Aren't You?

neuro-praxis

I'm extremely tired of people, particularly women, saying, "I'm not a feminist, but..."

Aren't you? Why not? What's wrong with being a feminist? I'm a feminist and proud - and straight to boot. And I love men. In fact, the vast majority of my close friends are men. And my partner is probably a more rabid feminist than I am.

If you're not a feminist, explain why.

Rabies

Back to the kitchen woman!!!!!

I'm a guymbut I'm all for equality with the (weaker) opposite sex. In fairness, women have the right to demand the same rate of pay as men in the business world, or any other field where they do the same work at the same standard.

you go girl

CathyMoran

My mum used to say that she never believed that any man was less than her...I suppose that is the way I think about things to. I suppose that I just consider myself to be a person, gender does not really come in to things for me in that way.

seamus

neuro-praxis wrote:

If you're not a feminist, explain why.

The original mainstream feminists, all those lesbians who began shaving the hair on their head instead of under their arms, and cast off their tops to display their breasts have ruined it for "feminism". Feminism has been given a bad name by the people who were most vocal about it. You see, it gave us conclusive proof that the world would be no better off if women had have been in charge. There were always stalwarths, they fought in the trenches, fought against oppression and silence of the feminist movement, but then when it received mainstream attention and social acceptance, it exploded. They kept going, they tried to take everything they could.

They got greedy like the rest of us. The name feminist was permanently scarred by those who believed in it most. Suddenly it became synonymous with hating men, with believing that women were better than men, with believing that women deserved more than men for their troubles. And so it lost out. From being a word of freedom, it became a bad word, like "communism", "hemp" or "Michael Jackson", and suddenly you didn't want to be feminist. To be female was to be welcomed, but to be feminist was to be shunned.

Such is the way of the world.

mike65

No

Am I a feminist? Nope as I would hold the door for a woman.

Mike.

ps I also hold them for men.

pps exellent post seamus, bloody Germain Greer!

neuro-praxis

No

Seamus, you're talking about the social connotations of the word "feminist" - not what an actual feminist is/was.

I have studied feminist literature and the vast majority of it is about women finding a voice, and very little else. There is the element of man-hating in a small percentage of it too - but the actual meaning of the word "feminist" has no anti-men connotation whatsoever.

Mike - I hold doors for men and women too. It's good manners - nothing to do with gender roles.

Why didn't either of you vote?

Sleepy

No

Sure, off that definition I'm a feminist. But does my objecting to areas of inequality where women are favoured make me a malist?

I think society is probably as equal as it's ever been. There are areas where men have the edge and others where women have the edge. Nowadays the problems come from the femnazis who seem to refuse to believe reality.

neuro-praxis

No

I agree with you Sleepy - *our* society is as equal as it ever has been, but we still suffer the "glass ceiling phenomenon" and let's not forget that, worldwide, women do 80% of the world's work, and earn 10% of the world's wages.

Pretty unbelievable. This is why I think it's worth fighting for.

mike65

No

Mike - I hold doors for men and women too. It's good manners - nothing to do with gender roles.

I wuz being a little bit flip.

I think CathyMoran pretty much said it - just be human. I recall the 70s masculinist movement (yes its exisited!) which pretty much got laughed out of court as it seemed like such an obvious femenist counter, but sometimes when I "tune in" to the propaganda about how awful men are in soap opera, magazine features, interviews etc I think maybe we need a movement. But then I snap out of it.

Interestingly feminist gets over 9 million hits, masculinist get just 43,000 and no definition link in opera.

Mike.

Cake Fiend

Getting into semantics here, but when I hear the word 'feminist', there's a part of me that thinks 'female chauvinist' (probably because of the actions of aforementioned man-hating lesbians & co). If people used the word 'equalist' or some such, maybe it wouldn't solicit such negative reactions.

Fysh

I think my problem is that, as has been highlighted already, the word "feminist" carries too much baggage. Which is unfortunately likely to happen to pretty much any movement that picks up enough popularity, because there's always going to be diverse interpretations of any given set of ideals and a diversity of opinions on how to best achieve them.

As such, I'd prefer to be asked what my views are than to put myself into a given box, either positively or negatively (and it's also why I'm not voting on the poll. Give me a "sort of" option and there I'll be ). The word "feminist", regardless of its precise definition, carries with it as many associations of hard-line feminists as it does utopian opinions. It, strangely, doesn't evoke the suffragette connotation so much, although I suspect that's because it's only barely within living memory any more.

For the record, though, I don't believe human society would have been particularly better off if there had been female dominance instead of male dominance. I don't think any sort of inequality is the way to go, really.

the_syco

I'm for equality, but if you look @ the major feminists who fought during the 80's, it seems quite a few have switched over to fighting for male rights.

