NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just sick of people who clearly and strongly believe in women's rights and equality shying away from saying "I'm a feminist". It's craziness. Femenism is about having a fair balance of power between the genders. Women are still on the losing side of that balance (here in Canada, anyway). Why is that so hard to admit? What is it with the word?

I think it must be a mix of denial and thinly veiled guilt.

I'm just sick of people who clearly and strongly believe in women's rights and equality shying away from saying "I'm a feminist". It's craziness. Femenism is about having a fair balance of power between the genders. Women are still on the losing side of that balance (here in Canada, anyway). Why is that so hard to admit? What is it with the word?

I think it must be a mix of denial and thinly veiled guilt.

There is nothing wrong with the ideals of equality, but "feminist" evokes ideas of women who think they're superior, and are really not feminine at all.
























































http://blog.pennlive.com/joeowensblog/hillary.jpg

After-all they're not called "equalitiests".

There is nothing wrong with the ideals of equality, but "feminist" evokes ideas of women who think they're superior,

Well, maybe it evokes such images in your mind.

Feminism has always been about equality... but like most campaigns of equality, it has inspired much "Ah! They're oppressing us!" whining from those losing their privilege.

and are really not feminine at all.

The fact that you say this, and present an image of Hillary Clinton to support your overall argument, suggests that you have good reason to feel threatened by feminism.

:rolleyes:

After-all they're not called "equalitiests".

No. Because in our world, it is women (females) whose status must be raised to achieve equality.

Most people say they're in favor of "equality"... it means little to speak of it abstractly, independently of a substantive material direction.

It does seem like Feminism have been hijacked by a few radical feminist who makes it their life goal to have a reversal of what we had in the 1950's. Maybe they are just trying to separate themselves from the radicals?

What the fuck is a post patriarchy? Please explain.

A society that doesn't have men as the sole leader anymore. *nods*

Well, maybe it evokes such images in your mind.

I just provided the image it evokes.

Feminism has always been about equality... but like most campaigns of equality, it has inspired much "Ah! They're oppressing us!" whining from those losing their privilege.


I think women deserve to be treated just like men. How does lack of a "thing" make someone inferior? Of even different?

The fact that you say this, and present an image of Hillary Clinton to support your overall argument, suggests that you have good reason to feel threatened by feminism.

:rolleyes:

Not the movement, just the word. I feel troubled because... feminists generally aren't all that feminine.

No. Because in our world, it is women (females) whose status must be raised to achieve equality.

Not much. Women already graduate from college more then men. They hold more degrees. This shows there really isn't a bias here.

Most people say they're in favor of "equality"... it means little to speak of it abstractly, independently of a substantive material direction.

Basically you're saying the word "equality" is BS employed by those who don't want to argue?

What the fuck is a post patriarchy? Please explain.

It does seem like Feminism have been hijacked by a few radical feminist who makes it their life goal to have a reversal of what we had in the 1950's.

Really? So there are radical feminists who, say, want men to be confined to the home, do the housework, and submit to their wives? And these alleged "radical feminists" have gotten into control of the feminist movement?

If a movement as large and influential as feminism has indeed been "hijacked" by such people, surely it should be easy to find a few of them?

Name names. And stances that you think constitute advocating "a reversal of what we had in the 1950s" (by which I assume you mean pervasive female domination and supremacy.)

Really? So there are radical feminists who, say, want men to be confined to the home, do the housework, and submit to their wives? And these alleged "radical feminists" have gotten into control of the feminist movement?

If a movement as large and influential as feminism has indeed been "hijacked" by such people, surely it should be easy to find a few of them?

Name names. And stances that you think constitute advocating "a reversal of what we had in the 1950s" (by which I assume you mean pervasive female domination and supremacy.)

He just means women who (for instance) don't want men to open doors for them.

So what if men are extra courteous to women? It's the least we can do for the sex that has to give birth.

A society that doesn't have men as the sole leader anymore. *nods*

It's not you, I know, but how can 'men' be the 'sole' leader? That makes absolutely no sense.

I just provided the image it evokes.

Again... the image it invokes in your head.

That tells us something about you. I'm not sure it tells us anything about feminism.

Not the movement, just the word. I feel troubled because... feminists generally aren't all that feminine.

Why does this trouble you?

Not much. Women already graduate from college more then men. They hold more degrees. This shows there really isn't a bias here.

No, it doesn't... because despite this, women are in a much economically worse position compared to men, and underrepresented in high-level positions.

(Among many, many other things.)

Basically you're saying the word "equality" is BS employed by those who don't want to argue?

No, that's not what I said. Though saying you're "pro-equality" outside of any specific context is pretty meaningless.

He just means women who (for instance) don't want men to open doors for them.

Um, this has nothing to do with "radical feminism." Nor is it in the slightest a manifestation of female supremacy.

So what if men are extra courteous to women?

"I think women deserve to be treated just like men."

Did you change your mind?

I'm a female who is all for women's rights, but I would never call myself a feminist. Calling yourself feminist is like calling yourself a nut. It seems like the modern feminist movement is all about misandry, women just complain about men and they come off as bitter.

I'm also a vegetarian who loves animals, but I would never say I'm an animal rights activist. Those people are crazy. Most of the time I don't like to be politically labeled. I've refused to ever call myself a democrat, republican, or even moderate. I don't even have a clear answer when people ask my religion. I dunno, maybe there's something wrong with my head, but I like to think that I'm just trying to avoid falling into traps. When people join a larger group they can lose perspective, and I don't like that.

"I think women deserve to be treated just like men."


Yah, but no one really believes that.

Again... the image it invokes in your head.

Ah, the unconscious. I was going to vote for her, but she tried to please men too much.

That tells us something about you. I'm not sure it tells us anything about feminism.

I'd say a lot of feminists are pro-Hillary...wouldn't you?

Why does this trouble you?

Because it's an oxymoron.

No, it doesn't... because despite this, women are in a much economically worse position compared to men, and underrepresented in high-level positions.

(Among many, many other things.)

Then they should get their ass in gear. They already showed they can outperform men, why don't they? You don't see me whining about how biased colleges are against men.

No, that's not what I said. Though saying you're "pro-equality" outside of any specific context is pretty meaningless.
I'd agree with that. "Gender equalitiests" then. But feminists? No.

I'm a female who is all for women's rights, but I would never call myself a feminist. Calling yourself feminist is like calling yourself a nut. It seems like the modern feminist movement is all about misandry, women just complain about men and they come off as bitter.

I'm also a vegetarian who loves animals, but I would never say I'm an animal rights activist. Those people are crazy. Most of the time I don't like to be politically labeled. I've refused to ever call myself a democrat, republican, or even moderate. I don't even have a clear answer when people ask my religion. I dunno, maybe there's something wrong with my head, but I like to think that I'm just trying to avoid falling into traps. When people join a larger group they can lose perspective, and I don't like that.

Amen. Amen again. Full agreement!

One other thing. I really hate how "tough" women are portrayed in our society and I don't want to be associated with them. Like collete in ratatouille. She thinks being equal means beating up her boyfriend. If it was luguini beating HER up, people would be outraged. The only reason she can threaten him with a knife, is because she's "just a women." The makers of the movie where trying to make women look strong, but what they're really is saying that women are so weak, it doesn't matter how much of a violent bitch they are. That's what a strong women in our society is supposed to be: a psychopathic bitch. There should be more of a happy medium between the stereotypical empowered women and the helpless airhead.

Um, this has nothing to do with "radical feminism." Nor is it in the slightest a manifestation of female supremacy.

No, but it is stupid.

"I think women deserve to be treated just like men."

Did you change your mind?

Nature doesn't treat women like men. It forces them to go through the rigors of child-birth.

What's wrong with be trying to perform token-courtesy as a thank-you? I think I owe it to women. There isn't one person I know who didn't spend the first moths of their life in a woman's body.

One other thing. I really hate how "tough" women are portrayed in our society and I don't want to be associated with them. Like collete in ratatouille. She thinks being equal means beating up her boyfriend. If it was luguini beating HER up, people would be outraged. The only reason she can threaten him with a knife, is because she's "just a women." The makers of the movie where trying to make women look strong, but what they're really is saying that women are so weak, it doesn't matter how much of a violent bitch they are. That's what a strong women in our society is supposed to be: a psychopathic bitch. There should be more of a happy medium between the stereotypical empowered women and the helpless airhead.

The paragon of a "tough-woman" in my mind is Atalanta, which I think makes more sense.

This thread is looking more like a troll than anything else. Where is the OP? Why is Kreitzmoorland not participating in their own thread? Busy cooking dinner?

I'd say a lot of feminists are pro-Hillary...wouldn't you?

Beats me. I'm not. I much prefer Obama.

Because it's an oxymoron.

Who determines what traits are "feminine"?

Then they should get their ass in gear. They already showed they can outperform men, why don't they? You don't see me whining about how biased colleges are against men.

Has it ever occurred to you that they do? You are making an awful lot of assumptions if you think the same performance is always treated the same way in the working world.

It's not you, I know, but how can 'men' be the 'sole' leader? That makes absolutely no sense.They're shoemakers?
Yah, but no one really believes that.I'm pretty confident I do. What do you mean exactly?

There is nothing wrong with the ideals of equality, but "feminist" evokes ideas of women who think they're superior, and are really not feminine at all.

Threadwin in the first reply. Have an internet :D

Ah, the unconscious. I was going to vote for her, but she tried to please men too much.

What?

I'd say a lot of feminists are pro-Hillary...wouldn't you?

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Because it's an oxymoron.

Not pandering to other people's conceptions of what constitutes "feminine" is not only not contrary to feminism, but actually very much in line with it.

Then they should get their ass in gear. They already showed they can outperform men, why don't they?

So how much do you think they should have to outperform men before they achieve equality?

I'd agree with that. "Gender equalitiests" then. But feminists? No.

You're still ignoring the fact that, materially, in a society like ours a political movement for gender equality must strive for raising the status of women.

Just as a political movement for, say, equality across sexual orientations must strive for raising the status and gays and lesbians... and in accordance calls itself the gay rights movement.

This thread is looking more like a troll than anything else. Where is the OP? Why is Kreitzmoorland not participating in their own thread?
Because she went to get some dinner. Responses forthcoming.

I'm pretty confident I do. What do you mean exactly?

Just like men? In other words, treated identically to men? I don't think that you believe that at all.

No, but it is stupid.

Since "courtesy" to women of that sort tends to be bound up with sexist notions of femininity, no, it isn't stupid.

Nature doesn't treat women like men. It forces them to go through the rigors of child-birth.

What's wrong with be trying to perform token-courtesy as a thank-you?

For all women, as a class? The ones who bear children and the ones who don't--a decision which is (or at least should be) a free choice anyway? All their lives? And as regards something that isn't remotely connected with childbirth?

This reeks of a (poor) after-the-fact justification to me.

Since "courtesy" to women of that sort tends to be bound up with sexist notions of femininity, no, it isn't stupid.

Indeed. I've got no problem with someone - male or female - holding a door open for me, especially if I'm trying to carry a lot. I do have a problem with it if they're only doing it because I happen to have breasts, and they'd let the door slam in the face of any of my male friends.

Just like men? In other words, treated identically to men? I don't think that you believe that at all.You might be right, though in that case, I'd say you're merely engaging in sophistry. I do believe women to be our equals, but not identical to us in all respects, and thus may not always deserve to be treated exactly like males.. Unless it's a female I think deserves to be treated poorly, of course.

Again, what exactly do you mean?

There is nothing wrong with the ideals of equality, but "feminist" evokes ideas of women who think they're superior, and are really not feminine at all.
I'm finding your post a bit incoherent. "ideals" of equality ore ok, but when a woman is running for president (an emblem of real-life equality), it's a negative symbol? One evoked by notions of masculinity?

The sterotype of the butch man-hater feminist is arrant nonsense. Maybe it's a bit obnoxious to use myself as an example, but I like wearing dresses, being pretty, watching "clueless" at least 3 times a year, and so on. I'm also a feminist, and a political person. And I know many women much like me. I don't get the conflict.

I think it's true that to break into power structures that were created by men, and are sill male-dominated, women often play up traditionally masculine images and behaviors. As institutions discourse-domains become less male-oriented, there won't be so much of a necesity for this. Being a "femenine", but at the same time respected and powerful woman will become progressively easier the more women there are to shape expectations at the highest level. It's a positive feedback loop.

Who determines what traits are "feminine"?

Umm - call me old-fashioned but I have always considered child-bearing and breast-feeding feminine. Plenty of ancillary activities which go along also qualify. Those things have, and always will, have an influence of what qualifies as feminine and masculine.

Childbirth and breastfeeding give women an advantage with child-rearing - so non-child rearing activities tend to fall to the masculine - particulary ones which would be difficult and/or dangerous when done in conjunction with child rearing.



Has it ever occurred to you that they do? You are making an awful lot of assumptions if you think the same performance is always treated the same way in the working world.
Performance is absoultely paid and treated differently. However there are considerations beyond gender which determine that. Education. Experience. Tenure. Dependability. Flexibility.

In addition there is the double-standard of sexual harassment. Women can say anything to a man or even another woman. Believe me they say it to me and around me all the time. Were I to say the same thing it would be considered an actionable event. Here are some choice examples of things I've heard women say lately;

"The others (female subordinates) call me CHB - short for cold hearted bitch. That's what I am."
"Want to see my tattoo of a mouse? (unbuttons trousers a little) Oh no! My pussy ate it!"
"Mary can be such a bitch sometimes".
One woman to another "Maybe you'd get the deal if you just showed hiim a little more leg?"
"I really got fucked up the ass on that deal".
and my favorite "I thought the customer would be more comfortable dealing with a man than a woman sales rep". From a female sales manager.

You might be right, though in that case, I'd say you're merely engaging in sophistry. I do believe women to be our equals, but not identical to us in all respects, and thus may not always deserve to be treated exactly like males.. Unless it's a female I think deserves to be treated poorly, of course.

Again, what exactly do you mean?

It's not sophistry at all. You've already recognized that women are not identical to men and therefore a blanket proposition that all individuals should be treated identically without respect to their sex/gender is problematic.

There is nothing wrong with the ideals of equality, but "feminist" evokes ideas of women who think they're superior, and are really not feminine at all. Again, the fact that "feminism" evokes those ideas says more about you than about me, self-described feminist who likes to cook, sew and wear dresses. Feminism is a pretty non-homogeneous movement anyway. Feminism is, and has always been about equality, as Soheran said. The reason it's not "equalism" is that it's women who need the equalizing in most societies.

Umm - call me old-fashioned but I have always considered child-bearing and breast-feeding feminine. Plenty of ancillary activities which go along also qualify. Those things have, and always will, have an influence of what qualifies as feminine and masculine.

So a woman has to be bearing children and breastfeeding to be feminine?

Childbirth and breastfeeding give women an advantage with child-rearing - so non-child rearing activities tend to fall to the masculine - particulary ones which would be difficult and/or dangerous when done in conjunction with child rearing.

How do they "give women an advantage with child-rearing"? Just about any woman can give birth and breastfeed, but I think there is an awful lot more to child-rearing than that, especially since the birth is over before the rearing begins and the breastfeeding only lasts for a very small fraction of the child-rearing process.

Performance is absoultely paid and treated differently. However there are considerations beyond gender which determine that. Education. Experience. Tenure. Dependability. Flexibility.

And gender. Just ask Ben Barres, especially if you can find his own essay on the subject. He has a very unique perspective on it, having practiced as a scientist both as a woman and a man.

Again, the fact that "feminism" evokes those ideas says more about you than about me, self-described feminist who likes to cook, sew and wear dresses. Feminism is a pretty non-homogeneous movement anyway. Feminism is, and has always been about equality, as Soheran said. The reason it's not "equalism" is that it's women who need the equalizing in most societies.

It's really incorrect to say that women need the equalizing. It implies that only women are being negatively affected. Sexist societies negatively affect both men and women. It is correct to say that women have traditionally been on the receiving end of the more glaring discrimination.

It's not sophistry at all. You've already recognized that women are not identical to men and therefore a blanket proposition that all individuals should be treated identically without respect to their sex/gender is problematic.It is sophistry, because it makes the blanket assumptions that all individuals of the same gender are identical, that there aren't just as great differences between individuals of the same gender, as there are between individuals of different genders, and that a definite and absolute gender-divide exists.

Assuming individual differences, and according adjustments in my behaviour towards particular individuals exist, I'd say it is quite accurate to claim I believe women deserves to be treated the same way men are, as gender in and of itself does not amount to a major difference between the individuals, and thus don't result in a major difference in how I perceive or treat the individuals, or believe they deserve to be treated.

