Chauvinism / Feminism, the same thing?

Evil Phil

I think they've become the same thing. Once upon a time, or so I'm told, feminism was about sexual equality and was part of the civil rights movement. But now it seems to me that it's just about men-hating and gaining the upper hand instead of gaining equality. Like chauvinism. Or are these people just bigots dressing themselves up as feminists to gain some credibility?

---

The people who vote decide nothing. The people who count the vote decide everything.

- Joseph Stalin

[This message has been edited by Evil Phil (edited 23-03-2001).]

Megatron

Scince an early age ( 14 -15 ) i've run into my fair share of women who treat men like dirt cus they see "ALL" men as pigs and oppresors, an example would be when i held open a door for a someone behinde me, it was a woman, she proceeded to call me a sexest, pig everything under the sun, i tried to explain that i was being Polite, but that only seemed to enrage her, so i decided to prove her right.
I walked throught the open door, closed it behind me and walked on.

Not all feminists have become men haters but they are the minority ( IMO) again going back to the whole "what do women want" post, they want to be treated equal but once you do it totaly, they moan and say your picking on them .

I have nothing against feminism, It's just that it is turning into a men haters club ..

---

No !!!!! I will crush you with my Bare hands

Bard

Leave 'em off, I say... if they decide to go OTT and right into female chauvinism then they're not worth paying any attention to. Let them have their little bull$hit rants. It's not worth the time and effort trying to explain "but I was just trying to be polite/nice/friendly/chivalrous" if they're just going to come across with that attitude...

Evil Phil

Yeah, Bards right. If it happens again try saying "Age before beauty" or "I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were female".

Talliesin

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Once upon a time, or so I'm told, feminism was about sexual equality</font>

No it was about Women's Liberation which is not the same thing as equality. By extension it was also about Men's Liberation - to paraphrase Germaine Greer "Why would unfree women want to be equal to unfree men?"

It was the Postfeminists who retroactively claimed Feminism was about equality, and since some women are now able to exploit others in the way that some men always could they claim that we are now "post" the Feminist struggle.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But now it seems to me that it's just about men-hating and gaining the upper hand</font>

Need to give us some sources if you want to argue that.

"Man-hater" has been the immediate response by anti-Feminists to Feminism since its beginnings, but rarely bears up to examination.
For example the term has often been used against Andrea Dworkin. Reading her auto-biographical pieces it's obvious that there are several men in her life that were and are important to her and that she has a lot of respect for. The "man-hater" label is nothing but a mental short-cut to take instead of thinking about the issues raised.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Q: A lot of men in this town think you're a killer.
A: I'm too shy to kill. I think they should be more afraid of each other, less afraid of me.
---Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone
</font>

pepperkin

it's 8 AM and there's not much on earth could make me laugh right now, as mornings are NOT! my strong suit...but THAT..."Sorry, I didn't realize you were female!" cracked me up.
Miss Feminist bra burning nazi girl would have nothing whatsoever to say to that, she'd be too busy picking up her wits...
I myself am a medieval reenactor, and so therefore I get off on chivalry If a guy holds a door for me, I smile and say "Thanks!" and I also hold a door if I got there first, instead of moronically standing around grinning at a guy waiting for him to walk that 15 feet to open the door for me...
IMOHO...feminists are clueless. End of story!

Evil Phil

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">to paraphrase Germaine Greer "Why would unfree women want to be equal to unfree men?"</font>

If that's not about equality, what is?

I'm not really talking about legal issues here such as equal pay. But I have noticed that a lot of ads on the TV show men to be bungling idiots who can't take care of themselves. Or the nicorette ad where a group of women beat up a "male" cigarette with patches. It's probably harmless but if it was a group of men who shouted, "C'mon lads, lets get her" and had a go at a female cigarette there would be war. The ad would be taking off the TV. I have pointed this out to a lot a women I know, a lot agree with me but some just respond with "2000 years of oppression, now it's our turn", and according to them this is the feminist stance. Similarly, a man must be allowed to differ from some of the statements women make about themselves and their condition, without it being assumed he is a chauvinist and a women-hater.

