pleasing men" thing - I said it in relation to the #womenagainstfeminism lot, that they, or some of them, are probably trying to make guys fancy them.

.

A woman with opposing views to your own must be trying to make men fancy them..?

A little insulting to assume that a woman can't form an opinion for herself, that its probably only for a man's benefit no?

sunshine and showers

constance tench wrote: »

But this suggests that female politicians will only represent females...do you see a problem here?

Why do you think that is the case?

For a global, in-depth view... [interactive]
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-24650912

No, it doesn't. Women in politics does mean that another view point is added to give a more diverse representation of half the population, though. There are issues that relate only to women that male representatives have consistently failed to represent women on. There are issues that male representatives have failed to understand the importance of, namely because they do not have to face them.

Of course female politicians would not only serve women, but unless a massive overhaul in the way of thinking of many male representatives occurs (and given the track record of global politics, it is unlikely to magically happen), women being greater represented in politics can only be a good thing.

That is not to say I am for gender quotas by the way - I'm actually not for a number of reasons. But the lack of females in politics in this world is evidence of an endemic problem. We must ask why our parliament (as one example) is only made up of ~16% women, particularly when that is the best percentage we have ever had. Greater diversity of representation can only be a good thing, surely.

Obviously, at the end of the day, the needs of the people are best served by the best candidate. But it speaks volumes that those candidates are overwhelmingly and consistently male, don't you think?

nokia69

sunshine and showers wrote: »

That is not to say I am for gender quotas by the way - I'm actually not for a number of reasons. But the lack of females in politics in this world is evidence of an endemic problem. We must ask why our parliament (as one example) is only made up of ~16% women, particularly when that is the best percentage we have ever had. Greater diversity of representation can only be a good thing, surely.

na it won't make any real difference, our TDs are more or less all the same, male or female, its just teachers, solicitors ect swapping enda kenney with mary harney would be pointless

but if identity politics is your main interest then it really does matter

Shakespeare's Sister

Tasden wrote: »

A woman with opposing views to your own must be trying to make men fancy them..?

A little insulting to assume that a woman can't form an opinion for herself, that its probably only for a man's benefit no?

The often used thing of "You're saying xyz because they disagree with you?" is a misrepresentation. No I don't think that just because they disagree with me - I say it because they're against feminism - not aspects (nothing wrong with that) but the entire thing, despite benefitting from aspects of it.
Like the white knights thing (which definitely exists even if it's sometimes incorrectly levelled at men) I suspect some of them, like the "Girls are so bitchy, I prefer to hang around with guys" type woman, are just trying to make guys like them.

Tasden

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

The often used thing of "You're saying xyz because they disagree with you?" is a misrepresentation. No I don't think that just because they disagree with me - I say it because they're against feminism - not aspects (nothing wrong with that) but the entire thing, despite benefitting from aspects of it.

But why do you attribute it to wanting to impress a man rather than her own personal reasons or just ignorance or lack of understanding, or any number of other reasons? Why can it not just be that she has a different opinion to you? For whatever the reason may be.

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Like the white knights thing (which definitely exists even if it's sometimes incorrectly levelled at men) I suspect some of them, like the "Girls are so bitchy, I prefer to hang around with guys" type woman, are just trying to make guys like them.

The "I prefer guys cause girls are bitchy" line pisses me off too, even as someone who's friends are mainly men. But I don't think girls say that to make men fancy them, I think they just haven't had a valuable and real friendship with girls/women and so that is what they genuinely believe. If I hadn't made genuine loving female friends I'd probably feel the same because I do encounter a lot more bitchiness among women as I would men.

constance tench

sunshine and showers wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Women in politics does mean that another view point is added to give a more diverse representation of half the population, though. There are issues that relate only to women that male representatives have consistently failed to represent women on. There are issues that male representatives have failed to understand the importance of, namely because they do not have to face them.

Of course female politicians would not only serve women, but unless a massive overhaul in the way of thinking of many male representatives occurs (and given the track record of global politics, it is unlikely to magically happen), women being greater represented in politics can only be a good thing.

That is not to say I am for gender quotas by the way - I'm actually not for a number of reasons. But the lack of females in politics in this world is evidence of an endemic problem. We must ask why our parliament (as one example) is only made up of ~16% women, particularly when that is the best percentage we have ever had. Greater diversity of representation can only be a good thing, surely.

Obviously, at the end of the day, the needs of the people are best served by the best candidate. But it speaks volumes that those candidates are overwhelmingly and consistently male, don't you think?

Yes, it does.That sentiment suggests that.