But then, this seems like hairsplitting for the sake of it, and it may be possible to think up some scenario where there is a distinct and discreet difference in how I treat people, based on their gender, so let me just modify my statement to be: "I believe genders, and their lack to be equal, regardless of their differences". I certainly don't treat my wife to an early morning BJ, but that doesn't mean I don't do something very similar, just that she doesn't have a cock.

It's really incorrect to say that women need the equalizing. Sexist societies negatively affect both men and women. It is correct to say that women have traditionally been on the receiving end of the more glaring discrimination.I think it's fair to say that women need the equalizing in many (though not all) respects. Though sexism harms society as a whole, including men, it's women that have less power.

Again, the fact that "feminism" evokes those ideas says more about you than about me, self-described feminist who likes to cook, sew and wear dresses. Feminism is a pretty non-homogeneous movement anyway. Feminism is, and has always been about equality, as Soheran said. The reason it's not "equalism" is that it's women who need the equalizing in most societies.

You should know that in the US feminism has been hijacked by these folks http://www.now.org

NOW has peculiar ideas; such as women who choose to stay at home to raise their children are less feminist than women who pursue careers. Women who support unions are more feminist than women who don't. Women who support accountability in education are less feminist than those who support unconditional support for teachers. Etc. Etc. It boils down to women who vote republican are less feminist than women who vote democrat - and thats the rub.

Much of the negative bias against feminists has been brought about by NOWs hijacking and politicization of the term. Funny thing is - most people, on both sids of the issues, have no idea that NOW is the ones who have done this.

Think of them like PETA - a reasonable cause which has been tainted by radicals - except instead of radicals it is just unadulterated politics.

Many people in th US are quite feminist if called to task - but because NOW has hijacked the word they find themselves unwilling to align with them - and therefore the word.

In the last few years there has been some pushback. One of the more notable non-religious sites has been http://www.ifeminist.com - though it pales in comparison to the reach and infusion NOW has achieved.

I think it's fair to say that women need the equalizing in many (though not all) respects. Though sexism harms society as a whole, including men, it's women that have less power.

In other words, everyone needs "equalizing". There are simply issues that will take precedence over others, and many of those will deal with addressing discrimination against women.


You should know that in the US feminism has been hijacked by these folks http://www.now.org

Since when?

NOW has peculiar ideas; such as women who choose to stay at home to raise their children are less feminist than women who pursue careers. Women who support unions are more feminist than women who don't. Women who support accountability in education are less feminist than those who support unconditional support for teachers. Etc. Etc. It boils down to women who vote republican are less feminist than women who vote democrat - and thats the rub.

Let's say all of this is true (I doubt it is, especially the first claim.)

People might get "feminists are crazy liberals" from that. They wouldn't remotely get "feminists hate men."

- snip -

Hairsplitting, I'll accept.

But it wasn't sophistry. There is nothing fallacious about it.

Even then, I doubt you'd want to repeal the Violence Against Women Act, even in light of what you have said above.

So a woman has to be bearing children and breastfeeding to be feminine?
umm. no. You asked what are some feminine traits and I provided an example. Masculine traits include a beard - but it does not mean men without one are not masculine. It is just one EXAMPLE. Having trouble getting past that?



How do they "give women an advantage with child-rearing"? Just about any woman can give birth and breastfeed, but I think there is an awful lot more to child-rearing than that, especially since the birth is over before the rearing begins and the breastfeeding only lasts for a very small fraction of the child-rearing process.
Well - first of all - they give an obvious advantage to women in child-rearing because without women men could not bear children - not even with artificial insemination. So far as breastfeeding that is another advantage to women. You do know the difference between an advantage and the actual task - right?


And gender. Just ask Ben Barres, especially if you can find his own essay on the subject. He has a very unique perspective on it, having practiced as a scientist both as a woman and a man.
LOL. No agenda there!

How about I pull out references from another author with unique insights? Just ask Warren Farrell who served on the board of directors for the national organization of women. Who points out, among many other things, that women tend to choose more psychically fulfilling jobs rather than monetarily fulfilling. - which, almost without exception, pay less. They also tend to work in jobs with less physical activity, risk of injury or discomfort - which also tend to pay less. In addition, men are more likely to work overtime and thus are paid for more hours worked at a higher overtime rate.

Of course - we could do like NOW and just gloss over the inconvenient facts and focus on whatever figure most suits our agenda...

umm. no. You asked what are some feminie traits and I provided an example. Having trouble getting past that?

No, I asked who defines what is "feminine" after another poster stated that feminists aren't feminine. I'm sure neither you nor the other poster are suggesting that feminists do not give birth to children and breastfeed them.

Well - first of all - they give an obvious advantage to women in child-rearing because without women men could not bear children.

And without men, women could not bear children. What is your point, exactly?

So far as breastfeeding that is another advantage to women. You do know the difference between an advantage and the actual task - right?

A woman produces milk from her breasts and can thus choose to breastfeed a child. This is, as I said, only a very tiny part of taking care of a child - and occurs for only a very tiny amount of the child's life. It hardly means that she necessarily has an advantage at the overall process of childrearing.

While it might mean that she spends more time with the child (assuming that the father chooses to spend less time than her), it does not make her better at actually raising that child.

LOL. No agenda there!

No, not at all. If you looked up his writing, you might see that his only "agenda" is to provide his insight on the matter.

Given that you don't often find someone who has experience in anything as both a man and a woman, it is pretty unique. It isn't often, for instance, that someone hears his own work being compared to his "sister's" (which is actually his own).

How about I pull out references from another author with unique insights? Just ask Warren Farrell who served on the board of directors for the national organization of women.

And he would have "unique insight" on how men and women are treated in thw workplace for the same work.....how, exactly?

Who points out, among many other things, that women tend to choose more psychically fulfilling jobs rather than monetarily fulfilling. - which, almost without exception, pay less. In addition, men are more likely to work overtime and thus are paid for more hours worked at a higher overtime rate.

Oh, apparently he wouldn't! Gotcha.

How about I pull out references from another author with unique insights? Just ask Warren Farrell who served on the board of directors for the national organization of women. Who points out, among many other things, that women tend to choose more psychically fulfilling jobs rather than monetarily fulfilling. - which, almost without exception, pay less. They also tend to work in jobs with less physical activity, risk of injury or discomfort. In addition, men are more likely to work overtime and thus are paid for more hours worked at a higher overtime rate.

Of course - we could do like NOW and just gloss over the inconvenient facts and focus on whatever figure most suits our agenda...How do you explain this?http://www.collegejournal.com/successwork/workplacediversity/20071023-gerencher.html

I go to art school, and literally 2/3 of the students are women. How many women artists do you know about? Frida kalho?! Female artists are like illustrators and cartoonists... in art history classes they're just kind of skipped.

edit: I didn't link to the right article the first time...

Hairsplitting, I'll accept.

But it wasn't sophistry. There is nothing fallacious about it.You don't agree those three assumptions are fallacious?

Even then, I doubt you'd want to repeal the Violence Against Women Act, even in light of what you have said above.Like I said, it might be possible to find exclusively gender-based differences. This isn't a useful example, however, because it ignores the possibility that I'd support similar, communal attempts at protecting men, if they were victimized in a similar fashion. As it is, it is only indicative of what I think is acceptable behaviour towards human beings.

My blowjob example at least involved an absolute difference in how the same behaviour must necessarily be applied differently.

But again, if all you wanted was to point out people aren't identical, and one possible difference is gender, I'm not disagreeing with you. The fact that genders exist should make this obvious.

How do you explain this?http://www.collegejournal.com/successwork/workplacediversity/20071023-gerencher.html

umm - I already did...



I go to art school, and literally 2/3 of the students are women. How many women artists do you know about? Frida kalho?! Female artists are like illustrators and cartoonists... in art history classes they're just kind of skipped.


Umm - what does that have to do with anything? Would you like to reinvent art history? Maybe you could also reinvent the American Revolution while you're at it? Why not reinvent old and middle english literature also?

Oh - and BTW - art history is about as interesting to me as the history of the NFL or anything on the cooking channel. I could barely give a rats-ass about any beyond the novelty of it.

No, I asked who defines what is "feminine" after another poster stated that feminists aren't feminine. I'm sure neither you nor the other poster are suggesting that feminists do not give birth to children and breastfeed them.



And without men, women could not bear children. What is your point, exactly?



A woman produces milk from her breasts and can thus choose to breastfeed a child. This is, as I said, only a very tiny part of taking care of a child - and occurs for only a very tiny amount of the child's life. It hardly means that she necessarily has an advantage at the overall process of childrearing.

While it might mean that she spends more time with the child (assuming that the father chooses to spend less time than her), it does not make her better at actually raising that child.



No, not at all. If you looked up his writing, you might see that his only "agenda" is to provide his insight on the matter.

Given that you don't often find someone who has experience in anything as both a man and a woman, it is pretty unique. It isn't often, for instance, that someone hears his own work being compared to his "sister's" (which is actually his own).



And he would have "unique insight" on how men and women are treated in thw workplace for the same work.....how, exactly?



Oh, apparently he wouldn't! Gotcha.

at some point here I'm sure you feel you have a point. Either I'm tired or you've failed to make it. Right now I'd say it could go either way.

See you later.

edit - btw - please take note of the edits I made for clarity which I made while you were, apparently, already responding. (yawn) g-night.

at some point here I'm sure you feel you have a point. Either I'm tired or you've failed to make it. Right now I'd say it could go either way.

So you aren't going to answer my questions? You don't have anything to counter the perspective of someone who actually has worked in a typically male profession as both a man and a woman?

See you later.

Guess not.

edit - btw - please take note of the edits I made for clarity which I made while you were, apparently, already responding. (yawn) g-night.

What edits are those? All I can see is that you added a reference to artificial insemination. You also added "has a beard" as a possible "male trait". So now we're using physical traits. However, I doubt that the poster who started that part of the conversation was referring to secondary sex characteristics. I highly doubt, for instance, that the suggestion was that feminists don't have breasts.

Hellos,

wondering, what is a "post-feminist"?

monk or friar who gives up women?

*what is word?* the egotistical man who believes that just because their plumbing is on the outside, that all women should worship men?

confuzed :headbang:
Rafe
OOC

Hellos,

wondering, what is a "post-feminist"?

monk or friar who gives up women?

*what is word?* the egotistical man who believes that just because their plumbing is on the outside, that all women should worship men?

confuzed :headbang:
Rafe
OOCFirst, google is your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-feminism

That'll give you a feel for what people mean by post-femenism.
Essentially it's a notion that feminism is obsolete, has accomplished its goals already, or no longer represents the interests of modern women. the title of this thread puts the lie to these notions - we still live a society that's quite far from fair gender-wise (and in many other respects as well).

The reason I dislike the word "feminist" is that it ignores other reasons for discrimination such as disabilities, genetic heritage, cultural heritage, religion, political views, sexual orientation and appearance.

I prefer "equalist" as it would be confusing for a straight Swedish Christian male to take a stand against discrimination in general by calling himself a "Tattooed Islamic black power feminist gay rights activist gypsy".

"Tattooed Islamic black power feminist gay rights activist gypsy".That sounds kinda sexy...

I suppose I'm a feminist in so far as I consider discrimination against women (whether intentional or "institutionalised") to be obviously wrong. I don't think any reasonable person can oppose the cause of equality.

Of course, it doesn't help that some "feminists" undermine the cause of feminism by being raving sexists who stereotype all men. Not only do they create a negative image of feminism among the ill-informed, but they provide an excuse for sexist men to dismiss feminism as a whole.

I also find it disturbing that ill-treatment of men by women has become a taboo subject. The prevailing view seems to be that "yes, violence and discrimination against men do exist to a small extent, but they're simply not important since they pale in comparison with the reverse". A friend of my father's was regularly beaten and ill-treated by his wife, for example, and was too ashamed to go to the police. Obviously there are far, far more women beaten by their husbands than the reverse. But if you want to fight sexism and violence, it's logical to be consistent.

There is nothing wrong with the ideals of equality, but "feminist" evokes ideas of women who think they're superior, and are really not feminine at all.

Why do women need to be feminine at all? Really, the gender roles leave me wondering: "why do they exist at all?", "Why are we supposed to wear this uncomfortable SHIT?" I was raised partly by rather traditional grandparents but one song on a cassette they bought me kinda influences me. First it deals with parents saying the singing girl that many things she is interested in are not for girls and then the last stanza goes like this: When I'll grow up, I want to design houses, ships or bridges / I want to climb the Himalaya, visit the entire world / then I'll show everyone what a girl can do / I want to learn what I am interested in because only that matters!

Why do women need to be feminine at all?

That's a good question. When you think about it rationally, there's no reason whatsoever why a person shouldn't (just because she was conceived with two X chromosomes and no Y) do what she wants with her life, dress and behave in whatever way she wants, and not only try but succeed at the career of her choice.

The problem is, a lot of people don't view this issue rationally. They simply react to what they think isn't "normal" - namely, any "violation" of "gender roles". A good way of fighting such prejudice would be a public information campaign to get people to think, though I'm not sure how that could be done.

It goes the other way too, of course. A man wanting to be a ballet dancer would probably be mocked by a lot of women as well as men, for being "unmanly", just as women weightlifters, for example, are seen to lack "feminity".

I'm just sick of people who clearly and strongly believe in women's rights and equality shying away from saying "I'm a feminist". It's craziness. Femenism is about having a fair balance of power between the genders. Women are still on the losing side of that balance (here in Canada, anyway). Why is that so hard to admit? What is it with the word?

I think it must be a mix of denial and thinly veiled guilt.

I suppose I'm a feminist in so far as I consider discrimination against women (whether intentional or "institutionalised") to be obviously wrong. I don't think any reasonable person can oppose the cause of equality.

Of course, it doesn't help that some "feminists" undermine the cause of feminism by being raving sexists who stereotype all men. Not only do they create a negative image of feminism among the ill-informed, but they provide an excuse for sexist men to dismiss feminism as a whole.

That.

When discussing with rational people whom I know to understand the word as it is denoted, i.e. someone who believes in, and strives for, the equality of the genders, then I have no problem using that term.

When, however, talking with others than those precious few people, I will not use it because of its connotation. In my society (I'ma 21-year-old German woman), "feminism" has been fatally tainted by activists who have put the end before the means, fighting for "equality" by professing and promoting female superiority. I myself feel that these people have no right to call themselves feminists and/or say that they want equality, but should rather confess that they are more caught up in an emotionally fired revenge (understandable, but not rational).

Apart from a few concrete actions and such fatal verbal blows to the cause of feminism like "There've been millenia of male supremacy, now it's first time for millenia of female supremacy before we can reach a fair equilibrium", I think most of it is in the attitude of the more visible "feminists", who do just what Aridd said - reverse sexism, hostility against men as a perceived collective etc.

It is, e.g., things like the "women only computer room" at my uni (much coveted because computer work stations are way too few here, and if you cannot r will not access the women only room, you'll have to count in an average 15-minutes wait for one to be free), the "women only cafe", the "women only computer workshops" and "women only parties" etc. that give "feminism" a bad name around here. These institutions send the message that women deserve special rights and may shut out men at will regarding things that are not at all founded in any reason but attitude. I borderline understand our women-only breastfeeding rooms, the women-only security escort service and the women-only parking spaces that are right next to the uni in a brightly lit area, but I see no such reason for the other things mentioned.

So yeah, I'ma feminist who believes that women have equal rights to men and men have equal rights to women, who is happy to hold open doors to men and women alike when I happen to be the first of many to pass through and/or when soemone else is carrying things (and appreciates having the same done for her by people of any gender) and who'll rather wait in line than to use a women-only computer room. I'll definitely not want to be associated with "feminists" who refuse to have doors held for them by men and wouldn't dream of doing men that favor, either, who believe they have the right to shut out men from an equal sharing of the uni's resources, and, most importantly, who dogmatically infringe on a woman's right to choose her lifestyle by calling her names and accusing her of conformism et al when she exercises her right to decide that she'll be happier and more fulfilled having kids and staying home with them instead of choosing the (equally legitimate and desireable) option of having her husband do so.

Hmm. Nothing has been posted yet that I feel a need to comment about, so I'll throw in a few pennies.

Feminism has managed to acquire a bad reputation for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is what the OP mentioned - to get into male-dominated institutions a woman sometimes puts on a masculine "face". Which I guess is understandable.