Feminism has tackled a lot important issues. Really my point is how some (women who claim to be) feminists are just man-haters and for them masculine means negative. They say that we men need to get in touch with our feminine side if they are to deal with something emotional, to grow or to do something positive with ourselves. Ask why not the masculine side? because it's only capable of violence and abuse. That's man-hating.
Good and Evil are not the same as Women and Men.

I've also starting finding that I, rather disturbingly, tune out when a woman raises a point with regards to sexual equality because I assume it's just going to be some male-bashing BS. I've nearly missed some valid points because of it, that's not good. Pretty much what I'm complaining about here is infantile behaviour that draws from the real issues. Feminists should stand against this, so we won't confuse them with the idiots claiming to be feminists. They don't, maybe because they agree.


I suppose some would say of this post "Typical Man".

[This message has been edited by Evil Phil (edited 23-03-2001).]

Megatron

Good point Phil,
I do the samething now and again ( phase out when they start to stand on the soap box)
and again i agree with the men being portrayed as bumbling idiots ....
but what really takes the cake ( MMMMMM Cake !!! )
is an ad for an insurance company for women only !!!!! ( car insurance)
If men were to have something like this they company would be shot !!! ( can't see something liek that fomr the insurance money greabbing ..... sorry of track there)
same with men only clubs , women want in but if me want to join a womens club ( apart from being called a puff by his mates) "women need there privacy !!!

ahh to hell with it .. i'm off to the pub in an hour and i hear the dart board calling me !!!!

---

No !!!!! I will crush you with my Bare hands

Paladin

I know Ive said this before, but there are a$sholes everywhere!
All further analysis does is categorise them.
The feminist thing is just an particular category. You can be sure that sexism is equal for both sexes imo (regardless of how one sex might argue that the other is worse- women with their "we are emotionally better, so we are less sexist" argument, or men with their "we have bigger frontal lobes making our mental computation faster allowing us to be less sexist" argument ).

neuro-praxis

I am not a feminist, purely because I dislike the labels, but I am strongly in favour of women's rights, in every sense. I would call myself a humanist as opposed to a feminist...as I'd also fight for equality for men if the situation arose.

I often visit some feminist bulletin boards - quite like this one but rather more broad, and there is (dare I say it) perhaps greater eloquence there, and a lot less web abuse.

Now, some of them are right wing feminist man haters. But the majority are simply strong women with opinions, who like men as much as they do women.

The term feminism is so often misunderstood, and that is why I won't put myself in that bracket. However I will be eternally grateful to women like Christabel Pankhurst, a Suffragette leader, who in 1910 marched with 410 women down Paliament Street in London to get their vote - and had fish heads soaked in urine, live and dead mice, tomatoes, rotten fruit and flour thrown at them. Pankhurst died when she threw herself under a horse and carriage during a rally in 1913. She never got to vote. But I get to do it.

So I think, Pepperkin, that it might be a bit arrogant to dismiss feminists as "clueless".

It is not a philosophy, like some people believe, but when handled properly, it is very valid and important and gives courage to some women.

I can't stand those whiney man haters. One of my friends is one of them and she drives me mad. "...blah blah all men are b4stards...blah blah blah..."

---

Give me back my towel. I'll sue.

Belisarius

Hmmn ..due to the lack of Women on the boards , Its safe to assume this argument will come down on the side of us Penis Carriers *hooray* , but In any other situation It would make your brain hurt , Try having a conversation with an actual woman about the Ins and outs of Feminism...Youll be crying for mercy within the second minute

---

Shrewgar!

Belisarius

Erm ...looking back I may have oversimplified the argument , Theyre are obvious pros and cons to the level of Feminism seen in todays world .But I really cant be arsed to offer a contradicting opinion , not my scene baby

---

Shrewgar!

pepperkin

from nero-praxis..."So I think, Pepperkin, that it might be a bit arrogant to dismiss feminists as "clueless". "

Duly noted, and I stand corrected. I tend to type in what is easiest rather than the full explanation.

Let me rephrase...
The ultra, bra burning, men hating, combat boot wearing and screamy whiny b!tchy feminists are clueless. They haven't caught on to the fact that being militant doesn't mean you're right and have the right to kick ass.

