I need feminism because...

03-10-2013 02:41PM

Mod

May I please remind people of that little thing described as "innocent until proven guilty".

Speculation on the above case will not be tolerated.

If charges are brought, then any further discussion on the case must immediately cease.

meeeeh · 03-10-2013 03:43PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Mod

May I please remind people of that little thing described as "innocent until proven guilty".

Speculation on the above case will not be tolerated.

If charges are brought, then any further discussion on the case must immediately cease.

Sorry I shouldn't mention specific case. I just wanted to point out that sometimes level of intoxication is extremely relevant. Weather it will be in favour or against the victim depends on circumstances.

hatrickpatrick · 03-10-2013 07:05PM

Millicent wrote: »

Of course I agree. It would be silly not to. If you're referring to the Romeo and Juliet legislation, I and a lot of feminists disagree vehemently with it. That's not feminist legislation.

That's good to hear. I think my suspicious attitude to the feminist label comes from spending a bit of time on a Reddit forum called "Sh!tRedditSays", where the only tolerated brand of feminism is that which states "because men are 'privileged', they're fair game for being discriminated against, and if they campaign against such discrimination, shout them down with examples of women being discriminated against". It creates an amazingly toxic environment which has unfortunately, in recent times, spilled over into the wider online debate over gender issues.
I wasn't actually referring to that legislation although I've made my views about that very well known over on AH, it's more legislation dealing with "violence against women" - in my opinion, singling any particular group out and creating specific laws to tackle violence against that particular group, sends the message that the group in question is more deserving of protection than anyone else, and I think you'd find that if such gendered terms were made gender neutral, far, far more currently hostile people would be willing to identify with the label.

Whether violence affects one group more than the other is difficult to prove in the first instance and is more importantly irrelevant in the second instance - all legislation should afford equal rights to absolutely everyone, without being weighted in any direction.
Personally I'd be happiest if all references to "men" or "women" (and in Ireland, religion) were expunged from the constitution and the statute books and replaced with "people".

It's probably for a different thread, but something else which I think holds a lot of people back from the label 'feminist' is the fact that in recent times, that label has been associated with a wide variety of campaigns against freedom of speech, the most recent involving Dr. Phil - this is particularly foolish since a lot of people, both men and women, who've grown up within the last two decades have grown up in a world where the idea of censorship seems extremely archaic.
http://entertainment.time.com/2013/08/22/dr-phils-disappearing-rape-tweet/

The above is a good example. The idea that a debate can or should be stifled because it doesn't fit in with a particular movement's world view is something I think a lot of people currently in their early twenties and younger would wholeheartedly reject. Now I know nobody forced Dr Phil to delete that tweet and I personally would judge him for not standing up for himself in that case, but the fact that he faced such vitriolic harassment from the mainstream media is almost as appalling as British women being harassed over their campaigns to have women on banknotes. The degree of harassment may be less, but it's still harassment aimed at stifling debate, and unfortunately, while (in my experience) something most self styled feminists also find repulsive, is something which extremists have succeeded in establishing as a trait which immediately comes to mind when one sees the label 'feminist' applied to a group.

To bring that back to the original discussion point, you'll find widespread strawmen online, allegations that opposing VAWA automatically means you think violence against women is ok, rather than simply that you object to gender specific legislation or rules in society.

To give you an analogy, it's a bit like when Eirigli eejits hijack legitimate protest marches and piss everyone off by blocking O'Connell bridge. They do not represent anything remotely resembling the majority, but they're loud and obnoxious enough to poison the image of the wider movement.
And unfortunately, as I've been saying in support of the protests being hijacked by those guys, I have no idea how one is supposed to fight against that.

I'm in two minds about it myself - I personally object to having to abandon a label because the minority manage to blacken its name with their antics, but on the other hand, because of the above very high profile incidents I always refer to myself as egalitarian when speaking on issues of gender equality.

Millicent · 03-10-2013 09:03PM

Ah, you can't rely on Reddit to form your world view--life would seem a bleak,dark place then.

It's not easy to shirk off a movement that has such a long history behind it and rebrand it to something else. Nor would I want to. That movement is something I identify with and find purpose in, one that answers a lot of questions for me.

And, as Ambersky pointed out, painting feminists as hysterical or militant is no new thing. Look at this poster against suffrage (which I'm sure you will agree was a great thing) as an example:

There are loads to choose from if you Google.

That thing with Dr. Phil...I dunno, I'm in two minds about it. Anyone with a bit of cop on should have known that was not a smart thing to Tweet. If it had have been prefaced with "Opinion Poll", it might have elicited less of a fallout. Comedians leapt on it, too, so it's not just feminists who thought it sounded "off". Then again, it's not something I personally got het up about. I would have assumed that he (or his underlings, let's be honest) were trying to initiate a dialogue. (Given Twitter's track record though, I can't stress enough how awful an idea I think that was.)