There are a few problems for women to overcome - probably more than I realise, but the big ones seem fairly obvious to me:
1.) Economically speaking, last I knew (which would be about 4 years ago, if I recall), men and women on salary wages in the same position had a staggering difference of 30%, with women being on the short end of the payroll stick.
2.) Most institutions don't seem like they take women all that seriously. My guess is that this is based on stereotypes - and unfortunately, the stereotypical woman is an airheaded damsel in distress.
3.) Sorry ladies, but...the simple fact that men and women are NOT equal by default. For example, in athletics, men have a distinct advantage in upper body strength-based activities, like the "rings". Conversely, women tend to be better at balance-based activities. Maybe not the best analogy, but men and women are very different and not always equal. You should strive for social equality, but it's fallacy and foolishness to claim that you should have that because you're "just as good" as men (in every sense, socially, women are inferior and that *IS* what the issue is - the reason feminism exists) - a much more winnable battle is to demand equality because you're a human being with the same rights as a member of the other gender.

Just some thoughts. Male superiority is probably going to take more than a movement to debunk. It's been one of the central parts of every society we have ever known, unfortunately. It's just an overplayed extension of basic male instinct, which is to provide and protect...and it's going to be one hell of a struggle if you want to completely change the way modern men interpret that instinct.

Why do women need to be feminine at all?

I think this partly is because feminine women are generally considered more attractive by men, which in turn gives them access to more attractive male partners.
Another reason might be that they are thought to act feminine. From a young age girls get dolls to play with etc etc.
Of course there is also the fact that feminine women are the social norm (or at least the ideal) and that most people prefer to follow those norms.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I just think those are the main reasons (probably also for men acting manly).

I also find it disturbing that ill-treatment of men by women has become a taboo subject. The prevailing view seems to be that "yes, violence and discrimination against men do exist to a small extent, but they're simply not important since they pale in comparison with the reverse". A friend of my father's was regularly beaten and ill-treated by his wife, for example, and was too ashamed to go to the police. Obviously there are far, far more women beaten by their husbands than the reverse. But if you want to fight sexism and violence, it's logical to be consistent.

this would be one of the negative effects of patriarchy on men.

I think of myself as an Equalist. The reason being that most of the feminists I have known personally seek to differenciate and seperate themselves from men, rather than working together with them for equal rights. I don't like the modern push by a lot of local feminists to isolate themselves from men.

this would be one of the negative effects of patriarchy on men.

To some extent, yes, in the sense that a man who's a victim of domestic abuse will fear being shamed by his gender peers if he admits it. Which is a product of patriarchical stereotypes and expectations. But I hope you're not saying that women who beat their husband should be considered blameless, with all the blame shifted to "patriarchy".

3.) Sorry ladies, but...the simple fact that men and women are NOT equal by default. For example, in athletics, men have a distinct advantage in upper body strength-based activities, like the "rings". Conversely, women tend to be better at balance-based activities. Maybe not the best analogy, but men and women are very different and not always equal. You should strive for social equality, but it's fallacy and foolishness to claim that you should have that because you're "just as good" as men (in every sense, socially, women are inferior and that *IS* what the issue is - the reason feminism exists) - a much more winnable battle is to demand equality because you're a human being with the same rights as a member of the other gender.


Here I was, thinking that feminism WAS about the same rights and not really about exact identical treatment.

another one for you list would be that in the USA for instance women are 6 times as likely as men to experience intimate partner violence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_statistics)

To some extent, yes, in the sense that a man who's a victim of domestic abuse will fear being shamed by his gender peers if he admits it. Which is a product of patriarchical stereotypes and expectations. But I hope you're not saying that women who beat their husband should be considered blameless, with all the blame shifted to "patriarchy".

no, I meant the fear for shame. Another one would be that men also have to act manly if they want it or not.

Here I was, thinking that feminism WAS about the same rights and not really about exact identical treatment.
I was simply saying that demanding equal rights on the basis of being "just as good" as men is not a good idea BECAUSE socially speaking, women are inferior to men - which is the issue. It *is* about getting those rights, yes.

another one for you list would be that in the USA for instance women are 6 times as likely as men to experience intimate partner violence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_statistics)
Very unfortunate, but is that an issue of equality, or an issue of upbringing? I am a man, and I would sooner tear the flesh from my body than hit my girlfriend.

So you aren't going to answer my questions? You don't have anything to counter the perspective of someone who actually has worked in a typically male profession as both a man and a woman?



Guess not.

What edits are those? All I can see is that you added a reference to artificial insemination. You also added "has a beard" as a possible "male trait". So now we're using physical traits. However, I doubt that the poster who started that part of the conversation was referring to secondary sex characteristics. I highly doubt, for instance, that the suggestion was that feminists don't have breasts.



Shocking as it may seem to you - I actually have other things to do - one would include sleep - which I politely told you. Your self-rightious retort illustrates your dogmatic close-mindedness. In your single-purposed endeavor to be 'right' you have forgotten to listen, learn and consider; you have spend far more effort trying to paint me into a corner where I have spent no time occupying. This is exactly why so many people get turned off to NOW and similar organizations - and exactly the reason why I am now terminating my participation in this discussion with you.

Very unfortunate, but is that an issue of equality, or an issue of upbringing? I am a man, and I would sooner tear the flesh from my body than hit my girlfriend.

upbringing is influenced by society

upbringing is influenced by society
So? I was brought up in the same society as you, and the same society as the spouse beaters of both genders - and we know my stance, and I *assume* you would not beat your spouse. Society doesn't automatically make us violent by being a violent entity itself - any influence must be allowed to affect you. For instance, I grew up in a very Christian family - Methodists to the left of me, Baptists to the right. Here I am, stuck in middle with atheism.

EDIT: Oops, wait, I wasn't brought up in that same society as you. Jij bent Belgisch!

Still, I am not a violent person, so my point stands.

Here I was, thinking that feminism WAS about the same rights and not really about exact identical treatment.


Perfect moment to slip inone of my fave caricatures/comics:

http://i19.tinypic.com/8554qdi.jpg

The text is German and reads "In order to ensure a fair selection process, the task is the same for all of you: Climb that tree!"

http://i19.tinypic.com/8554qdi.jpg

The text is German and reads "In order to ensure a fair selection process, the task is the same for all of you: Climb that tree!"

Hahaha! Excellent. That's exactly how I feel about this issue. The social ladder, as it is, is like a tree. Men are birds and women are monkeys. We can just fly right up without a care, but they have to really -try-. They can do it, but then they can't perch on the highest twigs like we can.

...because they're FAT!
/runs away!

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3. feminine character.





I'm a girl, so what, i like equal rights, and so does yo mama. And we all love our mamas, right? (except fer little joey down the street , his mama left his daddy fer the milk man, and even that bitch deserves rights) So why are some of y'alls hating on the Mamas? Hmmmmm

So? I was brought up in the same society as you, and the same society as the spouse beaters of both genders - and we know my stance, and I *assume* you would not beat your spouse. Society doesn't automatically make us violent by being a violent entity itself - any influence must be allowed to affect you. For instance, I grew up in a very Christian family - Methodists to the left of me, Baptists to the right. Here I am, stuck in middle with atheism.

EDIT: Oops, wait, I wasn't brought up in that same society as you. Jij bent Belgisch!

Still, I am not a violent person, so my point stands.

well, I didn't say it automatically makes us violent, but it probably influences us more than we think. And you can't really take yourself as an example to prove something, you're only one person, you need a sufficiently high sample size.

This all reminds me of the lecturer who does courses on feminism at the university where I work, and where I used to be a student.

Back in my student days, I had the option of taking her course, and I didn't. Partly because I wasn't particularly interested in feminist issues, and partly because I assumed (correctly) that all the students would be female, and that I'd stand out like a sore thumb. Patriarchal peer pressure, I suppose.

A female fellow student did attend the course. She confirmed that there were only female students, with one exception. And here's the thing. My female friend told me that the lecturer had taken every opportunity to mock the only male student, taunt him and make him self-conscious for being a male attending the course. So he left, gave it up. What kind of a "feminist" drives men away from taking an interest in feminism, and tries to set it up as an exclusive women's preserve?

That same lecturer was on the jury for my Maîtrise degree (what would now be a Master 1). In my research, I'd quoted from a book by an Aboriginal Australian who talked about his matriarchal society. The lecturer rejected that, saying "There has never been any such thing as a matriarchical society". She backed that up with another quote I'd made, this time from a 19th century white researcher in Australia, who had described Aboriginal societies as patriarchal. She said that meant my Aboriginal source was obviously lying. I pointed out that the 19th century guy had made a general observation based on his limited interaction with a small number of communities, and that there is huge diversity between Aboriginal societies. I felt like pointing out that an Aboriginal who has been raised in a matriarchal society is best placed to know what that society is. She wasn't convinced. The facts contradicted her preconceptions (her world view in which all societies are patriarchal and oppressive), so she rejected them. I was extremely annoyed.

For the record, there are other matriarchal societies that I'm aware of, including at least one in China (an isolated ethnic minority), and several in Papua New Guinea. Most Papuan societies are strongly patriarchal with an emphasis on gender roles and a view that women's menstrual blood is "polluting" and "dangerous". There's also a huge problem with domestic violence against women in PNG. However, some Papuan societies are more equalitarian, and some are led by a "Big Woman", placing no restrictions on women's achievements.

Anyway... A few years later, once I'd become a teacher at that uni, I was at a teachers' meeting, and one lecturer was talking about disruptive students, saying that in one group it happened to be only girls, whereas in another it was mostly boys. This "feminist" chimes in by saying: "Well yes, it's always the boys who are disruptive". I felt like asking her whether she'd even been paying attention to what was being said.

To be fair, and to her credit, at that same meeting that was a discussion on applications to a job. There were four or five female applicants and only one male, and she supported the male applicant because he had the best application. He got the job. So at least she didn't discriminate there.

Anyway... That was just to show an example of a "feminist" who tends to do more harm than good to her cause, by stereotyping all men and mocking any man who does take an interest in feminism.

Having said that, of course, I do know feminists who are genuine and intelligent feminists, in the sense that they seek to fight discrimination against women without feeling a compulsion to stereotype all men in the process. Who seek gender equality, rather than go around simply saying "women good, men all bad".

Feminism is a worthy cause, and discrimination against women does need to be addressed, which is why it pisses me off when some women undermine the very cause they claim to support.

Back in my student days, I had the option of taking her course, and I didn't. Partly because I wasn't particularly interested in feminist issues, and partly because I assumed (correctly) that all the students would be female, and that I'd stand out like a sore thumb. Patriarchal peer pressure, I suppose.I'm an environmentalist, and while it's not my primary motivation for going to meetings, being one of very few males isn't necessarily a discouraging factor =P

well, I didn't say it automatically makes us violent, but it probably influences us more than we think. And you can't really take yourself as an example to prove something, you're only one person, you need a sufficiently high sample size.

Mm... I disagree on your last point. I can take myself as an example because if society influences upbringing to a strong enough degree to place blame on society, then I should be violent.

If, however, it is simply one of many factors that does not in and of itself cause violent tendencies, it cannot be held accountable for the results of those influenced by it.

I believe that it is the fault of the mentors of a child (parents, other guardians, older siblings, teachers, etc.) and the influence of their friends (if some or all of those friends are violent) if a child grows up to be a violent person. GENERALLY, that is. That doesn't take into account the presence of mental illness.

Now, it's true enough that the mentors and friends of a child are part of society, but it isn't fair to shift the blame to "society" when only a small part of society is to blame. Thus, I believe it is most fair to say that the mentors and friends of a child are the most instrumental influences on aggressive tendencies.

I'm an environmentalist, and while it's not my primary motivation for going to meetings, being one of very few males isn't necessarily a discouraging factor =P

Heh. Point taken. ;)

I think this partly is because feminine women are generally considered more attractive by men, which in turn gives them access to more attractive male partners.
Another reason might be that they are thought to act feminine. From a young age girls get dolls to play with etc etc.
Of course there is also the fact that feminine women are the social norm (or at least the ideal) and that most people prefer to follow those norms.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I just think those are the main reasons (probably also for men acting manly).



a woman "needs" to act feminine because that is what society expects from her. it indicates that she knows her place. that place being one where attractiveness to men is the highest good, even if she is not actively seeking a mate. one where seeming to be nice, polite, gracious is more important than advancing her own best interests.

god forbid that a woman be aggressive like a man is when he is trying to advance his own best interest.

so when a woman asserts herself instead of deferring to the expectations of society, she must be vilified. this is why there has been a 40 year campaign to paint feminists as evil man haters. it lets other women know that there is a steep price to be paid for expecting to advance in life the same way a man can.

a woman "needs" to act feminine because that is what society expects from her. it indicates that she knows her place. that place being one where attractiveness to men is the highest good, even if she is not actively seeking a mate. one where seeming to be nice, polite, gracious is more important than advancing her own best interests.

god forbid that a woman be aggressive like a man is when he is trying to advance his own best interest.

so when a woman asserts herself instead of deferring to the expectations of society, she must be vilified. this is why there has been a 40 year campaign to paint feminists as evil man haters. it lets other women know that there is a steep price to be paid for expecting to advance in life the same way a man can.

ok, i agree with you. How would you explain that men have to act manly?
I also really hope that women don't become aggressive like a man when trying to advance her own best interest, I generally dislike aggression.

I prefer "equalist" as it would be confusing for a straight Swedish Christian male to take a stand against discrimination in general by calling himself a "Tattooed Islamic black power feminist gay rights activist gypsy".

Why would this necessarily be "confusing"... at least if you replaced "Islamic" and "gypsy" with the appropriate terms?

And why should every term describing stances be universal? In fact, I can't think of any term that is... even "equalist" would, say, leave room for people who advocate that everyone should be equally dead.

Of course, it doesn't help that some "feminists" undermine the cause of feminism by being raving sexists who stereotype all men. Not only do they create a negative image of feminism among the ill-informed, but they provide an excuse for sexist men to dismiss feminism as a whole.

Obviously you're right, there are feminists who are jerks just like there are people in every other political movement who are jerks, but this no more provides a reason to not identify a feminist than it provides a reason to not identify as anything else.

It's a dishonest kind of guilt by association to argue that "I met an alleged feminist and he/she was a jerk" and therefore "Feminism isn't really about equality" or "Feminists hate men."

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you--just making the point that this doesn't serve as a very good justification.

I also find it disturbing that ill-treatment of men by women has become a taboo subject.

I agree, but this isn't, for the most part, the fault of feminism... to the contrary, this prejudice is founded on the old sexist gender roles that feminism seeks to abolish.

The reason being that most of the feminists I have known personally seek to differenciate and seperate themselves from men, rather than working together with them for equal rights.

Really?

Most of the feminist women I have known have been more than keen to engage with feminist men... while being decidedly reluctant to let sexist men push them around.

Gypsy is a racist term apparently. You are supposed to call them pikeys or something.

Gypsy is a racist term apparently. You are supposed to call them pikeys or something.

I thought you were supposed to call them Roma.

Obviously you're right, there are feminists who are jerks just like there are people in every other political movement who are jerks, but this no more provides a reason to not identify a feminist than it provides a reason to not identify as anything else.

It's a dishonest kind of guilt by association to argue that "I met an alleged feminist and he/she was a jerk" and therefore "Feminism isn't really about equality" or "Feminists hate men."

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you--just making the point that this doesn't serve as a very good justification.


No, "I met one 'feminist' and they displayed those characteristsics I don't want to associate with" surely isn't a good reason to use a different term to convey one's feminist attitude/believes, but "The majority of people publicly associated with 'feminism' display those characteristics" is a viable arguments to say that the word feminism is, as far as most people are concerned, tainted by the perception of these figures and therefore nothing I want to be associated with.

(NB that I'm well aware that "Most people who are publicly perceived/noted as feminists" != "most feminists", but it is those publicly noticed that shape people's opinions, and that's what we are talking about)



I'd like to make a crappy parallel there saying that if I felt like I had a sudden revival and deepening of my Christian feelings*, I'd probably also avoid labelling myself as a Born Again Christian, even though the 'content' were the same, but most of those who shape the public picture of Born Agains hold attitudes and views not my own and that I might find to be distorting the original idea, so I might call myself, dunno, say, Re-awakened Christian in order to get the same message across without using a label that has unfortunately been misrepresented by the majority of the 'loud' Born Agains.

*not that I'd have any such feelings to begin with; this is just for the sake of the analogy

I guess I could be considered a feminist; that doesn't mean I want to label myself as one.