The standard, non OTT feminists are fine and have a good point and valid arguments.

Is that more appropriate? I didn't mean it the way it originally came out.

Greenbean

Men and women obviously aren't equal, but there's no doubt there should be equal rights. The problem is trying to make men more like women and women more like men - that sort of equality is rubbish. Men should act like men and not be guilty for it. Women should be allowed to be women without being considered "weak".

From the male point of view, I was watching the recent All Saints video where alot of men are being thrown around, literally, out of windows, through walls etc. I didn't really take it on board and then suddenly I imagined each of those scenes with the genders reversed and described the idea to the flatmate. It was unthinkable, and horrible.

Should women be allowed to abuse men on screen in this fashion, should I have just accepted it - if you're into equality you'd think not. But really one of the things the video accepts is the fact that men and women aren't equal and throwing men through walls is just comical. The type of men are surely supposed to be the steriotypical neanderthalls and hell I can associate with that - I'm like them in the video having a good look at the All Saints jugglies too. This is just a comical expression of annoyance. What did disturb me was the annoyance I felt. I'm actually starting to believe that we're supposed to be the same, men and women. ****ing rubbish. Walking down that road will have me ranting and feeling oppessed at my diminished role in society, depression etc. Thats a dangerous role to walk down. Instead I'm going to be whatever I am and not try to be a cross-gender confused weirdo.

Have to admit its bloody annoying that men now have to be macho muscle men, skilled in everyway etc, and that only that one type of man appeals to all women apparently (if you're to pay close attention to advertising). Is there no room for the meek type of man (which is so obviously a substancial portion of males)? Thats the confusion.

Greenbean

Sorta reversed what I was saying there in the last paragraph didn't I

Ok let me paint this scenario: when you chat to a woman, you can either do it two ways; you can play to win or you can just be relaxed and just let things go naturally. To a woman they both might look identical though. When I play to win, I'm trying to be everything the girl wants me to be, I'm joking, I'm laughing, I've got a quick quip for everything, I'm being a little sleazy to show interest of some more fun etc but its all manufactured. Problem is you are burning your bridges - you can't hold the facade for long - ie, theres no way you can be the same person you are the first evening all the time. Now you've put yourself in bad position, the real you shows up, not mr advertising billboard. Eeek. But mr billboard is much more successful usually, thats what women want more often.

I know the obvious, its better not to bull****, but surely we're not that obnoxious as our male selves - I mean thats the way we are made, so howcome the fake "I understand your situation" mr billboard, does better?

Megatron

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evil Phil:
I didn't realise you were female". </font>

LOL must try that one ....
i can see it now ... me saying that followed by me running from a manic woman and her omni present handbag

---

No !!!!! I will crush you with my Bare hands

TacT

If you find out pls let me know greenbean


Ahhh, the mysteries of the female phenomenon

Shinji

I've had the situation described in an earlier post - namely that you do something just to be polite, like holding a door for a woman or what have you, and you get an earful from her because she clearly believes that you're doing this just to get into her pants. Yes love, that's right, I figured that if I didn't let this big heavy door swing back and break your nose I'd be well set for a quickie round the back. That was ENTIRELY my reasoning. You daft old cow.

Luckily the vast majority of women I know actually like it when you're polite to them (shock). I think the problem is that there are some women (and I know some gay guys like this too) who define themselves on the grounds of being discriminated against; they EXPECT to be discriminated against, and they look for discrimination in everything. One gay chap I know who drives me up the bloody walls actively hunts for homophobia in everything anyone does, because if people just treat him as normal and DON'T show any homophobia (which, lets face it, most folk do) he feels like a big part of his identity is worthless... Same goes for the brand of nazi-esque feminists mentioned in this thread.

