I need feminism because...

The Corinthian

mariaalice wrote: »

We do not live in an ideal world, any "ism" such as socialism, or libertarianism or humanism or Catholicism, all have contradictions, that does not mean they are "wrong" as such nor does it mean that they do not have something to contribute to human society.

That's fair enough, and I don't disagree. And while you've come closest to responding to the question of anyone (if only because you've not tried to dismiss it), it still doesn't answer it, as it's a pretty fundamental contradiction and just because other 'isms' have them, doesn't justify it.

Do you not recognise the hostility by many here to even admit there might be a contradiction, let alone do anything about it? Or, for that matter, that others - who've not drunk the cool-aid - may also see this contradiction and this may just be behind much of the hostility against feminism you'll find, and not because they're unenlightened or just footsoldiers of the Patriarchy, but because they have a valid point?

pharmaton wrote: »

This thread is not about mens rights, if you want to discuss that I suggest you start a new thread.

Well, that's an answer, I suppose. As equality includes both men's and women's rights by definition and this thread, about feminism, is not about men's rights, then I can only conclude that feminism cannot represent equality, by definition.

pharmaton

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, that's an answer, I suppose. As equality includes both men's and women's rights by definition and this thread, about feminism, is not about men's rights, then I can only conclude that feminism cannot represent equality, by definition.

I suppose you can go away now then.

Feathers

fits wrote: »

So, I'm not saying its perfect, but can you come up with a better solution or are you happy with things as they are?

Don't want to turn the thread into one on political quotas, so I'll leave it here in the topic after this.

My opinion would be that they need to go after the causes keeping women out of politics - these were identified in research done before as 4 Cs - cash, confidence, childcare and culture.

Until these are fixed, the same barriers to entry apply to women that previously existed (and they apply to other men too). Quotas do nothing for these women who currently feel unable to
enter the process, they merely benefit the women already in the process.

Yes, its possible that when more women are in the Dáil that these root causes are addressed, but there's nothing that will be in their benefit to do so: all members elected will be people to whom these barriers don't apply, so by voting for change they're opening up more competition in their job market. It's equally possible for current TDs to make these changes (they have reports on what the issues are, they don't particularly need a female voice to instigate the change required), but they're equally unlikely to do so for the same reasons.

So I can see why the TDs in the Dáil want to keep what is essentially the status quo (again, apart from having to put Mick's daughter on the ballot rather than his son), with a bit of lip service to equality. I don't see how most people seem to think putting another dyed in the wool Fine Gael TD in office, but who is a woman, is any more likely to rock the boat, speak out on issues that aren't the party line or ignore the whip, etc.

Real change will come when people from non-traditional backgrounds enter the Dáil in real numbers & their voices are heard - single parents, unemployed people, naturalised citizens, etc. The barriers to entry apply equally to men in these categories (the 4 Cs above), and IMO, their likelihood to push for change in women's issues in general is higher than another ABC1 woman from a political family.

[/rant]

Happy to discuss it further though if you want to start a new thread, but otherwise I'll leave it.there.

pharmaton

Feathers wrote: »

Don't want to turn the thread into one on political quotas, so I'll leave it here in the topic after this.

My opinion would be that they need to go after the causes keeping women out of politics - these were identified in research done before as 4 Cs - cash, confidence, childcare and culture.

Until these are fixed, the same barriers to entry apply to women that previously existed (and they apply to other men too). Quotas do nothing for these women who currently feel unable to
enter the process, they merely benefit the women already in the process.

Yes, its possible that when more women are in the Dáil that these root causes are addressed, but there's nothing that will be in their benefit to do so: all members elected will be people to whom these barriers don't apply, so by voting for change they're opening up more competition in their job market. It's equally possible for current TDs to make these changes (they have reports on what the issues are, they don't particularly need a female voice to instigate the change required), but they're equally unlikely to do so for the same reasons.

So I can see why the TDs in the Dáil want to keep what is essentially the status quo (again, apart from having to put Mick's daughter on the ballot rather than his son), with a bit of lip service to equality. I don't see how most people seem to think putting another dyed in the wool Fine Gael TD in office, but who is a woman, is any more likely to rock the boat, speak out on issues that aren't the party line or ignore the whip, etc.