And Dr. Phil still has freedom of speech. Other people have the right to say that they think that speech is a load of crap. Such is a free society.

And without wishing to insult any of our American posters, I don't think you can look to American feminism today as a yardstick for Irish feminism. American feminism has a lot of criticism levelled against it--a lot of it by still marginalised women. Trans women, women of colour and some others I'm probably forgetting don't think it is inclusive enough. I'm inclined to agree but don't think that it's worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater and discarding the whole feminist label.

But to gauge where feminism is in Ireland today, you'd be better served looking at something like the Irish Feminist Network. Do I always agree with what's said there or by the Women's Council of Ireland? No. Do I have to? No. In the same way that disagreeing vehemently with the Labour Party or the Socialist Party doesn't make me less of a socialist, disagreeing with other feminists doesn't make me less of a feminist. That, again, is freedom of speech and choice.

hatrickpatrick · 03-10-2013 09:30PM

I'll reply in detail when I'm home later on but a brief aside: is "women of colour" or indeed anyone "of colour" not considered racist terminology? Not saying that was your intention, just curious - my history teacher in school always said that the label "coloured" or "of colour" was something generally detested by those it was being used to refer to.
Is this the case, or was that an incorrect teaching? Just curious.

Ambersky · 03-10-2013 09:36PM

OMG Will someone just change the thread title to

I dont agree with or need feminism and neither do you and I will tell you why in detail.

Millicent · 03-10-2013 09:49PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'll reply in detail when I'm home later on but a brief aside: is "women of colour" or indeed anyone "of colour" not considered racist terminology? Not saying that was your intention, just curious - my history teacher in school always said that the label "coloured" or "of colour" was something generally detested by those it was being used to refer to.
Is this the case, or was that an incorrect teaching? Just curious.

Nope.

It's common parlance in the States and is meant to be more inclusive than "minority women" or "non-white women". (Wiki) The term "coloured people" is what is considered offensive.

Femme_Fatale · 04-10-2013 09:18PM

Ambersky wrote: »

OMG Will someone just change the thread title to

I dont agree with or need feminism and neither do you and I will tell you why in detail.

But sometimes the reasons given for needing feminism are a bit difficult to understand. That doesn't mean feminism isn't needed though, for sure.

Links234 · 11-10-2013 08:55PM

Links234 · 13-10-2013 09:58PM

Came across this the other day, Studio Ghibli Builts Self-Esteem in Young Girls

I have to say, I can't agree enough with it.

Ambersky · 14-10-2013 12:28PM

I need feminism as a voice that still points out what is going on for and about women even when that voice is unpopular.
Take a relatively simple example, there is a test called the Bechdel/Wallace test that can be done to look at gender bias in movies/ books/ animation etc.
It is interesting partly because the bar for this test is set so low, all it asks is that any work of fiction fulfills three basic requirements. To pass the test the work

(1) must have at least two women in it
(2) who talk to each other
(3) about something besides a man.

Very simple test isn't it and not asking much in the line of gender balance. The female characters can be talking about anything at all other than a man and they dont even have to like one another. Thats all its asking, the women dont have to be well rounded charachters, they just have to be there and talk to each other at least once in the work of fiction to pass the test. Its not a perfect test but but it does get you thinking.

Few Oscar nominees for Best Picture pass the Bechdel Test despite the many great performances by actresses in 2013. While Hollywood may be making progress, it seems female characters have not changed as quickly.

Think about some of your favourite films or have this test in mind as you watch your next film.

http://www.ibtimes.com/feminism-2013-oscars-which-movies-nominated-best-picture-would-pass-bechdel-test-1103386
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test

If you are interested at looking at gender bias in popular culture there are other startling observations that can really get you thinking and taking a second look.

art historian John Berger said
"a man's presence suggests what he is capable of doing to you and for you. By contrast a woman's presence ... defines what can and cannot be done to her"

Amirani · 14-10-2013 01:21PM

Female characters are definitely generally under-utilised in Hollywood. Whether this is down to the larger majority of male directors and producers or audience appetite is unclear.

Ambersky · 14-10-2013 01:47PM

I think the why of gender bias is the next step that one can take after seeing it.
Cultural gender bias is right there in front of our eyes and yet we are conditioned not to see it.
So it usually takes a little time and someone pointing it out in order to see it in the first place.

Actually in order to establish cultural bias it doesn't matter if its the cause of male directors, producers or due to audience demand, all those things in themselves are an expression of cultural bias.

We can and do spend ages arguing cultural gender bias, whether it exists or not, whos to blame etc and everyone has a point of view.
Exercises like the Bechdel/Wallace test help us establish cultural bias beyond personal opinion, either the films books etc pass the simple test or they do not.