If the word didn't have any connotations, of course, then I would gladly take the title of a 'male feminist'. Consider, however, the connotation of the word itself. 'Feminism' might mean 'equality among the genders' but to the average man it means 'putting women before men'. Of course, if we used a less gender specific term, like 'gender equality' or 'equalitism' then many more men would be willing to adopt the title. It doesn't matter if its true or not... thats what it means to them. Putting something first in human psychology generally connotes the thought of being better, no?

(NB that I'm well aware that "Most people who are publicly perceived/noted as feminists" != "most feminists", but it is those publicly noticed that shape people's opinions, and that's what we are talking about)
Thats what its all about! If men went about saying they were 'feminists' then other men (who are perhaps less intelligent) would be prejudiced towards them. It doesn't matter about the actual factual definition of a feminist is, it is the definition assigned by your peers.

Probably because a lot of self-defined feminists want to replace prejudice against women with prejudice against men.

I'm all for equal rights, but to be quite frank, I don't simply want things to be tipped on their head 'for fairness' sake', as one feminist I was talking to put it. Make people equal, not better than one another.

Gypsy is a racist term apparently. You are supposed to call them pikeys or something.
Not that this is the beginnings of relevant, but Pikey is an offensive term, see also the term Skeffer.

Gypsy or Roma is OK.

It's a dishonest kind of guilt by association to argue that "I met an alleged feminist and he/she was a jerk" and therefore "Feminism isn't really about equality" or "Feminists hate men."


Of course. That's my whole point.

It's the name that puts me off really. I'm into equal rights for races, but I don't call myself a "minoritist" or a "blackist", it just sounds stupid to me.

There is nothing wrong with the ideals of equality, but "feminist" evokes ideas of women who think they're superior, and are really not feminine at all.

So I guess a man like me who looks like a freakin lumberjack, the essence of masculinity, who labels himself as a feminist, really fucks with your mental image.

Umm - what does that have to do with anything? Would you like to reinvent art history? Maybe you could also reinvent the American Revolution while you're at it? Why not reinvent old and middle english literature also?It's an example of women doing something in greater numbers than men but still not getting any recognition for their accomplishments. Just because they're allowed to go to college it doesn't mean they are equal.

Most people I have ever met who describe themselves as "feminist" are a certain, shall we say "genre" of people, whilst most other women are all for equality, naturally, but don't feel the need to label themselves as such.

Every self-described "feminist" I've met has come at me with their same complaints about the way society works. Women are under-represented in positions of power. Women earn less. Women are expected by men to stay home, cook dinner, clean the house. Women are tired of having to put on make-up and dress attractively just for men's sake (I've genuinely heard this one).

Well, let's have a look at "women are under-represented in positions of power" first. Bollocks. This is as prejudiced as saying that black people are under-represented, or the latino population, or so on. Let's take Pres. Bush as an example - I don't generally like to do that, but he's a man, and he's the most powerful one in the world.

When Bush decides to jump into a "war," he does not turn around and call up every other man to ask their opinions. "Hey fellas, should I go to war? It won't cost as much as the 150,000,000 individual phone calls I gotta make, but I thought I'd better check up to see if you men think it's A-OK." Similarly, if on the board of a Fortune 500 company there are two black members and eight white members, it doesn't mean that "the black interests in the company are correctly represented." The exact same goes with women. They are INDIVIDUALS, and lumping everybody into the same category and expecting one woman or one man to "represent" the entire interest of that gender is more ignorant and bigoted than "not enough women being on a powerful committee." Seriously, what?

Women earn less. Well, perhaps. But then again women also choose different lifestyle choices. Read a book on evolutionary psychology. Men are hunters and breadwinners, women are gatherers and child-bearers who continue to take care of the child. That isn't sexist, that's "what happened back in the cavey days." It translates pretty well to today. Most married couples I know follow this trend - the woman stays home, the man works. Nobody's saying that's "right," nobody's saying it's "wrong." The woman and man have chosen to live their life that way. Come on. Go watch "I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar," Season Two of Family Guy. I'm sure you can find it on the internet if you don't have it on DVD or don't feel like shelling out whatever Fox decides to rip you off with nowadays. Whether you enjoy the show or not, the entire episode, and especially the argument between Lois and Gloria Ironbachs near the end, illustrates the point better than I can do in a paragraph.

I'm sure some of you will have heard or read this argument before, if anybody reads Maddox's posts. If you take ten women and ten men, in exactly the same position in a company, and compare their wages, they ought to be the same. Let's say we find a company that isn't. And it's run by a man who thinks women are inferior. Sexist company, right? No. Sexist CEO, right? Yeah. Bad thing? Completely. But because some dickhead who runs a company thinks that women are inferior to men, that does not mean that every man thinks the same, or that that situation is prevalent in your culture.

"One man did that. Therefore, MEN ARE TERRIBLE." Seriously, roffelcopter.

What next? Women are expected to do this, do that, and we'll lump "feeling pressured to put on make-up and stuff" in there too. Grow up. If a man is irritating you because he's being GENUINELY sexist, or you don't want to put on make-up, then don't. Individual equality isn't going to be handed to you on a legal silver platter, signed and dated. Dump the guy, have a go at him. Argue your point with the man instead of expecting one man to change his dickheadian ways and then blaming his behaviour as stereotypical of other men, then topping it off with the proverbial hundreds and thousands by running to an internet forum to complain.

Why do women need to be feminine at all? Really, the gender roles leave me wondering: "why do they exist at all?", "Why are we supposed to wear this uncomfortable SHIT?" I was raised partly by rather traditional grandparents but one song on a cassette they bought me kinda influences me. First it deals with parents saying the singing girl that many things she is interested in are not for girls and then the last stanza goes like this: When I'll grow up, I want to design houses, ships or bridges / I want to climb the Himalaya, visit the entire world / then I'll show everyone what a girl can do / I want to learn what I am interested in because only that matters!To me the interesting question is not why women need to follow gender roles (here in Vancouver, you can basically choose your life as you wish), but why so many women do choose typically "femenine" roles. There's nothing wrong with doing that, but choosing traditionally feminine work (care-giving, motherhood, social work, teaching etc), which is both monetarily and psychologically undervalued in our society, leads to the imbalance in the higher more powerful roles. That's my main problem in "roles" - they mean that our institutions are taking longer to evolve beyond their patriarchal roots.

I prefer "equalist" as it would be confusing for a straight Swedish Christian male to take a stand against discrimination in general by calling himself a "Tattooed Islamic black power feminist gay rights activist gypsy".Actually femenist theory is very careful about acknowleding other forms of discrimination and social injustice. Femenism has a specific focus. What's wrong with that?

Read a book on evolutionary psychology. Men are hunters and breadwinners, women are gatherers and child-bearers who continue to take care of the child. That isn't sexist, that's "what happened back in the cavey days."Pretty much everything you've said is wrong, but this is the most wrong of all. In hunter gatherer societys, EVERYONE had to hunt, gather, and take care of the kids. Even the kids worked. If humans really evolved the way you claim, men would have no parental instincts, and women would have no desire to lead. Also, what is this "book" you refer to? I'd like to know.

I'm sure some of you will have heard or read this argument before, if anybody reads Maddox's posts.Uh, no, I haven't. Maddox likes to complain about women's fashion, and women who expect to be in charge of a relationship. He said nothing about the inferiority of women. Besides, maddox is a satirist so he's a stupid source to cite in a debate.

It seems like there are so many different views on what a feminist acts like in this thread, it probably depends on where people live. Maybe self described feminists are less abrasive in some places.

but "The majority of people publicly associated with 'feminism' display those characteristics" is a viable arguments to say that the word feminism is, as far as most people are concerned, tainted by the perception of these figures and therefore nothing I want to be associated with.

Sure, in principle such an argument would work.

The problem is that it just isn't true. Indeed, in the rare case that people making this sort of argument actually give examples, they are anecdotal, about "people I've met", not about public figures or general trends.

If men went about saying they were 'feminists' then other men (who are perhaps less intelligent) would be prejudiced towards them.

Some of us don't care.

To be honest, there is enough of the iconoclast in me to enjoy it a little. ;)

Some of us don't care.

To be honest, there is enough of the iconoclast in me to enjoy it a little. ;)

Indeed. I quite enjoy disrupting stereotypes, myself.

So where are all these "man-hating" feminists?

It always mystifies me when I hear people say this... because the feminists I know don't act like that, and not because they're "nice", "moderate" feminists. Not at all.

But let's move beyond anecdotes. Let's talk about people who are more prominent. Who are these alleged anti-male feminists? What have they advocated that constitutes anti-male sexism? If they're really so powerful a force that they're the causal force behind the distaste for feminism, surely they're common enough that there should be examples in feminist intellectuals and public figures?

Hey, I'm all for equal rights for the ladies, but if you all attain truly equal rights, then you all should, you know, start paying for the date too. :D

There are alot of problems with this argument. I'll give it a shot:
Most people I have ever met who describe themselves as "feminist" are a certain, shall we say "genre" of people, whilst most other women are all for equality, naturally, but don't feel the need to label themselves as such. I wonder why they won't label themselves as such? as I will discuss, equality is something we have yet to achieve. I'm noticing that people who say stuff like "obviously everyone os for equality," or, "equality, naturally," don't really mean what they say, when you read further.
Every self-described "feminist" I've met has come at me with their same complaints about the way society works. Women are under-represented in positions of power. Women earn less. Women are expected by men to stay home, cook dinner, clean the house. Women are tired of having to put on make-up and dress attractively just for men's sake (I've genuinely heard this one).First of all, complaining about the way society works, (and working to actually change it,) are what social movements are all about - what's your point?
Well, let's have a look at "women are under-represented in positions of power" first. Bollocks. This is as prejudiced as saying that black people are under-represented, or the latino population, or so on. Let's take Pres. Bush as an example - I don't generally like to do that, but he's a man, and he's the most powerful one in the world.

When Bush decides to jump into a "war," he does not turn around and call up every other man to ask their opinions. "Hey fellas, should I go to war? It won't cost as much as the 150,000,000 individual phone calls I gotta make, but I thought I'd better check up to see if you men think it's A-OK." Similarly, if on the board of a Fortune 500 company there are two black members and eight white members, it doesn't mean that "the black interests in the company are correctly represented." The exact same goes with women. They are INDIVIDUALS, and lumping everybody into the same category and expecting one woman or one man to "represent" the entire interest of that gender is more ignorant and bigoted than "not enough women being on a powerful committee." Seriously, what?Most people on this forum live in representational democaracies. That means that our houses of representation aught to reflect the values of the people - that's supposed to be accomplished by elections. It's obvious to me that there is a different emphasis on certain important issues depending on gender. Government would thus be much more effective at reflecting the values of its constituets if it had a better distribution of power between the genders. Here in Canada, women hold less than 20% of the seats in the House of Commons. I have no idea what your example is supposed to mean - it doesn't make sense to talk about gender balance in one position, and representaitonal democracy does not work through constant plebicites. The best we can do is promote balance in the elected representitives themselves.
Women earn less. Well, perhaps. But then again women also choose different lifestyle choices. That's true. An It's interesting to wonder why that is. SOme is certainly accounted for by biology - pregnancy and the early parts of child-rearing are just different for women and men. But after that, we need to think about gender lifestyle choices very carefully. Even in households where both partners work, women typically saddle more of the household or caregiving duties. It is a much less acceptable for men to give up jobs to take care of children or ageing parents than it is for women to do so. If women face the choice of staying in a cometitive work situation or having a functional family life, many women will choose the latter. The fact is that men are much more seldom asked (by our society) to think about making such a sacrifice. Then, not as many women make it to the top echelons of power, and those institutions remain male-dominated and innaccesable. Domestic and family expectations of women hugely impact how women sped their time! And that's something that as a society, we can change. I'm sure some of you will have heard or read this argument before, if anybody reads Maddox's posts. If you take ten women and ten men, in exactly the same position in a company, and compare their wages, they ought to be the same. Let's say we find a company that isn't. And it's run by a man who thinks women are inferior. Sexist company, right? No. Sexist CEO, right? Yeah. Bad thing? Completely. But because some dickhead who runs a company thinks that women are inferior to men, that does not mean that every man thinks the same, or that that situation is prevalent in your culture.

"One man did that. Therefore, MEN ARE TERRIBLE." Seriously, roffelcopter.Maddox is a charachter invented for the purposes of satire. Second, the situation you describe doesn't happen "once". It's prevalent. And that company absoloutly is sexist if its policies and management are sexist. Obviously.
What next? Women are expected to do this, do that, and we'll lump "feeling pressured to put on make-up and stuff" in there too. Grow up. If a man is irritating you because he's being GENUINELY sexist, or you don't want to put on make-up, then don't. Individual equality isn't going to be handed to you on a legal silver platter, signed and dated. Dump the guy, have a go at him. Argue your point with the man instead of expecting one man to change his dickheadian ways and then blaming his behaviour as stereotypical of other men, then topping it off with the proverbial hundreds and thousands by running to an internet forum to complain.There are a few planes on which discrimination and inequality can function: one is on a legal level. Most western democaracies have accomlished that one. Women are fully equal in the books. Many countries definitely have legal discrimination.
Another plane is that of social expectation and conformism. These are very very powerful. Social norms are enforced with often ruthless clarity in various situations - work, family etc. You're right that nobody can hand you individual equality on a silver platter, but moving towards fair and diverse social norms gets easier the more people are aware and open to the issues.

There are alot of problems with this argument. I'll give it a shot:
Most people I have ever met who describe themselves as "feminist" are a certain, shall we say "genre" of people, whilst most other women are all for equality, naturally, but don't feel the need to label themselves as such. I wonder why they won't label themselves as such? as I will discuss, equality is something we have yet to achieve. I'm noticing that people who say stuff like "obviously everyone os for equality," or, "equality, naturally," don't really mean what they say, when you read further.
Every self-described "feminist" I've met has come at me with their same complaints about the way society works. Women are under-represented in positions of power. Women earn less. Women are expected by men to stay home, cook dinner, clean the house. Women are tired of having to put on make-up and dress attractively just for men's sake (I've genuinely heard this one).First of all, complaining about the way society works, (and working to actually change it,) are what social movements are all about - what's your point?
Well, let's have a look at "women are under-represented in positions of power" first. Bollocks. This is as prejudiced as saying that black people are under-represented, or the latino population, or so on. Let's take Pres. Bush as an example - I don't generally like to do that, but he's a man, and he's the most powerful one in the world.

When Bush decides to jump into a "war," he does not turn around and call up every other man to ask their opinions. "Hey fellas, should I go to war? It won't cost as much as the 150,000,000 individual phone calls I gotta make, but I thought I'd better check up to see if you men think it's A-OK." Similarly, if on the board of a Fortune 500 company there are two black members and eight white members, it doesn't mean that "the black interests in the company are correctly represented." The exact same goes with women. They are INDIVIDUALS, and lumping everybody into the same category and expecting one woman or one man to "represent" the entire interest of that gender is more ignorant and bigoted than "not enough women being on a powerful committee." Seriously, what?Most people on this forum live in representational democaracies. That means that our houses of representation aught to reflect the values of the people - that's supposed to be accomplished by elections. It's obvious to me that there is a different emphasis on certain important issues depending on gender. Government would thus be much more effective at reflecting the values of its constituets if it had a better distribution of power between the genders. Here in Canada, women hold less than 20% of the seats in the House of Commons. I have no idea what your example is supposed to mean - it doesn't make sense to talk about gender balance in one position, and representaitonal democracy does not work through constant plebicites. The best we can do is promote balance in the elected representitives themselves.
Women earn less. Well, perhaps. But then again women also choose different lifestyle choices. That's true. An It's interesting to wonder why that is. Some is certainly accounted for by biology - pregnancy and the early parts of child-rearing are just different for women and men. But after that, we need to think about gender lifestyle choices very carefully. Even in households where both partners work, women typically saddle more of the household or caregiving duties. It is much less acceptable for men to give up jobs to take care of children or ageing parents than it is for women to do so. If women face the choice of staying in a cometitive work situation or having a functional family life, many women will choose the latter. The fact is that men are much more seldom asked (by our society) to think about making such a sacrifice. Then, not as many women make it to time-consuming positions of power, and those institutions remain male-dominated and innaccesable. Domestic and family expectations of women hugely impact how women spend their time! And that's something that as a society, we can change. I'm sure some of you will have heard or read this argument before, if anybody reads Maddox's posts. If you take ten women and ten men, in exactly the same position in a company, and compare their wages, they ought to be the same. Let's say we find a company that isn't. And it's run by a man who thinks women are inferior. Sexist company, right? No. Sexist CEO, right? Yeah. Bad thing? Completely. But because some dickhead who runs a company thinks that women are inferior to men, that does not mean that every man thinks the same, or that that situation is prevalent in your culture.