Only if it is the 'correct' view point...

I was one of the TDs interviewed by the National Women's Council as part of the preparation for its report 'A Parliament of All Talents: Building a Women Friendly Oireachtas'. The interview took over an hour and I gave very detailed answers to the questions put to me by the National Women's Council's representative.

However, although there are several politicians featured and quoted in the report, I am not one of them. This is despite the fact that I am one of the few women politicians who has a young child that was born while I was a member of the Oireachtas.

During the interview I argued against some of the proposals of the National Women's Council. I have previously disagreed with them on gender quotas and 'women only' meetings. My discordant views are not referred to in the report. I wonder why?

There are some good ideas in the report by the National Women's Council. There are many, however, that would make it worse for women TDs and senators.

The National Women's Council's proposals would make it impossible for many female and male TDs to combine their roles with family life. Those TDs would be expected to leave home on a Sunday night not to return until Friday night. That does not appear to be a problem for the National Women's Council despite the fact it would surely discourage many women with young children from running for the Dail.

The National Women's Council wants no debates to take place at nighttime. I agree that late-night sittings should be rare. However, it would be an abdication of duty for a parliament not to meet when there is a need for emergency legislation to be passed.

A major flaw in the National Women's Council's report is its lack of proposals to help women with babies to continue to participate in decision-making by the Oireachtas. Its main proposal for women that have babies is to take maternity leave. In other words, to make women disappear from decision- making at this stage of their lives.

... consistent failure, period...

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/womenfriendly-oireachtas-would-make-it-harder-for-me-as-a-mother-30063405.html

sunshine and showers

constance tench wrote: »

Yes, it does.That sentiment suggests that.

Only if it is the 'correct' view point...

No, it doesn't. The fact that women can better represent women does not mean that women will only represent women.

constance tench

sunshine and showers wrote: »

No, it doesn't. The fact that women can better represent women does not mean that women will only represent women.

The sentiment suggests that.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

sunshine and showers

constance tench wrote: »

The sentiment suggests that.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

You really need to explain your point. If your point is valid, that means that men don't represent women. That's just not true; they do. My point is that women can better represent women on some issues.

The sentiment suggests that woman can more accurately represent and address the issues facing the female population. You are inferring one heck of a lot to say that that is all women would do if elected.

Lyaiera

sunshine and showers wrote: »

You really need to explain your point. If your point is valid, that means that men don't represent women. That's just not true; they do. My point is that women can better represent women on some issues.

The sentiment suggests that woman can more accurately represent and address the issues facing the female population. You are inferring one heck of a lot to say that that is all women would do if elected.

"Men can represent anyone, because being a man is the default position in life. Women can only represent women, because women are not capable of being the default position in life and are not capable of being anything more than 'a woman.'"

This is patriarchy in action. The idea that being a man is the standard, default idea of existence.

sunshine and showers

Lyaiera wrote: »

"Men can represent anyone, because being a man is the default position in life. Women can only represent women, because women are not capable of being the default position in life and are not capable of being anything more than 'a woman.'"

This is patriarchy in action. The idea that being a man is the standard, default idea of existence.

Exactly! To say a woman will only represent women is offensive and wrong and offensive!

constance tench

sunshine and showers wrote: »

It's about the chronic under representation of half the global population in politics

constance tench wrote: »

But this suggests that female politicians will only represent females...do you see a problem here?

sunshine and showers wrote: »

You really need to explain your point. If your point is valid, that means that men don't represent women. That's just not true; they do. My point is that women can better represent women on some issues.

The sentiment suggests that woman can more accurately represent and address the issues facing the female population. You are inferring one heck of a lot to say that that is all women would do if elected.

I am not suggesting women will only represent women.
I feel that you did, which is why I pointed it out.

What to you think of Johanna Tuffy's account of her meeting with The National Women's Council?

It appears the NWC would prefer single childless women in the Oireachtas.

constance tench

Lyaiera wrote: »

"Men can represent anyone, because being a man is the default position in life. Women can only represent women, because women are not capable of being the default position in life and are not capable of being anything more than 'a woman.'"

This is patriarchy in action. The idea that being a man is the standard, default idea of existence.

Who said that?

Lyaiera

constance tench wrote: »

Who said that?

Those were scare quotes.

Carlos Orange

sunshine and showers wrote: »

No, it doesn't. The fact that women can better represent women does not mean that women will only represent women.

No but it leads to the question are men better represented by men.

Lyaiera

psinno wrote: »

No but it leads the question are men better represented by men.

That would seem pretty obvious by men's dominant position in society.