Greenbean

Yea thats something that has irked me alot. Many of the gays that you see or hear define themselves under a role of discrimination. They have a personality that can only sucessfully exist if there is some sort of percecution. Don't actually do anything wrong and their way of life is under threat. The thing is many of the gays you see or hear aren't the majority, just those with something to shout - i.e. Gerri Halliwells mockery of girl power, she's made alot of it just seem like trivial gibberish. Girls do it for yourselves of course - but don't go crying to hello magazine when doing it by yourself is tough. Girls who do it for themselves know its more than being just loud - its being independent of everything, not just being loud.

po0k

Hmmmmmmmmm.........
Interesting thread this. To say tha men and women are equal is obviously b0ll0x. They are not the same emotionally, physically or biologically. Massive progress has been made in the social aspect though. I personally have not locked horns <?> with any nazi-drumbeating-Dr.Matens-wearing-hefty-hairy feminist fascist yet. As I live in Galway there is a smaller chance that I will. I do consider myself to be of a chivilrous nature, and I was brought up to respect women. So far I have never gotten a negative response from a woman when I held a door, discreetly let her get to the counter ahead of me (if she seems to be in a rush - as I would with anyone), or even the one time I carried a mother's pram down an escalator while she held the baby. If a woman gave me guff for trying to help her I would consider giving her an equal amount of abuse back, but probably wouldn't. I would turn my back and walk away, cursing her under my breath of course.
It is my nature.
I am in favor of equal rights for every human, horse, dog, salamander and squirrel.
But to say we are all equal is preposterous, cos we're not.
Difference is the spice of life.
vive la difference, vive la revolution mes copains!
[Vti]SyxPak

---

No-one ever suspects the Duck

Play Counterstrike.
Meet interesting people.
Kill them.
All of them.

azezil

maybe this was covered b4 but i couldn't be bothered readin those long posts!

men and women are not equal by any means! Women hav it easy! who gets free admission into disco's??? certainly not men...

women complain about not getin equal rights but somehow thats forgotten when their out on the town, getin free into clubs, free drinks for the nite... oh n lets not forget if a ship is sinking or some other emergency situation where ppl are being evacuated who goes out first... WOMEN and children!!

sounds rather unfair to me, are womens lives valued higher than mens????

---

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

azezil

p.s. i do like women i do believe in equal rights but lets see equal rights for men too!

that is all.........

---

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

neuro-praxis

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Greenbean:
Many of the gays that you see or hear define themselves under a role of discrimination. They have a personality that can only sucessfully exist if there is some sort of percecution. </font>

This is a gross generalisation. Most of them are the same as anybody else.

---

Give me back my towel. I'll sue.

azezil

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
This is a gross generalisation. Most of them are the same as anybody else.

</font>

emphisis on "them" and "anybody else", sounds kinda bias to me! (****in feminists don't even like gay men! LOL )

---

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

Greenbean

Its not a gross generalisation. Many does not mean the majority. I certainly picked out a subsection of gays and then said many - that doesn't necessarily mean most, a majority, or all.

Common just answer back if you've a point, not to show up where people seemed to have made generalisations - stick your neck out and have an opinion on the matter. I disagree or agree.

neuro-praxis

I *did* offer an opinion on the issue. I disagreed with what you said, Greenbean. I have already "stuck my neck out" and offered opinions on this whole issue. ^^

Azezil, for the record, I already stated that I am not a feminist, and one of the people closest to me in my life is gay, so I certainly wasn't discriminating in my terminology...there is no way to refer to them except as "they" or "them".

Sheesh!

Shinji

neuro-praxis, you're clearly in the wrong with what you said to GB, since he never made any such generalisation. You have also failed to answer his point, merely complained that he made a generalisation - which, er, he clearly didn't.

However, Azezil, please lay off the crack-pipe when replying to neuro's posts, because I have no idea WHAT you're on about...

po0k

Right, in answer to the actual topic feminism and chauvinism are not the same thing, imo. From what I gather feminism is not the same as 'Women's Lib.' either. It is (again, from what I gather) about the empowerment of women, and the balance of power between the sexes. Correct me (nicely please) if i'm wrong on this. And yes, there isn't equality between men and women today, as has been pointed out already. It would seem that *some* women scream about wanting the same 'power' as men, but still expect them to hold doors etc. for them after their little speech. sound's like a case of wanting butter on both sides of the bread.
I know I'm skating on thin ice here, so i'll repeat, SOME women.
[/END RANT]
[VTi]SyxPak

---

No-one ever suspects the Duck

Play Counterstrike.
Meet interesting people.
Kill them.
All of them.

neuro-praxis

Look, I felt that it was a generalisation. If you say it wasn't, then I will accept your word on that that. But the term "many of the gays that you see and hear" sounds rather general to me.