"One man did that. Therefore, MEN ARE TERRIBLE." Seriously, roffelcopter.Maddox is a charachter invented for the purposes of satire. Second, the situation you describe doesn't happen "once". It's prevalent. And that company absoloutly is sexist if its policies and management are sexist. Obviously.
What next? Women are expected to do this, do that, and we'll lump "feeling pressured to put on make-up and stuff" in there too. Grow up. If a man is irritating you because he's being GENUINELY sexist, or you don't want to put on make-up, then don't. Individual equality isn't going to be handed to you on a legal silver platter, signed and dated. Dump the guy, have a go at him. Argue your point with the man instead of expecting one man to change his dickheadian ways and then blaming his behaviour as stereotypical of other men, then topping it off with the proverbial hundreds and thousands by running to an internet forum to complain.There are a few planes on which discrimination and inequality can operate: one is on a legal level. Most western democaracies have checked that one. Women are fully equal on the books. Many countries definitely still have legal discrimination.
Another plane is that of social expectation and conformism. These are very very powerful. Social norms are enforced with often ruthless clarity in various situations - work, family etc. You're right that nobody can hand you individual equality on a silver platter, but moving towards fair and diverse social norms gets easier the more people are aware and open to the issues. It also takes pioneers to lead by example.

Domestic and family expectations of women hugely impact how women sped their time! And that's something that as a society, we can change.

Are not domestic issues and child rearing a vital part of our society as well? I'd love for my wife to be a stay-at-home mother and help raise our children well, but, it's her choice to be a career woman or a homemaker in the end, you know?

Are not domestic issues and child rearing a vital part of our society as well? I'd love for my wife to be a stay-at-home mother and help raise our children well, but, it's her choice to be a career woman or a homemaker in the end, you know?Yeah, they sure are. You say you'd love for your wife to be a homemaker. Have you ever thought of doing so yourself? Most families will have one parent or the other who takes on most of the responsibility in those areas. And in most families it's women. That means that men are disproportionately missing out on some pretty interesting work inside the home, and that women are disproportionately missing out on interesting work outside the home. It's not going to be exactly 50/50 in each family - but I'd like to see a society where it's just as acceptable for men to stay home as for women.

Sure, in principle such an argument would work.

The problem is that it just isn't true. Indeed, in the rare case that people making this sort of argument actually give examples, they are anecdotal, about "people I've met", not about public figures or general trends.

The point is not where they form their opinions from, but that most people's opinion relates "feminism" with the negative traits mentioned, whether they get this impression from 'real famous people' or from 'people that stood out in their personal experience only'.

So where are all these "man-hating" feminists?

It always mystifies me when I hear people say this... because the feminists I know don't act like that, and not because they're "nice", "moderate" feminists. Not at all.

Well, they ones I meet are. Now what?

But let's move beyond anecdotes. Let's talk about people who are more prominent. Who are these alleged anti-male feminists? What have they advocated that constitutes anti-male sexism? If they're really so powerful a force that they're the causal force behind the distaste for feminism, surely they're common enough that there should be examples in feminist intellectuals and public figures?

Oh yes, let's. First off, again, it needn't necessarily be 'prominent' people on a larger level, it can also be your local 'feminist' who gives you the impression of 'feminism' that's gonna stick.

Secondly, I'm not familiar with 'the international feminism scene', but can only speak for my own country, Germany. Here, our 'token feminist' who gets incredible coverage is Alice Schwarzer, and the points I criticize with her as relating to our discussion here would include:

She's guilty of the "A truly liberated woman will not choose a life as a housewife" reverse stereotyping


She's also very much guilty of limiting a "liberated" woman's sexual life; her opinions include that any woman who enjoys pornography, S/M and/or finds vaginal penetration to be a highly fulfilling sex practice is a, quote, "collaborator".


While she refuses to openly admit such feelings when asked about it, she is every now and again caught saying things along the "equality justice can only be achieved after women have had the dominat upper hand too / after revenge ha sbeen taken", such as the infamous "it'll be a glorious day when women will strike their husbands (back), with fists and knifes" quote.


Summing up, she's less of an "let's abandon restricting gender roles and rules" than a "let's institute new 'feminist', no less restricting roles and rules of what a woman is supposed to be like" 'feminist'.

Yeah, they sure are. You say you'd love for your wife to be a homemaker. Have you ever thought of doing so yourself? Most families will have one parent or the other who takes on most of the responsibility in those areas. And in most families it's women. That means that men are disproportionately missing out on some pretty interesting work inside the home, and that women are disproportionately missing out on interesting work outside the home. It's not going to be exactly 50/50 in each family - but I'd like to see a society where it's just as acceptable for men to stay home as for women.

Totally agreed, but true societal change is glacial, no? But regardless, I did mention a choice somewhere in there, but hey, if I've got to prepare the meals (for instance), well, bring it on, I'm Italian. :D

Oh yes, let's. First off, again, it needn't necessarily be 'prominent' people on a larger level, it can also be your local 'feminist' who gives you the impression of 'feminism' that's gonna stick.

Along with the fallacy of overgeneralizing, the problem is that there's no way to verify anecdotal claims... even if we accept that the person making them is being truthful, we have no way of knowing whether or not their interpretation is correct, and no way of finding more information.

She's guilty of the "A truly liberated woman will not choose a life as a housewife" reverse stereotyping

She's also very much guilty of limiting a "liberated" woman's sexual life; her opinions include that any woman who enjoys pornography, S/M and/or finds vaginal penetration to be a highly fulfilling sex practice is a, quote, "collaborator".

I'm not going to defend these positions--there is a legitimate line of critique along these lines of some feminists and their positions, one that is very often advanced by other feminists.

"I don't agree with those feminists who argue that women who enjoy S/M, or participating in pornography, have been socialized into self-hatred, and I don't think that such practices are necessarily founded upon sexism." That is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable position, and one with which I agree... and I would argue that people who object on that basis should identify as feminists, and join the many other feminists who reject such assumptions and argue against them.

But regardless, it's still not anti-male sexism, and that's the criticism I hear most often. Such feminists argue not that men are evil and women should rule over them, but that if we really want to get rid of sexism, we must oppose practices that (in their view) perpetuate it.

While she refuses to openly admit such feelings when asked about it,

That's interesting.

It suggests either that she recognizes that such views are wrong (in which case she is guilty of being a flawed human being, but her ideology is still not sexist) or that her views are so marginalized that they can hardly be taken to be in any way representative of the feminist movement.

No. Because in our world, it is women (females) whose status must be raised to achieve equality.



And there has been a substantial level of success along these lines. There are significant structural changes underway that promise not only increased participation of women in economic and political life, but of many more structural changes in society.

The classic example of this structural change is the fact that a majority of intellectual capital in the United States is going to be located in the hands of women. 60% of college students are women right now, and this fact carries a lot of ramifications for the economy and politics when my generation comes into power.

ok, i agree with you. How would you explain that men have to act manly?
I also really hope that women don't become aggressive like a man when trying to advance her own best interest, I generally dislike aggression.

same same. its just a different kind of standard and punishment.

Along with the fallacy of overgeneralizing, the problem is that there's no way to verify anecdotal claims... even if we accept that the person making them is being truthful, we have no way of knowing whether or not their interpretation is correct, and no way of finding more information.

Look, I think we're missing each other's points here.

I feel that you're trying to tell me that the views of most people of what constitutes 'feminism' and 'feminists' is wrong, and that the impressions they hold about is have been formed by experiences that do not represent 'true feminism'. I agree with that, and never have felt differently.

It is, however, not relevant to the point I am trying to make. I have only answered the OP's question "Why are you reluctant to use the label 'feminist' for yourself when you hold the view that women and men have equal rights?". I have said that I do so because despite its denotation, its connotation is negative with most people and therefore my calling myself a feminist would convey the wrong kind of message. No matter the truthfulness of their beliefs, I act in a way that makes those people I communicate with understand what I'm saying, and if 'femininst' doesn't mean for them what I want to say, then I don't use that word, no matter whether I think it should denotationally be the right word.

And there has been a substantial level of success along these lines.

Did anyone say otherwise?

Edit: Well, I'd at least agree with "substantial level of progress"... if by "substantial level of success" you mean women are now actually equal, as opposed to having made substantial strides towards equality, we disagree, and the fact that women are now better represented in colleges hardly changes the fact that they remain behind economically, socially, and politically, or the fact that they (like men) are still bound by social preconceptions of gendered behavior.

It does seem like Feminism have been hijacked by a few radical feminist who makes it their life goal to have a reversal of what we had in the 1950's. Maybe they are just trying to separate themselves from the radicals?

No, there was a lunatic fringe that got all the attention. And with celebrity culture being what it is, they got a disproportionate amount of power. But the fact that most feminists still got married, still got pregnant, and still loved their sons instead of asking the doctor "is it a girl or a potential rapist?" shows that feminism was about giving women the right to make their own choices. Not as Pat Robertson put it, "a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

So you see both people on the pro-woman side and the anti-woman side had reason to pretend that feminism was about casting men in the inferior role. The Gloria Stienems to make to rally people to their cause, and the Pat Robertsons to scare people away from it.

Did anyone say otherwise?

I'm saying that radicalism and militancy are not in order, and are more likely to backfire than to make further gains.

Personally, I consider myself something of a feminist. I feel that removing 50% of the population from economic and political life is not only unjust, but entirely irrational. Anyone who supports the subjugation of women deserves an epic "Bitch"-slap. (oh, the irony would be so delicious! I'm salivating at the potential of such an experience!)

I have only answered the OP's question "Why are you reluctant to use the label 'feminist' for yourself when you hold the view that women and men have equal rights?". I have said that I do so because despite its denotation, its connotation is negative with most people and therefore my calling myself a feminist would convey the wrong kind of message.

Fair enough, I suppose.

I just have a different approach... self-identify, to myself and to others, as a feminist, and argue in the process that the connotation you mention is an inappropriate characterization.

I'm saying that radicalism and militancy are not in order, and are more likely to backfire than to make further gains.

Well, militancy and radicalism are different. I'm going to defend both, but on different grounds.

Militancy is what has caused the feminist movement's accomplishments... if feminists had been quiet, if they hadn't organized loudly and ardently, none of the substantial progress that has been made would have been made. Progress only happens when you make it happen. The fact that militancy gets such a harsh response is good, not bad--it means that the challenge is actually being advanced and noticed, that it's actually having an effect. Only a social movement that didn't want to change anything could fail to militantly challenge anything, and only such a social movement wouldn't get a counter-reaction.

As for radicalism... well, the explicitly radical critique has never been "women should be better represented numerically" anyway, at least not once that originally-radical position passed into the mainstream. More or less all feminists would welcome such a development, but the radical would point out that we have no reason to expect that this will be sufficient, as long as our fundamental notions of gender and gender roles remain bound up with patriarchy... we have no reason to expect that just because women eventually achieve monetary parity and equal numerical representation with men, they will become equal in every other respect.

Well, militancy and radicalism are different. I'm going to defend both, but on different grounds.
<snip>

QFT.

I heart soheran.

Fair enough, I suppose.

I just have a different approach... self-identify, to myself and to others, as a feminist, and argue in the process that the connotation you mention is an inappropriate characterization.

Fair enough, too.

But yes, as you say, we have different approaches there. I guess it's the whole "language is what its speakers make it" thing shining through again in a way. For me, words have no inherent meaning but just shells to be filled, so to speak. If now 'feminist' has changed its meaning from the originally intended to the negatively connotated / the label for a misguided subbranch, then so be it, and we'll find new words for what we self-identify as.

You will have to find your position whether you think words once defined have to stay with their meaning and shifts in meaning are "inappropriate characterization", or whether you think that words mean whatever they are defined to mean by general usage (and I'd make the case that at least in my environment, general usage of 'feminist' has slipped to the slightly derogative as explained before) - and it appears that we both adhere to these two different and equally legitimate positions, respectively, which is just dandy as long as we clarify it :]

There is nothing wrong with the ideals of equality, but "feminist" evokes ideas of women who think they're superior, and are really not feminine at all.
Yeah, and people who think that women belong in the kitchen have been portraying feminists like this since they were fighting for the right to vote. Insecure men who have problems with women who don't need them to get by have been doing this for a long time.
Furthermore, people who identify themselves as feminists don't have problems with the opposite sex, actually, feminists (both male and female) do better in relationships than people who aren't feminists. link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm) on the last point.

It does seem like Feminism have been hijacked by a few radical feminist who makes it their life goal to have a reversal of what we had in the 1950's. Maybe they are just trying to separate themselves from the radicals?

1. Who are these radical feminists? What exactly do they stand for? To me, they are rather like a political Bigfoot -- except Bigfoot isn't used as a scapegoat.

2. What exactly did "we" have in the 1950's that was so great? Segregation? Domestic violence and rape that went unreported? More poverty? More teen pregnancy? I think you are a victim of the "way we never were" mentality.

Then they should get their ass in gear. They already showed they can outperform men, why don't they? You don't see me whining about how biased colleges are against men.
It's called gender stereotypes. Many people refuse to promote women to higher positions because they believe that women are incapable of doing the job, instead they promote a male colleague who is often less qualified to fill the position.

You've also got issues where women have many more expectations when it comes to filling certain roles than their male counterparts.

Essentially, the saying about women having to work twice as hard to get half as much recognition as men is often true.

If now 'feminist' has changed its meaning from the originally intended to the negatively connotated / the label for a misguided subbranch, then so be it, and we'll find new words for what we self-identify as.

Well, there's a difference between a change in meaning and an ideologically-motivated mischaracterization.

Accepting the linking of feminism to "man-hating" means that feminist ideology, feminist organizations, and feminist positions are going to have the same association... and even if we went to all the trouble of renaming everything, there will still be jerks, and will still be anti-feminists keen to seize upon any kernel to demonize and misrepresent whatever it is we call what we now call feminism.

Hey, I'm all for equal rights for the ladies, but if you all attain truly equal rights, then you all should, you know, start paying for the date too. :D
I already do.

Too bad when I get out into the "real world" I won't be paid and promoted in the same fashion as my male colleagues.

Well, there's a difference between a change in meaning and an ideologically-motivated mischaracterization.
Theoretically / ideologically / ... yes, but practically, it's still a change in meaning, only motivated / brought about by something else than what we usually associate such a change with.

You may of course now say that you boycott a change that has been brouught about by an ideological movement, sure.

Accepting the linking of feminism to "man-hating" means that feminist ideology, feminist organizations, and feminist positions are going to have the same association... and even if we went to all the trouble of renaming everything, there will still be jerks, and will still be anti-feminists keen to seize upon any kernel to demonize and misrepresent whatever it is we call what we now call feminism.

(Un)fortunately, most human minds, especially in language processing, do not work strictly mathematically, and word compunds and collocations are not mere addings of meaning.

In my experience, where 'feminism' is connotated and maybe even crossing inot denotated the way I explained, this does not expand to everything with the femini- word root; in the compounds you mentioned, it retains it original meaning. Amazing how things work like that, no?

I see your point about the interrelation between the words as language and the ideas behind it, and as a linguist in training, I know very well the power one wields over the concept A when one gets to manage a semantic shift of one word that is associated with A, but I don't see the effect to be as drastic as you made it seem in your post as far as feminism is concerned.

who cares if they call themselves feminists or not so long as they're still fighting for equal rights and don't call themselves eco-nazi nativists or something crazy like that.

I already do.

Too bad when I get out into the "real world" I won't be paid and promoted in the same fashion as my male colleagues.

Any guy who wouldn't want his wife/girlfriend making equal pay that a man does is a moron. Because if she's making more money then you both have more money. Means one person doesnt have to pay for everything. And money = good.

Any guy who wouldn't want his wife/girlfriend making equal pay that a man does is a moron. Because if she's making more money then you both have more money. Means one person doesnt have to pay for everything. And money = good.
Some men don't like it when their girlfriends/wives earn as much or more than they do because it "makes them feel like less of a man".

Some men don't like it when their girlfriends/wives earn as much or more than they do because it "makes them feel like less of a man".

Eh, I'd prefer money over any superficial concept of manliness.:D

Some men don't like it when their girlfriends/wives earn as much or more than they do because it "makes them feel like less of a man".I had the wonderful experience of watching a girl do the same job I did for more than twice the pay. We were both volunteers working for a year in a children's and youth's house in Munich. Her paycheck just happened to be from the Catholic Youth Group and mine from the Protestants.
*shrug* It was a slight dampening for my ego, but nothing I got hung up about.