This seems to be the general thing these days:
Femenism = good
Macho = bad

/edit

Just wondering, if a woman is president, and gets preggers, does she still take maternity leave, and then come back to her job, which, by law, has to be still there on her return?

Fysh wrote:

For the record, though, I don't believe human society would have been particularly better off if there had been female dominance instead of male dominance. I don't think any sort of inequality is the way to go, really.

Margret Thatcher wasn't a bad leader, all in all.

neuro-praxis

No

I believe that feminism as defined is:

1) Embracing womanhood
2) Embracing equality between the sexes
3) Defending the rights of oppressed women

Needless to say, I want to see men, too, embrace their manhood, men embrace equality, and I would happily fight for the rights of oppressed men, too. For example, the fact that women automatically receive custody of children is an example of inequality towards men, and I would support a fair analysis in each individual case.

What I want to know is why anyone would *not* support any of what is outlined in my post above. Feminism is not letting your armpit hair grow and burning your bra (although - if you want to that, why not? ). Feminism by its nature is against inequality amongst the sexes, and that goes both ways.

Fysh

neuro-praxis wrote:

I believe that feminism as defined is:

1) Embracing womanhood
2) Embracing equality between the sexes
3) Defending the rights of oppressed women

neuro-praxis wrote:

What I want to know is why anyone would *not* support any of what is outlined in my post above. Feminism is not letting your armpit hair grow and burning your bra (although - if you want to that, why not? ). Feminism by its nature is against inequality amongst the sexes, and that goes both ways.

Two things:

1)Your definition above would have to include "defending the rights of oppressed men" (laughable a notion as it sounds, it still happens in some cases such as custody of children or the entitlement to paternity leave) before it could claime to be truly against inequality between sexes. Although I suspect that this ties in with my point in 2), which is;

2)Feminism by its very name must have a driving interest in the female aspects of the points you have described above, otherwise you'd be talking about something like "peopleism" (not "humanism" because that's an entirely different movement, just to confuse things). It's a bit of a dualistic ideal, which is I suspect how the dominant view of "feminist=feminazi" came to be. I wholeheartedly endorse any move to achieve equality between the sexes, in much the same way as I would be in favour of any move to get equality between pretty any two given groups. I'm just not comfortable, for example, putting myself in the same category as Germaine Greer, because I honestly don't believe that we would have the same priorities or objectives. (One of the things I remember being disappointed to find out was that, at a speech she gave to the Oxford Union back in the day, a male student asked if there was anything he could do to assist the feminist movement. The reply he got was an exasperated stare coupled with the statement "It's not about you").

Talliesin

No

The term "Feminist" shouldn't be abandoned just because people are prepared to believe anti-Feminist propaganda, that would happen whatever terms were used.

Anyway, I'm a Radical Profeminist, but not actively so anymore.

neuro-praxis

No

Fysh wrote:

Two things:

1)Your definition above would have to include "defending the rights of oppressed men" (laughable a notion as it sounds, it still happens in some cases such as custody of children or the entitlement to paternity leave) before it could claime to be truly against inequality between sexes.

I included it. I am baffled by your selective editing of my post and then your rephrasing of my words.

Feminism by its very name must have a driving interest in the female aspects of the points you have described above, otherwise you'd be talking about something like "peopleism" (not "humanism" because that's an entirely different movement, just to confuse things).

If youc an tell me what is wrong with defending the rights of women I would be very interested. It may have excaped you that until this century women have been suffering unspeakable oppression...and outside of this country, continue to do so.

It's a bit of a dualistic ideal, which is I suspect how the dominant view of "feminist=feminazi" came to be. I wholeheartedly endorse any move to achieve equality between the sexes, in much the same way as I would be in favour of any move to get equality between pretty any two given groups. I'm just not comfortable, for example, putting myself in the same category as Germaine Greer, because I honestly don't believe that we would have the same priorities or objectives. (One of the things I remember being disappointed to find out was that, at a speech she gave to the Oxford Union back in the day, a male student asked if there was anything he could do to assist the feminist movement. The reply he got was an exasperated stare coupled with the statement "It's not about you").

Just because Germaine in many cases displays a shocking lack of respect for men, does not mean that fighting for women (or men - if it was needed - but RARELY is) to attain equal rights to the opposite sex, is WRONG.

Fysh

neuro-praxis wrote:

I included it. I am baffled by your selective editing of my post and then your rephrasing of my words.