It isn't like I attacked Greenbean, I merely stuck up for gay people who *are* as normal as the rest of us. Okay Shinj? Okay Greenbean man? I was attempting to keep a nice PC air in the place. Thassall!

---

Give me back my towel. I'll sue.

Greenbean

Neuro, I know what you are saying, but you don't have to defend all the time. Its a personal annoyance really, I dislike the use of the "generalisation" argument - its very unconstructive in an discussion when I know the majority of people understand that no-one tries to generalise. It has its place but it can be overused. I've a friend who loves to just interject when at the pub during chat every so often with "now, now thats an unfair generalisation" just to see how funny it is when people backtrack and apologise when he doesn't give a damn whether they generalised or not.

To get picky I can only interate what I said wasn't a generalisation, "The thing is many of the gays you see or hear aren't the majority". I mean if that isn't clear, I dunno what is. I can understand "many" being associated with "majority", i.e. its usually implied but not necessarily.

Paladin

Difference is the spice of life?!??

Balls! What am I going to do with all this cinnamon?!

Greenbean

Oh, just putting smiley faces in and all . If I do disagree with you neuro in a thread it doesn't mean I dislike you or anything, just a discussion

Alot of people feel that the tone gets aggressive etc when peoples opinions differ, but its rarely intended. Oh I do hate when someone posts "Handbags at 10 paces", it brings the whole tone of things down and presumes people are bitter. If I'm angry I'll let people know by plentiful cussing and swearing So what should we take from this delightful post? Well the main message is "Greenbean is a nice guy". Ok lets repeat that again "Greenbean is a NICE guy" :P

neuro-praxis

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Greenbean:
I've a friend who loves to just interject when at the pub during chat every so often with "now, now thats an unfair generalisation" just to see how funny it is when people backtrack and apologise when he doesn't give a damn whether they generalised or not.</font>

So are you suggesting that *all* people do this? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?! IT SOUNDS LIKE A GENERALISATION TO ME!!!

heh, just kidding. (insert smiley face here)

---

Give me back my towel. I'll sue.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Am sorry to point this out Neuro, and before
u start on, I am not attacking you but while
Christabel Pankhurst was a feminist, she was
also hugely bigotted. Christabel advocated a campaign that would appeal to the more
prosperous members of society. Whereas
Sylvia Pankhurst, Charlotte Despard and Dora
Montefiore argued for the vote for all
adults, Christabel favoured limited
suffrage, a system that would only give the
vote to women with money and property.

Now while suffrage was a good and noble cause,
I would not count amongst one of my idols a
person who was willing to keep the vote from
the "commoners" as she was fond of calling
them.

And just as an aside, Christabel Pankhurst
died in the USA in 1958, the suffragette
who was trampled by the Kings horse was
Emily Wilding Davison. Her coffin was
carried through London draped in the colours
of the suffragette movement, purple, white,
and green. It was escorted by 2,000
uniformed suffragettes. She was a teacher
with degrees from Oxford and London
universities. Is a subject that I took great
interest in while at school and is a bit sad
that alot (or is that a generalisation )
of peeps make the same mistake as you did above.

As for the argument/discussion male, female,
black, white, yellow, catholic protestant,
nobody should be opressed and nobody should
argue with somebody else's right to fight
oppression. But in their fight they should
not cause too much distress unless it is as
a last resort.

---

You never expect the Beefy Inquisition !!!


[This message has been edited by Thanx 4 The Fish (edited 26-03-2001).]

Excelsior

I'm not sure about the facts posted above. Perhaps I suffer from the same generalisation ( ) you speak of but can you post a link?
Neuro wasn't proposing that she was someone who should be admired for anything except her dedication to women's rights?
I don't think it is relevant to argue on other points of her political belief system.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Thats a fiver I am owed because I also
placed a bet that the second I printed a
reply to this you'd butt in Exc.