It seems like there are so many different views on what a feminist acts like in this thread, it probably depends on where people live. Maybe self described feminists are less abrasive in some places.

That often happens with labels. There are, for instance, areas of the country where you might be hard-pressed to find a single person who self-identifies as "pro-choice". However, most of them will tell you that they don't agree with abortion, but they also don't think abortion should be illegal or restricted any further - the very essence of being pro-choice. The reason they will not use the term is not because the definition doesn't describe them, but instead because they and most people in their area associate "pro-choice" with "pro-abortion" or "super-scary uber-feminazi" and thus won't use it.

"Feminist" seems to be treated much the same way. I've never met anyone in person who is afraid to use the "feminist" term because they think it will associate them with sexists who seek to place women above men, yet I quite often see that position here.

"Feminist" seems to be treated much the same way. I've never met anyone in person who is afraid to use the "feminist" term because they think it will associate them with sexists who seek to place women above men, yet I quite often see that position here.
Maybe it's because I've only lived in major urban areas in the North and Northeast USA, but most people around me have always been able to grasp that "feminist" means "person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes." It's only when I participate in internet forums or when I watch mainstream media that I encounter the individuals who think "feminist" means "I HATE TEH MENZ!!!!"

It's also funny to me how many times I encounter people around here posting blatantly sexist rants about how feminists should shut up because there's no sexism any more. It's like they've bought their own propaganda about women being stupid or something.

3.) Sorry ladies, but...the simple fact that men and women are NOT equal by default. For example, in athletics, men have a distinct advantage in upper body strength-based activities, like the "rings". Conversely, women tend to be better at balance-based activities. Maybe not the best analogy, but men and women are very different and not always equal.

So your assertion is that because a person is male, he will necessarily be better at the "rings" and worse at the balance beam than a female person?

Really?

Being good at the rings requires a certain set of skills and physical traits. If a female possesses those traits, she'll be good at rings. If a male lacks those traits, he'll be lousy at rings. The fact that he's got a penis and she doesn't isn't going to change a thing.

Yes, males might be more likely, on average, to have the traits that make a person good at rings, but since when do you get to invoke an average to justify your personal status?

On average, men are taller than women. But three of my aunts are taller than my dad. He can't just say, "Men are taller than women" and magically be taller than those women.

Feminism is about the idea that if there's a girl who is able to compete on the rings, then she should be allowed to do so. She shouldn't be told that the rings are for boys. She should be given the same chance to compete that any boy would have. And vice versa for the boys who want to do balance beam or whatever.


You should strive for social equality, but it's fallacy and foolishness to claim that you should have that because you're "just as good" as men (in every sense, socially, women are inferior and that *IS* what the issue is - the reason feminism exists) - a much more winnable battle is to demand equality because you're a human being with the same rights as a member of the other gender.

I know you probably mean well, but can you understand how unbelievably patronizing this sounds?

Do you seriously think that feminists haven't yet thought about all this? Have you actually bothered to read ANYTHING on feminism? Have you bothered to read any of the most influential works by feminist authors? Because seriously, the point you make here is one of the main points of feminism. You know, the idea that women deserve equal human dignity because they're human beings, and they shouldn't have to do backflips or "earn" their human status. This is a fundamental goddam concept in feminism.


Just some thoughts. Male superiority is probably going to take more than a movement to debunk. It's been one of the central parts of every society we have ever known, unfortunately. It's just an overplayed extension of basic male instinct, which is to provide and protect...and it's going to be one hell of a struggle if you want to completely change the way modern men interpret that instinct.
Oh gee. A struggle. Well, feminists wouldn't know anything about that. Good thing you've warned us all that a movement won't be able to dismantle male superiority! I mean, nobody's ever told feminists that before! Golly, we might have wasted our whole lives thinking we could make a difference, when all along there was "male instinct" to thwart our efforts!

Seriously though, get over it. The instinct to provide and protect is not remotely unique to males. The amazing insight that male superiority is hard to beat is not unique or original. And the shocking revelation that the struggle for equality is a struggle doesn't really have much impact any more. Feminists have long since grown bored with these arguments, because every armchair antifeminist out there will pull them out at one time or another.

If a woman claims to be a feminist she is not going to get a lot of dates from nice guys. She will probably only be able to land hippie guys. This may be unfortunate if she is of the mild femininst type that like gets worked up by women not being able to vote or run for office in other countries.

Unfortunately, "feminist" has a lot of connotations with it. It brings to mind college-"educated" liberal liberal arts majors. Now I am a liberal arts major and proud of it. But if you have a liberal woman who is a liberal arts major these people are the supidest and most introspective bunch of mocha late drinking chuckleheads you ever met. These are the sorts that get worked up when you hold the door open for them and somehow view porn as the oppression of women. Some of them even refer to women and womyn or something like that. I have found that the only men who date these women are the kind of people that do not really care about too much. These guys play video games a lot and have a girlfriend that they do not really do a whole lot of talking with. They pretty much do not care about a heck of a lot and do not get worked up about anything.

When these radical women get married the marriages are unhappy and end up in divorce pretty quickly. If you do not have the whole family values thing it really handicaps your ability to have a family. Oh sure they spawn young'uns but they cant stay married. I bet if it wasnt for these sorts we would have a lot less divorcing.

If a woman claims to be a feminist she is not going to get a lot of dates from nice guys.

1) Not all women want dates with guys.
2) No feminist woman wants to date guys who can't handle feminism.

1 + 2 = She's just not that into you, dude.

1) Not all women want dates with guys.
2) No feminist woman wants to date guys who can't handle feminism.

1 + 2 = She's just not that into you, dude.

Nice. The point is though is that although the feministy ladies may look for a feministy dude what they usually get is a guy who is pretty much a human incarnate of Switzerland.

I'm just sick of people who clearly and strongly believe in women's rights and equality shying away from saying "I'm a feminist". It's craziness. Femenism is about having a fair balance of power between the genders. Women are still on the losing side of that balance (here in Canada, anyway). Why is that so hard to admit? What is it with the word?

I think it must be a mix of denial and thinly veiled guilt.

Are they? 60% of students in my college are female. I guess they also comprimise the majority in other post secondary education institutions as well. Since you need a college degree for a decent job, most decents jobs will be taken by females.

Yeah, the idea that women are oppressed in the US and probably Canada too is a pretty tough sell. I think that the US feminists are a group that have met or exceeded their goals and if they do not either change their focus to improving conditions for women abroad or just go home and take a bath, they are going to seem sort of anachronistic and unseemly like the NAACP.

If a woman claims to be a feminist she is not going to get a lot of dates from nice guys. She will probably only be able to land hippie guys. This may be unfortunate if she is of the mild femininst type that like gets worked up by women not being able to vote or run for office in other countries.

Hmmm.....

It will certainly come as news to my husband that he is a "hippie guy".

Unfortunately, "feminist" has a lot of connotations with it. It brings to mind college-"educated" liberal liberal arts majors. Now I am a liberal arts major and proud of it. But if you have a liberal woman who is a liberal arts major these people are the supidest and most introspective bunch of mocha late drinking chuckleheads you ever met.

"Male liberal arts majors are great and I'm proud to be one, but female ones are stupid!"

These are the sorts that get worked up when you hold the door open for them and somehow view porn as the oppression of women.

Woot for stereotypes!

When these radical women get married the marriages are unhappy and end up in divorce pretty quickly. If you do not have the whole family values thing it really handicaps your ability to have a family. Oh sure they spawn young'uns but they cant stay married. I bet if it wasnt for these sorts we would have a lot less divorcing.

Wait. So your contention is that "family values" require inequality?

I'm a female who is all for women's rights, but I would never call myself a feminist. Calling yourself feminist is like calling yourself a nut. It seems like the modern feminist movement is all about misandry, women just complain about men and they come off as bitter.

I'm also a vegetarian who loves animals, but I would never say I'm an animal rights activist. Those people are crazy. Most of the time I don't like to be politically labeled. I've refused to ever call myself a democrat, republican, or even moderate. I don't even have a clear answer when people ask my religion. I dunno, maybe there's something wrong with my head, but I like to think that I'm just trying to avoid falling into traps. When people join a larger group they can lose perspective, and I don't like that.

For any misandrists who happen to come along...

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff287/johnnybmetal/misandry.jpg

BTW, nicely phrased.

Are they? 60% of students in my college are female. I guess they also comprimise the majority in other post secondary education institutions as well. Since you need a college degree for a decent job, most decents jobs will be taken by females.
Gee, sure would be handy if somebody did a study to test that assertion...

Oh wait. They have. Feel free to read a book or two and introduce some of those studies in this discussion. :D

Nice. The point is though is that although the feministy ladies may look for a feministy dude what they usually get is a guy who is pretty much a human incarnate of Switzerland.
And, being a feministy lady yourself, you are obviously in the ideal position to opine on this subject. Amirite?

Yeah, the idea that women are oppressed in the US and probably Canada too is a pretty tough sell.

Yeah, just ignore pay inequity (http://www.pay-equity.org/), glass ceilings (http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/glassceiling/), violence against women (http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/), sexual harassment (http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/harass.html), rape and sexual assault (http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html), etc.

For example, from the Glass Ceiling Commission (link (http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=key_workplace), pdf, pg. 6):

While minorities and women have made strides in the last 30 years, and employers increasingly recognize the value of workforce diversity, the executive suite is still overwhelmingly a white man’s world. Over half of all Master’s degrees are now awarded to women, yet 95 percent of senior-level managers of the top Fortune 1000 industrial and 500 service companies are men. Of them, 97 percent are white.

That's equality?

I think that the US feminists are a group that have met or exceeded their goals and if they do not either change their focus to improving conditions for women abroad or just go home and take a bath, they are going to seem sort of anachronistic and unseemly like the NAACP.

The silly NAACP. When are they going to realize that The State of Black America (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12633540&postcount=1) is hunky-dory. :rolleyes:

Wait. So your contention is that "family values" require inequality?
He sure does make anti-feminism sound appealing, doesn't he? Girls, if only you'd set aside your silly feminist notions, then you'd be more likely to get a date with a condescending liberal arts major who will happily explain to you all the reasons why your silly female liberal arts studies are clearly inferior to his manly important thoughts.

Give up personal dignity and gain the privilege of dating annoying Nice Guys(tm)! What a great deal!

Beats me. I'm not. I much prefer Obama.

To each her own.


Who determines what traits are "feminine"?

Well, that's a good question. I just meant I'd expect feminists to wear dresses more. Just like I'd expect a group called "The Scotties" to wear kilts. Now I'm Scottish, and I don't wear a kilt, but I don't go on about Scottish-pride either.

Has it ever occurred to you that they do? You are making an awful lot of assumptions if you think the same performance is always treated the same way in the working world.

I'm just saying all this flapdoodle is a bit ridiculous. Aren't you at all concerned that men are being taught that they're dumber then women? Well, maybe they aren't, but do you think colleges are biased against men?

Well, that's a good question. I just meant I'd expect feminists to wear dresses more. Just like I'd expect a group called "The Scotties" to wear kilts. Now I'm Scottish, and I don't wear a kilt, but I don't go on about Scottish-pride either.

One of the main points of feminism is that it's stupid to expect all women to want to wear dresses (and stupid to expect that no men would ever want to). A dress is clothing. Clothing exists to make humans more comfortable. Different clothing will be better suited to different body types, activities, and situations.


I'm just saying all this flapdoodle is a bit ridiculous. Aren't you at all concerned that men are being taught that they're dumber then women?

In my country, they're not. So no, I'm not worried about that.

In my country, I'm far more worried about how boys are taught that they are more violent, more rage-filled, and less responsible than girls. This is called "sexism," and is one of the things feminism has ALWAYS been about combatting.

If you object to the sexist practice of boys being told that maleness defines how intelligent they are (compared to females), then congratulations! You are on the same side as the feminists. Don't blame feminists for sexism, please, since feminism and sexism are diametrically opposed. :)


Well, maybe they aren't, but do you think colleges are biased against men?
Not in my country. Don't know about other places, though.

If a woman claims to be a feminist she is not going to get a lot of dates from nice guys.

In my book, claiming to be a feminist is a complete plus in what I consider when I'm looking at someone as a potential date. And I like to think I'm nice. Most people I meet seem to think that I'm nice, too. Of course, I might be an evil nyc liberal-type "hippie", so my opinions don't count.

When these radical women get married the marriages are unhappy and end up in divorce pretty quickly.

Bullshit.

If you do not have the whole family values thing it really handicaps your ability to have a family. Oh sure they spawn young'uns but they cant stay married.

Bullshit.

I bet if it wasnt for these sorts we would have a lot less divorcing.

Spoken like someone with no knowledge of historical divorce rates. linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13104083&postcount=217)

When these radical women get married the marriages are unhappy and end up in divorce pretty quickly. If you do not have the whole family values thing it really handicaps your ability to have a family. Oh sure they spawn young'uns but they cant stay married. I bet if it wasnt for these sorts we would have a lot less divorcing.

My rather radical mother met my father in an "art" art college, and married him so he could get a green card. They split cooking, cleaning, laundry, yardwork, housework and childraising evenly. Sometimes my mom makes more money than my dad. Sometimes my dad makes more money than my mom. They've been married 26 years, and have "spawned" one pretty happy, well adjusted kid. They communicate exceptionally well, and I don't see them getting divorced anytime soon.

The Short Version:

Glorious Freedonia sez, "All people want what I want! All people think as I think! All people want the same things from life, relationships, and the universe! All people must follow the exact same model if they hope to have success in life!"

Forum replies, "Not so much."

My rather radical mother met my father in an "art" art college, and married him so he could get a green card. They split cooking, cleaning, laundry, yardwork, housework and childraising evenly. Sometimes my mom makes more money than my dad. Sometimes my dad makes more money than my mom. They've been married 26 years, and have "spawned" one pretty happy, well adjusted kid. They communicate exceptionally well, and I don't see them getting divorced anytime soon.
My parents met at a liberal arts college. My mother initiated their first sexual encounter (the slut!), and was--in her own words--a rabid feminist from the get-go. My parents have always had a completely egalitarian relationship. Domestic chores are split evenly, including childcare. My mother has always made slightly more money than my father, which turned out to be a very good thing in recent years when my father had to take time off from work for medical reasons.

My father is a self-identified feminist. I believe that at least 50% of the reason why I am a capable, competant, confidence adult is because I had a feminist father.

My parents were married in 1976, and have never been separated or divorced. They still sneak kisses and tell each other they love each other often enough that my teen brother has to roll his eyes and say "Gross!" at least once a day.

Perhaps there should be a new name for feminism, since so many people who would otherwise be sympathetic to the cause seem to have an instinctive negativity towards it. Thoughts? Suggestions of any new names? We already have Gender Rights Activists, but that doesn't have much of a ring to it. How about sexequalitists? Has the name sex in it to attract attention!

Perhaps there should be a new name for feminism, since so many people who would otherwise be sympathetic to the cause seem to have an instinctive negativity towards it. Thoughts? Suggestions of any new names? We already have Gender Rights Activists, but that doesn't have much of a ring to it. How about sexequalitists? Has the name sex in it to attract attention!So, because "feminism" hurts the feelings of people who can't be bothered to actually learn what feminism is really about, we should change the name?

No thanks. I like the name the way it is, because it's an easy litmus test to find out who has managed to reach the very most basic level of comprehension when it comes to feminist philosophy. If the movement being called "feminism" bothers you so much, then you aren't one, so I really don't see why we should change the name to suit you.

Perhaps there should be a new name for feminism, since so many people who would otherwise be sympathetic to the cause seem to have an instinctive negativity towards it. Thoughts? Suggestions of any new names? We already have Gender Rights Activists, but that doesn't have much of a ring to it. How about sexequalitists? Has the name sex in it to attract attention!

Feminists Who Don't Hate Men and Want to Establish Equality Therefore Are Not Rabid Anti-Males Also They Aren't All Communists Who Want to Establish A Female Only Society and Don't Believe Men Are Inferior to Women...They Just Want Equal Rights, Not "Special Rights," But Equal Rights Which Includes The Right To Be Paid Without Consideration of One's Gender As This Usually Has No Effect On How One Will Perform Said Job.

How's that?

One of the main points of feminism is that it's stupid to expect all women to want to wear dresses (and stupid to expect that no men would ever want to). A dress is clothing. Clothing exists to make humans more comfortable. Different clothing will be better suited to different body types, activities, and situations.