No, you included "embracing equality" as one and "defending the rights of oppressed women" as another. My point being that one cannot totally reconcile a movement seeking equality for both sexes with a movement whose origins were the fight against the oppression of one gender. By no means am I saying that feminism should jettison the fight against oppression of women, nor do I seek to suggest that the oppression of men is as widespread. I was only trying to point out the discrepancy between the two (at least from my perspective) which makes me feel a bit itchy about the whole thing. I didn't mean to selectively edit your post, I was only quoting the points you made because I assumed that they were the core of how you defined feminism.

neuro-praxis wrote:

If youc an tell me what is wrong with defending the rights of women I would be very interested. It may have excaped you that until this century women have been suffering unspeakable oppression...and outside of this country, continue to do so.

Yes, thanks for the Suffragette History 101 class. I've not failed to realise this, I'm just pointing out that I'm not entirely convinced by your definition of feminism.

[quote=neuro-praxisJust because Germaine in many cases displays a shocking lack of respect for men, does not mean that fighting for women (or men - if it was needed - but RARELY is) to attain equal rights to the opposite sex, is WRONG.[/QUOTE]

I never said it was, and would challenge you to show me where I did. My point was that feminism is far from being a convergent and united cause with one single and agreed-upon cause, and as such I'm reluctant to say "I'm a feminist" more because of the connotations of the word and the movement in certain senses (such as the attitudes and opinions of Germaine Greer, but not limited to this) rather than any problem with the cause of equal rights and treatment for women. I've already said this several times and I really don't know why I'm having to repeat myself on this.

Evil Phil

No

I think the reason some men *may* be against feminism is not that they have a problem with women or equal rights for them, they have a problem with the way we've been demonised and mocked. We've been demonised as oafish, emotionaly immature thugs and are generally mocked in the media as being thick and useless. I don't like this any more than the next guy but I do realise that its not the fault of feminism.

Sometimes its been my experience that simply because I'm male it is assumed that I hate women, haven't a clue about emotional issues and am incapable of even making a cup of tea. If I have a row with my girlfriend then its automatically my fault because I'm the guy regardless of the actual situation and if I get the upper hand in an arguement its turned into male vs female with the immortal words 'Typical Man'. A lot of guys reading this will have had similiar experiences. This is not feminism - I don't know what it's called but that 'Typical Man' card is one of the reason perfectly rational guys are against feminism. It's something else dressed up as being feminist. I thought it was feminazism but according to Wikipedia it's not. Could somebody give me a name for this? It's probably marketing which, imho, is the root of everything rotten in this world.

Here come the flames ...

seamus

I think Fysh (and a few others) makes the point there that pretty much sums up my view. "Feminist" implies fighting solely for the rights of women. Not a problem, not a bad thing at all, but by its very definition is unequal. It deals with women's rights, an issue which I think is no longer relevant in our own society. All society can do is give Women the means by which to claim their rights, they can't force them on everyone. That is, there is nothing society can do to force Company A to employ a qualified woman, all they can do is provide the woman with the means to claim her right to not be discriminated against.

I think, in our own society (I'm definitely not talking about a world stage here) Women have much more scope and ability to claim their rights than men do, both from a moral and legislative POV. We're in a post PC transition at the moment, waiting for the rights pendulum to slow down and balance out.

Put simply, I'm not a feminist. I don't believe in fighting for the rights of women. I beleive in fighting for the rights of all people equally. Sex is only one way to discriminate. Unfortunately "Humanist" doesn't have the correct meaning here

[Edit: That's possibly another angle Phil. Radical feminism has been the cause of a lot of sexual discrimination against men. Discrimination that both sexes find distastful. I get praise for letting my gf watch TV while I clean the kitchen. Not that praise isn't wanted, but why should it be assumed that I wouldn't do it normally?]



I didn't vote because the poll is public.

Zombrex

No

seamus wrote:

"Feminist" implies fighting solely for the rights of women. Not a problem, not a bad thing at all, but by its very definition is unequal.

I have already made this point on a number of threads, that it is not.

Being a feminist does not imply you cannot fight for other things at the same time. You can be a femnist and fight for innocent black Americans on death row. But you would not call that feminism, because it isn't feminism, it is American civil rights.

I know a lot of people who would consider themselves feminists who have a large number of other causes, from education to health care for the elderly. When they are representing the needs of women ignored and disadvantaged by society they are acting as feminist. When they are fighting other causes they are doing it under the banner of that cause.

It is ridiculous to suggest that because someone holds to the feminist idea at women should not be disadvantaged by society because they are women, they cannot also hold to other ideas, such that black or muslim people should not be disadvantaged by society, and belong to other movements

Zombrex

No

seamus wrote:

I get praise for letting my gf watch TV while I clean the kitchen. Not that praise isn't wanted, but why should it be assumed that I wouldn't do it normally?

That would be the feminist line.

A feminist would say that you are right, you shouldn't get praise for doing normal chores around your house and the fact that you do get praise is a sign that we still live in a soceity that sees women as having responsibility for doing the work in the house unless the man is kind enough to help out and when he does he should be rewarded for going out of his way.