Real change will come when people from non-traditional backgrounds enter the Dáil in real numbers & their voices are heard - single parents, unemployed people, naturalised citizens, etc. The barriers to entry apply equally to men in these categories (the 4 Cs above), and IMO, their likelihood to push for change in women's issues in general is higher than another ABC1 woman from a political family.

[/rant]

Happy to discuss it further though if you want to start a new thread, but otherwise I'll leave it.there.

this is probably closer to reality than some visceral agenda with no distinguishing elective.

It starts on the ground with people who strive to achieve through their own sense of esteem and hopefully push the doors open for others to follow along with them, breaking down barriers one at a time. When a woman does this she is considered a feminist, she has fought for her right to be considered an equal. This is why I need feminism.

Playboy

pharmaton wrote: »

this is probably closer to reality than some visceral agenda with no distinguishing elective.

It starts on the ground with people who strive to achieve through their own sense of esteem and hopefully push the doors open for others to follow along with them, breaking down barriers one at a time. When a woman does this she is considered a feminist, she has fought for her right to be considered an equal. This is why I need feminism.

Was Thatcher a feminist then?

jaja321

Playboy wrote: »

Was Thatcher a feminist then?

Thatcher didn't help any women along the way. She pulled the ladder up after herself. She said she hated feminism.

pharmaton

Its true, she wouldn't have considered herself a feminist but she most absolutely was. But then that just goes to show, the idea of feminism has been contorted to suit different definitions, mostly by those wishing to believe it is just a guise for hating men.

fits

Feathers wrote: »

Don't want to turn the thread into one on political quotas, so I'll leave it here in the topic after this.

[/rant]

Happy to discuss it further though if you want to start a new thread, but otherwise I'll leave it.there.

.

I'm on phone now so limited in how I can reply. You make some very good points. Essentially we are talking about top down and bottom up approaches to the same problem. Probably a mixture of both is required.

Playboy

pharmaton wrote: »

Its true, she wouldn't have considered herself a feminist but she most absolutely was. But then that just goes to show, the idea of feminism has been contorted to suit different definitions, mostly by those wishing to believe it is just a guise for hating men.

So you can be an 'ism' even if you don't recognise or identify yourself as one and don't like the ideology? That's strange when we are talking about an intelligent and sane woman.

eviltwin

When this turn into a debate about political quotas?

There is still a need for feminism in Ireland if only for the fact that we have a large influx of women who are living in an equal society but within their own lives have no equality.

I'm talking about women from migrant communities, traveller women who should simply by living here have all access to the rights the rest of us have but because of the nature of their communities don't or can't take advantage of the opportunities the rest of us can.

pharmaton

Playboy wrote: »

So you can be an 'ism' even if you don't recognise or identify yourself as one and don't like the ideology? That's strange when we are talking about an intelligent and sane woman.

you may be conferred a saint several hundred years after your death if the church thinks you qualify.

ism', as you put it is a prefix derived from ancient greek and refers to an ideology of some kind.
Thatcher, as unwittingly as it may have been most absolutely represents the fruition of a feminism as an ideology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9979076/Margaret-Thatcher-ultimate-feminist-icon-whether-she-liked-it-or-not.html

The Corinthian

pharmaton wrote: »

you may be conferred a saint several hundred years after your death if the church thinks you qualify.

The Mormons can baptise you into their church, and call you one of their own, long after you're dead too. Labelling Thatcher as a feminist sounds a bit like that practice.

ism', as you put it is a prefix derived from ancient greek and refers to an ideology of some kind.

Suffix, not prefix. And I suspect that if she adhered to any ideology it might have been Thatcherism, oddly enough.

Thatcher, as unwittingly as it may have been most absolutely represents the fruition of a feminism as an ideology.

Thatcher benefited from social changes brought about by feminism. However, she also benefited from social changes brought about by socialism too - a century earlier, becoming British prime minister, without being a member of the nobility was tough enough, let alone the child of a grocer.

But this hardly made her a socialist, any more than benefiting from feminism made her a feminist.

pharmaton

you're just here to argue for the sake of argument aren't you.
Feminism isn't about mens rights, that should be clear.

The Corinthian

pharmaton wrote: »

you're just here to argue for the sake of argument aren't you.