And personalities *nod*

And personalities *nod*
Indeed.

I don't like dresses. In fact, I don't like most women's clothing, mainly because most of it is made of flimsy material and is devoid of pockets. Womens clothing is also more likely to be grossly over-priced, extremely uncomfortable, and covered in random bows, spangles, and assorted useless hoo-hah. I like simple garmets which are comfortable and functional, and women's departments often don't include such alien items. It's stupid to tell me that because I've got ovaries I must want to wear a certain type of clothing...I don't. Get over it. I'm not going to drop my hard-earned money on clothing I don't like just because some nosey buggers want all women to wear frilly dresses.

Feminists Who Don't Hate Men and Want to Establish Equality Therefore Are Not Rabid Anti-Males Also They Aren't All Communists Who Want to Establish A Female Only Society and Don't Believe Men Are Inferior to Women...They Just Want Equal Rights, Not "Special Rights," But Equal Rights Which Includes The Right To Be Paid Without Consideration of One's Gender As This Usually Has No Effect On How One Will Perform Said Job.

How's that?

perfect!

but maybe you should make it an ancronym...

FWDHMWEETANRAMAAACWWEFOSDBMAIWTJWERNSRBERWIRPWCOGATUHNEOHOWPSJ

Women have to know their place.

And face it, that's usual the kitchen.

So, because "feminism" hurts the feelings of people who can't be bothered to actually learn what feminism is really about, we should change the name?


Yeah (for pragmatical reasons of course).


No thanks. I like the name the way it is, because it's an easy litmus test to find out who has managed to reach the very most basic level of comprehension when it comes to feminist philosophy. If the movement being called "feminism" bothers you so much, then you aren't one, so I really don't see why we should change the name to suit you.

Feminism shouldn't solely be about ideology, the cause should also put a large emphasis on getting the message across, if this means that the name should be changed to something more palatable for people less easy to persuade, then so be it.

Yeah (for pragmatical reasons of course).

It's only pragmatic if you assume that feminism will benefit by cow-towing to anti-feminists. Which it won't, and never has.


Feminism shouldn't solely be about ideology, the cause should also put a large emphasis on getting the message across, if this means that the name should be changed to something more palatable for people less easy to persuade, then so be it.
So to get across our message that feminism is important, we should change the name of our movement to cater to the insecurities of those who do not share our values.

Riiiiiiiight.

Kind of like how the NAACP should just be the NAAN, for the National Association for the Advancement of Niggers, right? Because ****** is the word that racists feel more comfortable with, and black people should be trying to accomodate the racists if they want to get their message across!

Women have to know their place.

And face it, that's usual the kitchen.
This post is both original and constructive.

And, being a feministy lady yourself, you are obviously in the ideal position to opine on this subject. Amirite?

No. I am just basing my opinions on my own limited observations of others.

Indeed.

I don't like dresses. In fact, I don't like most women's clothing, mainly because most of it is made of flimsy material and is devoid of pockets. Womens clothing is also more likely to be grossly over-priced, extremely uncomfortable, and covered in random bows, spangles, and assorted useless hoo-hah. I like simple garmets which are comfortable and functional, and women's departments often don't include such alien items. It's stupid to tell me that because I've got ovaries I must want to wear a certain type of clothing...I don't. Get over it. I'm not going to drop my hard-earned money on clothing I don't like just because some nosey buggers want all women to wear frilly dresses.

For me, clothing is all about comfort. I almost wore jeans and a t-shirt to my cousin's wedding because the formal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurta) outfits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojari) we had to wear were extremely uncomfortable, so much so that by the end of the half-week long buildup to the actual wedding/reception the shoes I had to wear with them dug into the back of my foot, leaving a rather painful gouge.
And yet, a few of my friends always wear those outfits at semi-formal get togethers, likely because they are used to and more comfortable with them.

-snip-

I see what the problem is, you seem to be thinking that I am trying to get the message across to sexists. I'm not, I'm trying to get the message across to people who are not sexist, who support equal rights, but are too embarrassed to be identified as a "feminist" (mainly college/school students). It's the youth that are the most malleable, and the youth that need to be influenced the most. You are just going to have to face it, calling yourself a feminist is not hip amongst today's youth.

To each her own.

Indeed.

Well, that's a good question. I just meant I'd expect feminists to wear dresses more. Just like I'd expect a group called "The Scotties" to wear kilts. Now I'm Scottish, and I don't wear a kilt, but I don't go on about Scottish-pride either.

But why does "wearing a dress" embody the feminine? Not that I don't wear dresses sometimes, but I've never had anyone suggest that I was any less feminine for putting on a pair of jeans instead. And my jeans are made to fit my form - the female form - so it can hardly be declared "masculine" to wear them, right?

I'm just saying all this flapdoodle is a bit ridiculous. Aren't you at all concerned that men are being taught that they're dumber then women? Well, maybe they aren't, but do you think colleges are biased against men?

I've seen no evidence that men are being taught that they're dumber than women or that colleges are biased against them. Individual teachers sometimes, perhaps, but I've seen no reason to believe that colleges as a whole are at all biased against men.

The numbers disparity in our colleges are more likely to be a matter of the social conditioning we put our boys and girls through - the gender roles they are supposed to fit into and the interests they are supposed to have. Challenge those gender roles, and our society as a whole will embody less equality.

I see what the problem is, you seem to be thinking that I am trying to get the message across to sexists. I'm not, I'm trying to get the message across to people who are not sexist, who support equal rights, but are too embarrassed to be identified as a "feminist" (mainly college/school students).

And what "message" are you trying to get across?

Because my message to those kids is, You are a feminist! That's great! That's a good thing, and nothing to be ashamed of. The people who lie to you and tell you that feminism is about man-hating are anti-feminists, and you really shouldn't take their word for anything.

Don't let anybody shame you into thinking feminism is a bad thing!

It's the youth that are the most malleable, and the youth that need to be influenced the most. You are just going to have to face it, calling yourself a feminist is not hip amongst today's youth.
See, now, people have been saying that for generations, and it's still not true. On the contrary, I find that more young people are prepared to identify as feminist now than even 10 years ago! Thanks to the tireless efforts of outspoken feminists, young people are also more likely to know what feminism really is about, and what it's NOT about (i.e. man-hating).

And what "message" are you trying to get across?


That men and women are equal (duh).


See, now, people have been saying that for generations, and it's still not true. On the contrary, I find that more young people are prepared to identify as feminist now than even 10 years ago! Thanks to the tireless efforts of outspoken feminists, young people are also more likely to know what feminism really is about, and what it's NOT about (i.e. man-hating).

From what I have observed this isn't the case, at least not over hear. I just don't see what is so bad about changing the name anyway, what harm can it do?

Just for fun, I've been asking a bunch of my male college-age friends if they're feminists lately. Lots of them actually say yes. Some squirm and get uncomfortable. But generally, I don't think that feminism (the word) or feminism (the actual thing) is unmarketable.

Before I go on I want to point out that there were some posts that suggest that I have a problem with female liberal arts students. I do not. I have have a problem with the young women who were liberals and liberal art students. There were many very nice conservative female liberal arts students and I have no problem with them. I also have a sister in law who is a more recent college graduate who is a liberal and was a liberal arts major. I should also point out that I graduated from college about 10 years ago and I am mainly going off of my memories.

Regardless of what the majority of feminists actually believe, they are looked at as a bunch of tampon burning Gloria Steins. They also may be looked at is if they are a bunch of dykes as well.

If being a feminist means equality of the sexes hey that is great I guess. Not really my bag but whatever. The point is that this is not the way it is really viewed by others though. Giving things new names is a bit too PCish to be really cool and trendy though. I think instead the feminists need a good purge. The moderates need to tell the radicals "Hey, y'all are not feminists, y'all are a bunch of freaks." More importantly, the feminists need to let others know that they are doing this.

This post is both original and constructive.

It is not making me a bad person when I feel that women should do, well uhm, women-stuff and men, men-stuff.

I'm not good in nursing, cooking, cleaning, ironing or getting my beer. But my girlfriend is.

She does not like to mow the grass, replace the broken lamps, painting the walls and doing the 'hard' work.
I don't like it as well, but someone has to do this stuff.

Look, women and men are similar but not equal. And no, I don't think that men are superior or vice versa.

And now bring me a beer, bitch :p

That men and women are equal (duh).

You said, "I'm trying to get the message across to people who are not sexist, who support equal rights, but are too embarrassed to be identified as a "feminist""

In other words, no, you are not trying to get across the message that men and women are equal, because you specifically stated that you were talking to young people who ALREADY BELIEVE THAT. People who already embrace the ideals of feminism, they just shy away from the label of "feminist" because of how anti-feminists have managed to smear it.

Telling those people that men and women are equal is preaching to the converted. Moreover, it's a message that FEMINISM already communicates quite well. Those young people can thank feminism for teaching them what sexism is and why it sucks. We shouldn't teach them to be ashamed or dismissive of the very movement that has made their beliefs possible.


From what I have observed this isn't the case, at least not over hear. I just don't see what is so bad about changing the name anyway, what harm can it do?
I've already answered this question. But, in case you want yet another reason, because it's fucking insulting. Feminism has been responsible for advancing the very notions of gender equity and humanism that we're talking about, yet you want to just write off feminism and rebrand it and rename it because anti-feminists have smeared it. Fuck that.

If you're female and...

...you can vote, thank a feminist.
...you get paid as much as men doing the same job, thank a feminist.
...you went to college instead of being expected to quit after high school so your brothers could go because "You'll just get married anyway", thank a feminist.
...you can apply for any job, not just "women's work", thank a feminist
...you can get or give birth control information without going to jail, thank a feminist.
...your doctor, lawyer, pastor judge or legislator is a woman, thank a feminist.
...you play an organized sport, thank a feminist.
...you can wear slacks without being excommunicated from your church or run out of town, thank a feminist.
...your boss isn't allowed to pressure you to sleep with him, thank a feminist.
...you get raped and the trial isn't about your hemline or your previous boyfriends, thank a feminist.
...you start a small business and can get a loan using only your name and credit history, thank a feminist
...you are on trial and are allowed to testify in your own defense, thank a feminist.
...you own property that is solely yours, thank a feminist.
...you have the right to your own salary even if you are married or have a male relative, thank a feminist.
...you get custody of your children following divorce or separation, thank a feminist.
...you get a voice in the raising and care of your children instead of them being completely controlled by the husband/father, thank a feminist.
...your husband beats you and it is illegal and the police stop him instead of lecturing you on better wifely behavior, thank a feminist.
...you are granted a degree after attending college instead of a certificate of completion, thank a feminist.
...you can breastfeed your baby discreetly in a public place and not be arrested, thank a feminist.
...you marry and your civil human rights do not disappear into your husband's rights, thank a feminist.
...you have the right to refuse sex with a diseased husband [or just "husband"], thank a feminist.
...you have the right to keep your medical records confidential from the men in your family, thank a feminist.
...you have the right to read the books you want, thank a feminist.
...you can testify in court about crimes or wrongs your husband has committed, thank a feminist.
...you can choose to be a mother or not a mother in you own time not at the dictates of a husband or rapist, thank a feminist.
...you can look forward to a lifespan of 80 years instead of dying in your 20s from unlimited childbirth, thank a feminist.
...you can see yourself as a full, adult human being instead of a minor who needs to be controlled by a man, thank a feminist.

THANK A FEMINIST. Because FEMINISM is why you enjoy these benefits and rights. Don't be an ungrateful little shit and whine about how you don't like the name of the movement that did you all these favors. Read your history, and learn what feminism is really about, and what it really means. It's the least you can do.

Before I go on I want to point out that there were some posts that suggest that I have a problem with female liberal arts students. I do not. I have have a problem with the young women who were liberals and liberal art students. There were many very nice conservative female liberal arts students and I have no problem with them. I also have a sister in law who is a more recent college graduate who is a liberal and was a liberal arts major. I should also point out that I graduated from college about 10 years ago and I am mainly going off of my memories.

Regardless of what the majority of feminists actually believe, they are looked at as a bunch of tampon burning Gloria Steins. They also may be looked at is if they are a bunch of dykes as well.

If being a feminist means equality of the sexes hey that is great I guess. Not really my bag but whatever. The point is that this is not the way it is really viewed by others though. Giving things new names is a bit too PCish to be really cool and trendy though. I think instead the feminists need a good purge. The moderates need to tell the radicals "Hey, y'all are not feminists, y'all are a bunch of freaks." More importantly, the feminists need to let others know that they are doing this.


you seem to think that it is important for a woman to be attractive to as many men as possible and as such its a mistake to be a feminist because there is a contingency of men who cannot possibly find a strong assertive woman attractive.

in reality feminists are attractive to a certain segment of men (supposing they are straight) and they are happy with the men that they attract. virtually every feminist woman who is interested in men ends up in a relationship with a man. virtually every feminist woman who has a desire to get married, gets married.

so what is the problem if men they arent interested in and will probably never meet dont want to date them?

Before I go on I want to point out that there were some posts that suggest that I have a problem with female liberal arts students. I do not. I have have a problem with the young women who were liberals and liberal art students. There were many very nice conservative female liberal arts students and I have no problem with them. I also have a sister in law who is a more recent college graduate who is a liberal and was a liberal arts major. I should also point out that I graduated from college about 10 years ago and I am mainly going off of my memories.

Regardless of what the majority of feminists actually believe, they are looked at as a bunch of tampon burning Gloria Steins. They also may be looked at is if they are a bunch of dykes as well.

If being a feminist means equality of the sexes hey that is great I guess. Not really my bag but whatever. The point is that this is not the way it is really viewed by others though. Giving things new names is a bit too PCish to be really cool and trendy though. I think instead the feminists need a good purge. The moderates need to tell the radicals "Hey, y'all are not feminists, y'all are a bunch of freaks." More importantly, the feminists need to let others know that they are doing this.I suppose you mean Gloria Steinem. I'd count myself lucky to be compared to her.

Also, radical femenists aren't freaks. They have points. Femenism as a movement acknowledges and accepts all sorts of positionalities - that's one of it's most imporant features. That doesn't mean there isn't criticsm and argument within it, but "purges" of any sort really are not on.

I'm just curious, but what do you mean when you say that equality of the sexes "isn't your bag"? That you, I assume as a man, should have power to decide someone else's life just because they aren't a man too?

Regardless of what the majority of feminists actually believe, they are looked at as a bunch of tampon burning Gloria Steins. They also may be looked at is if they are a bunch of dykes as well.

Oh noes, a bunch of ignorant anti-feminist men think we're obnoxious and lesbian! Woe! Woe is we!


If being a feminist means equality of the sexes hey that is great I guess. Not really my bag but whatever. The point is that this is not the way it is really viewed by others though. Giving things new names is a bit too PCish to be really cool and trendy though. I think instead the feminists need a good purge. The moderates need to tell the radicals "Hey, y'all are not feminists, y'all are a bunch of freaks." More importantly, the feminists need to let others know that they are doing this.
Yeah, we'll get right on that purge. Heaven knows, we feminists would hate to think we're missing out on the affections and attentions of men who insist that equality of the sexes is "not really their bag."

Frankly, if radical feminists are the ones responsible for making sure that guys like this stay away from me, then I need to add a new item to my Thank A Feminist list!

And thank Bottle especially.


Sorry folks, but to me it seems there are three kinds of women who aren't feminists.
The stupid. People who are against having rights of their own. Like pro-slavery blacks.

The ignorant. Those who've listened to the crock of shit spouted by anti-feminists and don't know any better.

And the crazy. What can I say about them. Maybe they're religious nuts or just general nuts.

Yeah, the crazies and stupid kind of overlap.

Equal rights FTW.

you seem to think that it is important for a woman to be attractive to as many men as possible and as such its a mistake to be a feminist because there is a contingency of men who cannot possibly find a strong assertive woman attractive.

in reality feminists are attractive to a certain segment of men (supposing they are straight) and they are happy with the men that they attract. virtually every feminist woman who is interested in men ends up in a relationship with a man. virtually every feminist woman who has a desire to get married, gets married.

so what is the problem if men they arent interested in and will probably never meet dont want to date them?

Here we go. This is exactly the type of person that gives the feminists a bad name. Did you see how to her feminism is not about equality of the sexes it is about being a strong assertive woman (i.e. a bitch).