I respect Neuros opinions and just pointed
out a few facts for her benefit, next time
she makes this argument she can talk of the
hunger strikes and force feeding of Emily
Wilding Davison and her attempted suicide in
prison to bring to the publics attention to
the suffrage movement.

Now back to it, Christabels dedication was
to rich womens rights not all womens.
Was she a true feminist (is there such a
thing ?), she believed that only those women
who could afford the vote should have it,
or was she just after the money ?
There were others in her organisation as
worthy of respect, if not more so. And I
NEVER said that she was not worthy of
respect, just noted that she would not be
someone I would idolise.

If you want to find out about this topic
bad enuff then you should look it up
yourself. Belive it or not it is actually
quite interesting.

---

You never expect the Beefy Inquisition !!!

[This message has been edited by Thanx 4 The Fish (edited 26-03-2001).]

neuro-praxis

I am not offended in the least, a bit miffed though, as my source...a general political history book by T. Deary was where I got that piece of info. I have read about Davison too, and Lady Astor (first female MP - oddly not a suffragette), and Christabelle's mother Emmeline in there to...so I knew about her aristocracy, but the point was that she suffered for the rights of women. This she certainly did. I am sorry, to Pepperkin too by the way, for my misinformation whilst scolding her. Damn, i look bad now. Kindly excuse my blunder.

There were also feminists who were against the vote of black women...especially in the US, as I have been learning from some other more reliable sources I hope, and indeed there was racism and bigotry involved all round, but it is undoubted that my rights have come as an evolution of women like Pankhurst.

One of the theories for the Suffragette's class distinctions were that frankly, the uneducated lower classed women had neither the education, nor respect of the male leaders in any way, and the women deemed it crazy to attempt to get votes for *every* woman - as this idea would have been met with even more scorn than their own proposals as educated women. This is not to say that they definitely had the intention of gaining equal rights for lower classed women...but ultimately, this is what it led to.

So, I am a little redfaced at my mistake here, but I still feel great gratitude to women such as Pankhurst and Davison.

As to the question of whether they were *true* feminists or not - that is entirely different. It could easily be debated that they weren't - at least not in our modern understanding of the word. However, this does not matter to me greatly, as I am not a feminist anyhoo.

---

Give me back my towel. I'll sue.

Excelsior

I butt in on these Bulletin Boards now.
Oh sorry, do continue.

I can spend all that spare time I have now deveoping those crazy reactionary opinions of mine. Hail Hail Corporal Punishment!

Winning Hand

I was going to post this on the humour board but i found this instead, its a letter from the irish times yesterday which sums up alot about certain feminists. Enjoy

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Sir, - As second-year students in Alexandra College, Dublin, we find it truly astonishing that a reputable company such as An Post should still wish to portray women as the weaker of the sexes.

We received leaflets for the An Post Junior Education Awards competition, and were initially delighted to take part in it. However, on examining the leaflets, we were shocked and disappointed to find a photograph of a man and a woman in a cinema which displays the woman clinging on to the man in fright while he sits there calm and brave. This gives the false impression that women are weak and defenceless and that men are strong. This is not so in many cases. It belittles females and gives an unwarranted ego boost to males.

What surprises us the most is the fact that An Post are sending these leaflets out to schools which have been making great efforts to encourage the breaking down of barriers regarding job opportunities. For example, girls nowadays are being encouraged to believe that they are able, both physically and academically, for jobs that were traditionally male dominated. Advertisements such as An Post's are undermining all this positive encouragement for women to succeed in what used to be a "man's world".

Is Ireland still living in the Dark Ages? Class II B in Alexandra College are beginning to think so. - Yours, etc.

</font>

Shocking
Seriously, imagine being married to that.

Hobbes

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Winning Hand:
Shocking
Seriously, imagine being married to that.</font>

The couple in the cinema were probably watching "Dude where's my car". That would shut her up.

neuro-praxis

Yes, imagine being married to that whole class!