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/10-famous-films-that-surprisingly-fail-the-bechdel-test.php?_r=true

14-10-2013 05:52PM

Do you not think you would have to analyse cultural bias and how it come about because sometimes its as if people believe that there is some sort of active conspiracy theory to portray women in only one way in the media instead of it being all about advertising and what sells.

That must be some reason women's main stream fashion magazines out sell any "alternative" feminist woman zines.

Are women actively participating in their own oppression by buying fashion magazines and going to see a film where women are always in a supporting role to a man?.

Links234 · 14-10-2013 06:18PM

mariaalice wrote: »

Do you not think you would have to analyse cultural bias and how it come about because sometimes its as if people believe that there is some sort of active conspiracy theory to portray women in only one way in the media instead of it being all about advertising and what sells.

That must be some reason women's main stream fashion magazines out sell any "alternative" feminist woman zines.

Are women actively participating in their own oppression by buying fashion magazines and going to see a film where women are always in a supporting role to a man?.

It's not a conspiracy theory to portray women in only one way, it's that this is the status quo. and the problem with something being the status quo is that it often remains unchallenged, people have an attitude that if it's working for them there's no reason they'd change that. in the case of movies, people are still buying their product.

Lyaiera · 14-10-2013 06:56PM

Links234 wrote: »

It's not a conspiracy theory to portray women in only one way, it's that this is the status quo. and the problem with something being the status quo is that it often remains unchallenged, people have an attitude that if it's working for them there's no reason they'd change that. in the case of movies, people are still buying their product.

And even if someone does challenge the status quo it doesn't guarantee an immediately better life or place. In fact it can be worse for a long time, but morally/philosophically/ethically it's better.

(Loving your avatar at the moment Links.)

Links234 · 14-10-2013 07:08PM

also, going back to the Studio Ghibli thing again, I think it's seriously worth noting how in many of the movies the representation of female characters is so vastly different from mainstream american cinema that we often have a older women and their worth is not based upon how attractive they are. Take Howl's Moving Castle for example, and the main character is a young woman who gets cursed by a witch and is transformed into an old woman, she spends the rest of the film getting through some remarkable situations on her grit alone and all the while surrounded by extremely powerful wizards and witches. in Castle in the Sky, we have a rather pivotal character Dola who is the leader of the sky pirates, or in Spirited Away there's the witches Yubaba and Zeniba

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UibodUGoL4M

GalwayGuy2 · 14-10-2013 07:13PM

@Bechdel Test

Is it possible for a male/female version of that to pass any good movie? If you have a balanced gender cast, pretty much any conversation could be say that it is talking about male/female.

Unless of course you put in a scene just to pass that test, and, IMO, it's bad writing to put in a scene for only one reason.

Links234 · 14-10-2013 07:21PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

And even if someone does challenge the status quo it doesn't guarantee an immediately better life or place. In fact it can be worse for a long time, but morally/philosophically/ethically it's better

(Loving your avatar at the moment Links.)

thanks

half thinking of changing it again, but I might leave it a while yet so!

anyway, you can apply the kind of status quo I'm on about across the board. beer for example! why does nearly every pub in the country have mostly the same thing on tap? there's a whole world of different beers out there, but outside of a few craft pubs, you don't see it. I tend to go to craft pubs, and it's shocking that you'll have people who come in and ask for a Guinness/Carlsberg/Bud and completely lose their **** when they're informed the bar doesn't serve those, they just couldn't imagine that their tastes weren't being catered to.

coming back to movies again, you kinda see this when people just wouldn't imagine watching a foreign movie

Links234 · 14-10-2013 07:31PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

@Bechdel Test

Is it possible for a male/female version of that to pass any good movie? If you have a balanced gender cast, pretty much any conversation could be say that it is talking about male/female.

Unless of course you put in a scene just to pass that test, and, IMO, it's bad writing to put in a scene for only one reason.

The Bechdel Test really hasn't anything to do with if a movie is good or not, and it's not meant to be applied just to judge a single movie, it's only when we're talking about movies as a whole does it become relevant in showing how half the population of the planet are under-represented in media.

meeeeh · 14-10-2013 08:19PM

Half of the world population are underrepresented in public life in general. And even movies targeting women mostly deal with their personal life and with very few other (public) aspects of their life. Tbh the mainstream movies are so poor at the moment it is way more interesting to look at tv stuff. And besides The Good Wife I can't think of good quality tv series with woman as a main character.

Amirani · 14-10-2013 08:29PM

meeeeh wrote: »

And besides The Good Wife I can't think of good quality tv series with woman as a main character.

30 Rock and Orange Is The New Black are two that spring to mind.

Links234 · 14-10-2013 08:31PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

30 Rock and Orange Is The New Black are two that spring to mind.

Orange is the New Black is one I really must get around to watching at some point, I hear nothing but good things about it. and hell, talking about female representation in media is one thing, how often do you get transgender women represented at all?