Sorry, isn't there enough room on the soapbox?

Feminism isn't about mens rights, that should be clear.

What's that got to do with my last post?

Playboy

pharmaton wrote: »

you may be conferred a saint several hundred years after your death if the church thinks you qualify.

ism', as you put it is a prefix derived from ancient greek and refers to an ideology of some kind.
Thatcher, as unwittingly as it may have been most absolutely represents the fruition of a feminism as an ideology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9979076/Margaret-Thatcher-ultimate-feminist-icon-whether-she-liked-it-or-not.html

I don't think any saints rejected Christianity so that's not really a suitable analogy I'm afraid. I suppose what I'm really trying to get at is "What is feminism". It's something that you define in a particular way that allows you to label a person who claimed she wasn't a feminist, a feminist. It seems to mean so many different things not only to women but also to men that I think in fact it has lost all meaning and relevance in developed western countries. It has become increasingly intellectualised and with that increasingly divisive. I dont think the majority of women in Ireland need feminism anymore but the strange thing is that even if they say they don't they have a whole host of people telling them they do but that they just don't know it. In a similar way to my Thatcher analogy, feminism seems to want to impose itself on people who don't want it. Any good a woman does seems to be down to feminism, what about women who achieved great things before feminism came about? Are they feminists too? Was feminism always there but we just didn't know it?

I dont think it's possible to debate something unless we have a clear and consensual definition that matched peoples experience of it in the real world. It's fine to come up with some vague and all encompassing definition but does that really reflect what it means to people and how it is perceived by others?

pharmaton

Playboy wrote: »

I don't think any saints rejected Christianity so that's not really a suitable analogy I'm afraid. I suppose what I'm really trying to get at is "What is feminism". It's something that you define in a particular way that allows you to label a person who claimed she wasn't a feminist, a feminist. It seems to mean so many different things not only to women but also to men that I think in fact it has lost all meaning and relevance in developed western countries. It has become increasingly intellectualised and with that increasingly divisive. I dont think the majority of women in Ireland need feminism anymore but the strange thing is that even if they say they don't they have a whole host of people telling them they do but that they just don't know it. In a similar way to my Thatcher analogy, feminism seems to want to impose itself on people who don't want it. Any good a woman does seems to be down to feminism, what about women who achieved great things before feminism came about? Are they feminists too? Was feminism always there but we just didn't know it?

I dont think it's possible to debate something unless we have a clear and consensual definition that matched peoples experience of it in the real world. It's fine to come up with some vague and all encompassing definition but does that really reflect what it means to people and how it is perceived by others?

I'll use the link in the reference above to quote what feminism is as my own understanding is similar enough in response to your question, "what is feminism?" and it's relationship with Thatchers achievements.

For me, feminism is a simple concept: it is about women achieving full equality to men. It isn’t about hating men. It’s about breaking down the idea of genders leading to a natural set of roles...
..And nobody more than Lady Thatcher managed to do just that, before or since, in the British political arena....
...The Iron Lady may not have called herself a feminist, but her success, in the particular way she achieved it...

...As the Suffragette’s motto put it: “Deeds not words”.

pharmaton

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, isn't there enough room on the soapbox?

What's that got to do with my last post?

This thread is about "why I need feminism". You haven't come here to tell us why you need feminism but rather tell us why you feel feminism is irrelevant unless it has value to you.

The Corinthian

Playboy wrote: »

I don't think any saints rejected Christianity so that's not really a suitable analogy I'm afraid.

AFAIK, one has to be a baptised member of the church in question to be a saint in that church, as the theological argument (in both Catholic and Orthodox churches) is that saints are the ones who get to go to heaven directly without spending time in Purgatory.

The first and outermost circle of Dante's Hell was supposedly Limbo. He populated it with virtuous pagans, who would otherwise be in Heaven, except that they'd never been baptised. That's where he meets Virgil, who acts as his guide for much of the rest of his journey.

Anyhow, OT and yes; bad analogy.

Playboy

pharmaton wrote: »

I'll use the link as a reference above to quote of feminism as my own understanding is similar enough in response to your question, "what is feminism?"