I think it is quite amusing that you have some how managed to flip this on its head and make it out that because you are being praised for doing a job no one would bat an eyelid at if a woman did, you some how believe this is a sign that men are discriminated against in modern society. :rolleyes:

seamus

Wicknight wrote:

Being a feminist does not imply you cannot fight for other things at the same time. You can be a femnist and fight for innocent black Americans on death row. But you would not call that feminism, because it isn't feminism, it is American civil rights.

I never suggested otherwise. It does imply that in the issue of sexual equality that you're only interested in women's rights.

That would be the feminist line.

That would be the radical feminist line, which isn't always necessarily wrong. The rights pendulum has swung from men getting strange looks for doing women's traditional jobs, to men getting praise for doing women's traditional jobs. The point of that last paragraph was that we should be at neither extreme.

Evil Phil

No

Wicknight wrote:

I have already made this point on a number of threads, that it is not.

Being a feminist does not imply you cannot fight for other things at the same time. You can be a femnist and fight for innocent black Americans on death row. But you would not call that feminism, because it isn't feminism, it is American civil rights.

I know a lot of people who would consider themselves feminists who have a large number of other causes, from education to health care for the elderly. When they are representing the needs of women ignored and disadvantaged by society they are acting as feminist. When they are fighting other causes they are doing it under the banner of that cause.

It is ridiculous to suggest that because someone holds to the feminist idea at women should not be disadvantaged by society because they are women, they cannot also hold to other ideas, such that black or muslim people should not be disadvantaged by society, and belong to other movements

Hear, hear!

Evil Phil

No

seamus wrote:

I never suggested otherwise. It does imply that in the issue of sexual equality that you're only interested in women's rights.

I don't see how being a feminist means that you’re only interested in women's rights. I know a lot of feminists who are just as concerned with father's rights or the impact of the traditional male image of being strong and isolated on men. Feminism to me does not imply exclusivity.

Shabadu

No

I would prefer the term equalist, as I believe a lot of men aren't given the repect and rights they deserve either. I voted yes, because I do believe in defending and promoting women's equality, but I also believe in protecting the rights of minorities.

seamus

Evil Phil wrote:

Feminism to me does not imply exclusivity.

I agree to disagree.

Evil Phil

No

I agree to agree to disagree. It's the bloody vegetarians we should be going after.

Sleepy

No

neuro-praxis wrote:

I agree with you Sleepy - *our* society is as equal as it ever has been, but we still suffer the "glass ceiling phenomenon" and let's not forget that, worldwide, women do 80% of the world's work, and earn 10% of the world's wages.

Pretty unbelievable. This is why I think it's worth fighting for.

To be honest, I've never seen this "glass ceiling phenomenon" in action in Ireland. Both my boss, and her boss are female and to be quite honest I've never heard of a woman not getting a promotion she deserved because there was an equally or less suitable male applying for the role.

While I agree that there is still rampant sexism in the developing world, I'd still like to see some facts to back up the rather flippant looking assertations that women do 80% of the world's work. These figures suggest that there is a large proportion of the world's male population sitting back bone idle which is a pretty fantastical notion imho. The "earning 10% of the world's wages" is a slightly more believable figure given the role of women in developing (and many developed) societies as a stay at home mother. Whether a stay at home mother should be paid for her work is another question and to be honest I'd be of the opinion that the state shouldn't pay someone to rear children.

The Corinthian

Evil Phil wrote:

I don't see how being a feminist means that you’re only interested in women's rights. I know a lot of feminists who are just as concerned with father's rights or the impact of the traditional male image of being strong and isolated on men. Feminism to me does not imply exclusivity.

Actually, by definition Feminism is only concerned with the rights of women. However, I would probably agree with Wicknight’s explanation that this would not preclude a Feminist from also promoting other ideals and beliefs at the same time, but they wouldn’t be Feminist. I say probably because it is conceivable that there may be a conflict between the two ideologies.

The negative perception attached to Feminism is probably related to this partisanship. Not unlike a trade union for women, Feminism came about to represent women and redress the imbalance that existed between the genders. But also not unlike a trade union, it is there to represent the interests of a single constituency, not of Society in general. As a result, you’ll find Feminist groups will more often oppose things such as fathers’ rights or the abolition of gender-based car insurance, because they are against the interests of the constituency that they represent.

Gordon

neuro-praxis wrote:

I agree with you Sleepy - *our* society is as equal as it ever has been, but we still suffer the "glass ceiling phenomenon" and let's not forget that, worldwide, women do 80% of the world's work, and earn 10% of the world's wages.

Pretty unbelievable. This is why I think it's worth fighting for.

What? Got a link?

MiCr0

[Nicest, most polite humanities thread ever..................................]
i'm delighted