YumCha · 14-10-2013 08:39PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Half of the world population are underrepresented in public life in general. And even movies targeting women mostly deal with their personal life and with very few other (public) aspects of their life. Tbh the mainstream movies are so poor at the moment it is way more interesting to look at tv stuff. And besides The Good Wife I can't think of good quality tv series with woman as a main character.

I am loving Scandal (especially because Kerry Washington's character is based on real-life badass Judy Smith) but one of the departures they took was to have her character having this torrid on-again/off-again affair with the President... it just irks me.

Same way that Clare Danes' character in Homeland is bipolar - this is probably most protagonists in general, but it appears it's a necessity to have them flawed.

Lyaiera · 14-10-2013 08:52PM

Links234 wrote: »

anyway, you can apply the kind of status quo I'm on about across the board. beer for example! why does nearly every pub in the country have mostly the same thing on tap? there's a whole world of different beers out there, but outside of a few craft pubs, you don't see it. I tend to go to craft pubs, and it's shocking that you'll have people who come in and ask for a Guinness/Carlsberg/Bud and completely lose their **** when they're informed the bar doesn't serve those, they just couldn't imagine that their tastes weren't being catered to.

Ha! That's what I mean by challenging the status quo creating discomfort. For a lot of people Heineken, Bud or Guinness is the standard choice. It doesn't hurt them in any way by going for it. With craft beers there are loads of beers that you won't like, but there are a few you will adore. Like really, really love them to death. But there's time spent upset when you go through the beers you don't like to find a beer you really ****ing love. What's even weirder is that eventually you might go back to those beers you didn't like while you were finding the ones you did and realise your tastes grew and now you like them.

And to bring this back to the point of the thread: challenging the status quo when it comes to public perception, the media and portrayed images all bring temporary discomfort. But it's better in the long run. Unlike beer where the only downside to trying new beer is that you waste a few euros and (what a disgrace) have to leave a few beers unfinished. When you engage in practices that discommode an entire group of people there is a basic ethical flaw in your commitment to a self-serving happy mediocrity, or a sexist status quo.

And to round this out, for people to challenge the status quo they have to be in a position where they leave their beer unfinished and get another one. I think everyone is entitled to a beer, cocktail, glass of wine or whiskey (and plenty of them.) There are many people who don't have enough money or resources to afford to leave a drink unfinished. It's the people who can take those worldly satisfactions for granted that are most required to put the glass down and say I'll try something else.

14-10-2013 09:09PM

But that does mean woman have to actively disengage from the status que in the media, stop buying magazines or paying to see films that have women as second to men and so on.

Lyaiera · 14-10-2013 09:18PM

mariaalice wrote: »

But that does mean woman have to actively disengage from the status que in the media, stop buying magazines or paying to see films that have women as second to men and so on.

Why women?

As in why paint this as a "men versus women" thing?

Surely there can be recognition that the current situation is good for neither men nor women. For all the MRAs get wrong the media has a pretty ****ty idea of what men are supposed to be as well. I maintain it's based on a false dichotomy of what men and women are supposed to do, but there are many equally as valid ideas of the ills of society.

I'm just looking for progress. The man and woman thing is what I know, so I'm going with it.

14-10-2013 09:26PM

However does the media shape reality or is reality shaped by the media, who benefits from the status quo.

Lyaiera · 14-10-2013 09:50PM

mariaalice wrote: »

However does the media shape reality or is reality shaped by the media, who benefits from the status quo.

That's not how a status quo works. A status quo is maintained until it becomes intolerable, there's a tipping point. That's what revolutions are borne of (Arab Springs, Suffragettes, etc.) The idea of progress is that we avoid them by working to get past the status quo while it's only minorly painful.

14-10-2013 10:20PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Why women?

As in why paint this as a "men versus women" thing?

Surely there can be recognition that the current situation is good for neither men nor women. For all the MRAs get wrong the media has a pretty ****ty idea of what men are supposed to be as well. I maintain it's based on a false dichotomy of what men and women are supposed to do, but there are many equally as valid ideas of the ills of society.

I'm just looking for progress. The man and woman thing is what I know, so I'm going with it.

This is probably an entirely eccentric way of looking at this and I don't know enough about the theory of how it we interact and react to society and culture.

Although the issue is to do with women and men it is more to do with women in my opinion to give an example James Connolly...The worker is the slave of capitalist society, the female worker is the slave of that slave. While we are all oppressed by the system as it is, men and women are oppressed in different ways.

I know the current thinking is to say both men and women need to be freed from the status quo for the betterment of everyone and that to say it is an issue for women alone is divisive. I only partly agree with that.

I need feminism because...

Comments