For me, feminism is a simple concept: it is about women achieving full equality to men. It isn’t about hating men. It’s about breaking down the idea of genders leading to a natural set of roles...
..And nobody more than Lady Thatcher managed to do just that, before or since, in the British political arena....
...The Iron Lady may not have called herself a feminist, but her success, in the particular way she achieved it...

...As the Suffragette’s motto put it: “Deeds not words”.

And therein lies the problem I think.

The Corinthian

pharmaton wrote: »

This thread is about "why I need feminism". You haven't come here to tell us why you need feminism but rather tell us why you feel feminism is irrelevant unless it has value to you.

Firstly that is not why I first entered this thread; I saw someone make a claim about feminism and questioned this. If this is not permitted and we should accept such claims as articles of faith, then that's another matter.

Secondly, my response to you just now had absolutely nothing to do with men's rights or anything like that, so I don't know why you're accusing me of that at this stage.

pharmaton

Playboy wrote: »

And therein lies the problem I think.

I'm a woman, feminism has personal meaning to me and I've shared that with you as that what was set out in the question posed at the start of this thread! I still haven't heard why you need or don't need feminism.

coffee_cake

Playboy wrote: »

And therein lies the problem I think.

What, not reading the OP? Yes, that is a problem.

So why do you need feminism?

Try again

jaja321

Playboy wrote: »

And therein lies the problem I think.

Why is her personal perspective a problem??

pharmaton

The Corinthian wrote: »

Firstly that is not why I first entered this thread; I saw someone make a claim about feminism and questioned this. If this is not permitted and we should accept such claims as articles of faith, then that's another matter.

Secondly, my response to you just now had absolutely nothing to do with men's rights or anything like that, so I don't know why you're accusing me of that at this stage.

you got your answer and you didn't like it. I sincerely am concerned that you feel that feminism should represent you.

Let's be clear about this, being a feminist doesn't negate my ability to fight for human rights on a broad scale but feminism concerns itself with female issues of equality. If I wanted to discuss mens rights it would be more affable to have a better understanding of mens issues and go from there, but that's not what this issue is about.

The Corinthian

pharmaton wrote: »

you got your answer and you didn't like it. I sincerely am concerned that you feel that feminism should represent you.

I don't. I never said that. Also I neither liked nor disliked the answer; it was expected.

Let's be clear about this, being a feminist doesn't negate my ability to fight for human rights on a broad scale but feminism concerns itself with female issues of equality.

And if that's what you believe, that's fine. I said so - repeatedly. I don't object to that at all, but I do object to is when I'm told that feminism is about equality overall which is, if you look at my first post in this thread, is what I was questioning.

Still don't know what this had to do with my response to you on Thatcher though.

Playboy

pharmaton wrote: »

I'm a woman, feminism has personal meaning to me and I've shared that with you as that what was set out in the question posed at the start of this thread! I still haven't heard why you need or don't need feminism.

bluewolf wrote: »

What, not reading the OP? Yes, that is a problem.

So why do you need feminism?

Try again

jaja321 wrote: »

Why is her personal perspective a problem??

Well if you read my previous post then you would have some context. How can we have a discussion on "why I need feminism" when it means something different to everybody? Why not have a discussion on why we need post modernism... I'm sure that will be an equally futile and pointless exercise.

pharmaton

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't. I never said that. Also I neither liked nor disliked the answer; it was expected.

And if that's what you believe, that's fine. I said so - repeatedly. I don't object to that at all, but I do object to is when I'm told that feminism is about equality overall which is, if you look at my first post in this thread, is what I was questioning.

Still don't know what this had to do with my response to you on Thatcher though.

I believe in equality for all and feminism does not conflict with egalitarian principles but concerns itself with female issues of equality specifically. Therein lies the difference.

pharmaton

Playboy wrote: »

Well if you read my previous post then you would have some context. How can we have a discussion on "why I need feminism" when it means something different to everybody? Why not have a discussion on why we need post modernism... I'm sure that will be an equally futile and pointless exercise.

if it means something different to you then feel free to discuss it

The Corinthian

pharmaton wrote: »

I believe in equality for all and feminism does not conflict with egalitarian principles but concerns itself with female issues of equality specifically. Therein lies the difference.

That's fair enough. The only problem with this, I believe, is then that both genders would require representation in the interests of overall equality and this regrettably leads to an adversarial system.

pharmaton

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.

ah I see.