You said, "I'm trying to get the message across to people who are not sexist, who support equal rights, but are too embarrassed to be identified as a "feminist""

In other words, no, you are not trying to get across the message that men and women are equal, because you specifically stated that you were talking to young people who ALREADY BELIEVE THAT. People who already embrace the ideals of feminism, they just shy away from the label of "feminist" because of how anti-feminists have managed to smear it.

Telling those people that men and women are equal is preaching to the converted. Moreover, it's a message that FEMINISM already communicates quite well. Those young people can thank feminism for teaching them what sexism is and why it sucks.


Ok if you really want me to be captain obvious: the message would also involve getting people to support the cause (striking, protesting or whatever when needed to).

We shouldn't teach them to be ashamed or dismissive of the very movement that has made their beliefs possible.


Huge, huge strawman. The name is not the cause.


I've already answered this question. But, in case you want yet another reason, because it's fucking insulting. Feminism has been responsible for advancing the very notions of gender equity and humanism that we're talking about, yet you want to just write off feminism and re-brand it and rename it because anti-feminists have smeared it. Fuck that.


Where did you get this idea that I want to re brand it? I never said anything about wanting to do that. I just think a name change wont hurt, since it is all completely 100% semantic and arbitrary, the movement is whats really important, not the name of the cause. What about people who don't speak English, they don't use the word feminism, do they not count? The name is not cause.


THANK A FEMINIST. Because FEMINISM is why you enjoy these benefits and rights. Don't be an ungrateful little shit and whine about how you don't like the name of the movement that did you all these favors. Read your history, and learn what feminism is really about, and what it really means. It's the least you can do.

Yes, gender activists did do that. The name didn't do it, the movement did. Nothing would have changed if the movement was called something else, I just don't see any reason to place such importance on a name for anything but traditional purposes. The name is not the cause.

Here we go. This is exactly the type of person that gives the feminists a bad name. Did you see how to her feminism is not about equality of the sexes it is about being a strong assertive woman (i.e. a bitch).

I wasn't aware being strong and assertive were traits exclusively desirable in us menfolk. I also don't see how equal rights and being strong and assertive are somehow mutually exclusive.

Somehow I find neither of these to be particularly realistic beliefs.

Here we go. This is exactly the type of person that gives the feminists a bad name. Did you see how to her feminism is not about equality of the sexes it is about being a strong assertive woman (i.e. a bitch).

since when is being strong and assertive incompatible with equality?

I suppose you mean Gloria Steinem. I'd count myself lucky to be compared to her.

Also, radical femenists aren't freaks. They have points. Femenism as a movement acknowledges and accepts all sorts of positionalities - that's one of it's most imporant features. That doesn't mean there isn't criticsm and argument within it, but "purges" of any sort really are not on.

I'm just curious, but what do you mean when you say that equality of the sexes "isn't your bag"? That you, I assume as a man, should have power to decide someone else's life just because they aren't a man too?

Oh boy, if you think Gloria Steinem is great and that radical feminists are not freaks, you might be pretty out there. I do not have a problem with the whole equality of the sexes thing in certain senses. As an American I am a 100% believer a certain equality of all without regard to congenital traits. I think that a Black or a Jew or a whatever should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting anybody. However, I am a family values kinda guy and not just any family values but the patriarchical ones. I believe that as a religious belief so the whole family headed by two thing is just not my bag. It does not fly with my idea of a holy lifestyle. I am not sure that feminism is the same thing as gay rights but they seem sorta similar to me and that rubs me the wrong way too in the whole family values sense.

Being strong and assertive isn't being a bitch. Being weak and causing other people discomfort by using aggression as a way to avoid dealing with your insecurities makes you a bitch.

Where did you get this idea that I want to re brand it? I never said anything about wanting to do that. I just think a name change wont hurt, since it is all completely 100% semantic and arbitrary, the movement is whats really important, not the name of the cause. What about people who don't speak English, they don't use the word feminism, do they not count? The name is not cause.

Yes, gender activists did do that. The name didn't do it, the movement did. Nothing would have changed if the movement was called something else, I just don't see any reason to place such importance on a name for anything but traditional purposes. The name is not the cause.Femenism - the word - has been smeared for ideological reasons, not by some benign aesthetic drift. These are the same anti-femenist reasons that femenism - the movement - continues to disturb and threaten bigoted and stupid people everywhere. Why would a re-brand be any different (a name change is the essence of a re-brand)? It would just be a matter of a very short time until assholes like Freedom and Glory shit all over that too. It's a huge disrespect to everything femenism has accomplished to somehow divest of the word. Words are not just shells, they carry history, pride, and productive discussions in and of themselves.

Oh boy, if you think Gloria Steinem is great and that radical feminists are not freaks, you might be pretty out there. I do not have a problem with the whole equality of the sexes thing in certain senses. As an American I am a 100% believer a certain equality of all without regard to congenital traits. I think that a Black or a Jew or a whatever should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting anybody. However, I am a family values kinda guy and not just any family values but the patriarchical ones. I believe that as a religious belief so the whole family headed by two thing is just not my bag. It does not fly with my idea of a holy lifestyle. I am not sure that feminism is the same thing as gay rights but they seem sorta similar to me and that rubs me the wrong way too in the whole family values sense.


are you suggesting that what isnt good for you cant be good for anyone?

if you prefer a submissive wife and have found a woman willing to submit to you as head of the family, good for you.

what does it matter that other people are not interested in that kind of domestic arrangement?

since when is being strong and assertive incompatible with equality?

Strong and assertive is like Type-A, man. It is not really all that cool although the type As do have their uses. They tend to make pretty good managers.

Being a bitch is not really a very nice thing to encourage our women to become. I am not sure if it promotes inequality or equality but it certainly does not seek to change society in a way that causes improvement.

Femenism - the word - has been smeared for ideological reasons, not by some benign aesthetic drift. These are the same anti-femenist reasons that femenism - the movement - continues to disturb and threaten bigoted and stupid people everywhere. Why would a re-brand be any different (a name change is the essence of a re-brand)? It would just be a matter of a very short time until assholes like Freedom and Glory shit all over that too. It's a huge disrespect to everything femenism has accomplished to somehow divest of the word. Words are not just shells, they carry history, pride, and productive discussions in and of themselves.

QFT

are you suggesting that what isnt good for you cant be good for anyone?

if you prefer a submissive wife and have found a woman willing to submit to you as head of the family, good for you.

what does it matter that other people are not interested in that kind of domestic arrangement?

No that is my point. I have no problem with the idea of the whole women and men having equal opportunities thing. Also, if folks want to do the whole team thing I guess that is ok too. We should not interfere in such private family matters. However, my parents were some pretty liberal feministy atheistic types and I realized that this is not the way I was meant to live so I do not do things that way.

Kreitzmoorland tangentially asked me what my problem is with equality of the sexes and I answered by pointing out that I have no problem in the public sphere but in the private sphere of family life, that is where it is not for me.

Strong and assertive is like Type-A, man. It is not really all that cool although the type As do have their uses. They tend to make pretty good managers.

Being a bitch is not really a very nice thing to encourage our women to become. I am not sure if it promotes inequality or equality but it certainly does not seek to change society in a way that causes improvement.

strong and assertive is not the same as being a bitch. it only seems bitchy to those who want to be able to walk all over a woman.

as a friend once told me: "nice girls end up with less"

No that is my point. I have no problem with the idea of the whole women and men having equal opportunities thing. Also, if folks want to do the whole team thing I guess that is ok too. We should not interfere in such private family matters. However, my parents were some pretty liberal feministy atheistic types and I realized that this is not the way I was meant to live so I do not do things that way.

Kreitzmoorland tangentially asked me what my problem is with equality of the sexes and I answered by pointing out that I have no problem in the public sphere but in the private sphere of family life, that is where it is not for me.

Well, as long as you don't raise your children to believe such sexist nonsense, then it's all good.

Strong and assertive is like Type-A, man. It is not really all that cool although the type As do have their uses. They tend to make pretty good managers.

Being a bitch is not really a very nice thing to encourage our women to become. I am not sure if it promotes inequality or equality but it certainly does not seek to change society in a way that causes improvement.

You think assertive and strong women are by definition, bitches. You don't like bitches.

I think holier-than-thou male supremacists are dirtbags. I don't like dirtbags.

So how about I let you be a dirt-bag, and you let me be a bitch? Feminism says that each person must have the power to choose their own life, regardless of gender. What's the problem? Assuming your wife freely chooses that lifestyle, we can both fit quite happliy within femenist theory.

Femenism - the word - has been smeared for ideological reasons, not by some benighn aesthetic drift. These are the same anti-femenist reasons that femenism - the movement - continues to disturb and threaten bigoted and stupid people everywhere. Why would a re-brand be any different (a name change is the essence of a re-brand)?

Because

a) These people don't exist anymore on a large scale, sexists do not wield enough influence to make any sort of impression on kids anymore.

b) The word itself gives off the impression that its only about women (even though this isn't true), giving some people a knee-jerk reaction every time they think about it causing them to attack it more.


It's a huge disrespect to everything feminism has accomplished to somehow divest of the word. Words are not just shells, they carry history, pride, and productive discussions in and of themselves.

I'm not saying you should get rid of the word, just perhaps use another one in the names of different organisations. For instance, "the uk feminist society" (name made up for example) could be changed to "the uk gender rights society".

Another important thing is this: I'm not entirely sure if this is a great idea, it's just a suggestion. Don't take it too seriously.

No that is my point. I have no problem with the idea of the whole women and men having equal opportunities thing. Also, if folks want to do the whole team thing I guess that is ok too. We should not interfere in such private family matters. However, my parents were some pretty liberal feministy atheistic types and I realized that this is not the way I was meant to live so I do not do things that way.

Kreitzmoorland tangentially asked me what my problem is with equality of the sexes and I answered by pointing out that I have no problem in the public sphere but in the private sphere of family life, that is where it is not for me.

it is a feminist notion that the personal is political but i dont believe in letting politics make my life less enjoyable. so i live as i please regardless of how feminist (or not) it might seem to the outside world.

so if it makes your wife happy and you happy, there is no reason to change the way you live. i would assume, however, that if someone outside the family were to treat your wife as less than equal you would have a big problem with that.

Strong and assertive is like Type-A, man. It is not really all that cool although the type As do have their uses. They tend to make pretty good managers.

Being a bitch is not really a very nice thing to encourage our women to become. I am not sure if it promotes inequality or equality but it certainly does not seek to change society in a way that causes improvement.

No, strong and assertive is like someone who says, "I am a human being deserving of respect and dignity."

Strong and assertive is like someone who says, "My body is my own, and you have no right to it. You cannot touch, rape, impregnate, or otherwise use me against my will."

Strong and assertive is like someone who says, "My life is for me to determine. If I wish to have children, or a husband/wife, or a career, I should be able to do so without you declaring me inferior for it. If I wish to have no children, or no husband/wife, or no career, I should be able to do so without you declaring me inferior for it."

Strong and assertive is like someone who says, "My work should be compensated according to its merit, not according to the nature of my genitals or the color of my skin."

Strong and assertive is a good thing.

Well, as long as you don't raise your children to believe such sexist nonsense, then it's all good.

What? That is not a very nice thing to say.

What? That is not a very nice thing to say.

Teaching sexism to your children is even less nice.

No, strong and assertive is like someone who says, "I am a human being deserving of respect and dignity."

Strong and assertive is like someone who says, "My body is my own, and you have no right to it. You cannot touch, rape, impregnate, or otherwise use me against my will."

Strong and assertive is like someone who says, "My life is for me to determine. If I wish to have children, or a husband/wife, or a career, I should be able to do so without you declaring me inferior for it. If I wish to have no children, or no husband/wife, or no career, I should be able to do so without you declaring me inferior for it."

Strong and assertive is like someone who says, "My work should be compensated according to its merit, not according to the nature of my genitals or the color of my skin."

Strong and assertive is a good thing.

This definition of strong and assertive sounds nice I am not sure that "strong and assertive" is a good name for this concept though. I like freedom to pursue happiness.

Teaching sexism to your children is even less nice.

I think that teaching liberal stuff to kids is practically corruption of minors. However, I would not be so intrusive into people's family lives as to point this out.

This definition of strong and assertive sounds nice I am not sure that "strong and assertive" is a good name for this concept though. I like freedom to pursue happiness.

Another common name for this concept would be "feminism."

I think that teaching liberal stuff to kids is practically corruption of minors. However, I would not be so intrusive into people's family lives as to point this out.

That's nice that you believe that.

Teaching children to judge others by the shape of their genitals is irresponsible, stupid, and limits your children. Do your kids a favour and don't teach them sexism.

I think that teaching liberal stuff to kids is practically corruption of minors. However, I would not be so intrusive into people's family lives as to point this out.

Lets face it, you can't not corrupt children's minds, if you think of it in that way. It's better to teach kids to be tolerant and accepting of other views then to be single minded.

I think that teaching liberal stuff to kids is practically corruption of minors.

That's nice.

However, I would not be so intrusive into people's family lives as to point this out.

Great. I happen to think that teaching children to be bigoted--and especially teaching female and gay children bigoted understandings of themselves--is so disgusting and horrific a behavior that to abstain from criticizing it on the grounds of avoiding "intrusion" is simply moral cowardice.

Because

a) These people don't exist anymore on a large scale, sexists do not wield enough influence to make any sort of impression on kids anymore.

Never been to North Georgia, have you?

For that matter, you've never been to any part of rural Georgia, have you?

Meanwhile, you should look up Ben Barres and see how differently he was treated after having a FtM sex change. Sexism is quite prevalent. It is less glaring now, but it is still there.

Because

a) These people don't exist anymore on a large scale, sexists do not wield enough influence to make any sort of impression on kids anymore.

b) The word itself gives off the impression that its only about women (even though this isn't true), giving some people a knee-jerk reaction every time they think about it causing them to attack it more.



I'm not saying you should get rid of the word, just perhaps use another one in the names of different organisations. For instance, "the uk feminist society" (name made up for example) could be changed to "the uk gender rights society".

Another important thing is this: I'm not entirely sure if this is a great idea, it's just a suggestion. Don't take it too seriously.

1. Funny how on the one hand you say sexists don't have influence anymore but on the other hand you say that feminists should change their name in order to offset the influence of sexists.

2. Saying that sexists don't have influence anymore doesn't make it true. Anymore than claiming that women already have attained equality makes it true.

Oh boy, if you think Gloria Steinem is great and that radical feminists are not freaks, you might be pretty out there. I do not have a problem with the whole equality of the sexes thing in certain senses. As an American I am a 100% believer a certain equality of all without regard to congenital traits. I think that a Black or a Jew or a whatever should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting anybody. However, I am a family values kinda guy and not just any family values but the patriarchical ones. I believe that as a religious belief so the whole family headed by two thing is just not my bag. It does not fly with my idea of a holy lifestyle. I am not sure that feminism is the same thing as gay rights but they seem sorta similar to me and that rubs me the wrong way too in the whole family values sense.

Ah, somebody who believes in the "traditional family" that never has and never will exist.

Could it be you just like power and don't want to share?

Radical feminism has never meant anything more than the demand for complete gender equality and the end of culturally enforced gender roles. As a whole, we'd rather see these things accomplished now, not at the powers-that-be's earliest possible convenience, which is what liberal feminism has degenerated into. Wanting equality, but not doing anything to get it.

Those of you who think that wide scale sexisim is a thing of the past need to look here (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/09/02/are-american-men-leaving-money-in-their-wills-to-men%E2%80%99s-rights-causes/)(barf bags not included). Judging from the comments on the site, I need to go tell redwulf that because I'm a feminist, I want to castrate him.

Those of you who think that wide scale sexisim is a thing of the past need to look here (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/09/02/are-american-men-leaving-money-in-their-wills-to-men%E2%80%99s-rights-causes/)(barf bags not included). Judging from the comments on the site, I need to go tell redwulf that because I'm a feminist, I want to castrate him.

Wow.

This is even worse:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david20.htm

Apparently, modern feminism came from the KKK!

Wow.

This is even worse:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david20.htm

Apparently, modern feminism came from the KKK!

odd site

he names the "equalitarianists" who are the true heirs of the suffragettes but when he gets to his rant against the WKKK (is that a radio station?) he names no one that i could see in my quick perusal.

i wonder how many people visit the site and find him convincing.

Wow.

This is even worse:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david20.htm

Apparently, modern feminism came from the KKK!

I want the drugs that prick is on...

I remember the first time I ever heard of people speaking ill of radical feminists and what they supposedly do and say, so I looked up radical feminism.

Often, radical feminism is defined as the belief that we have allowed patriarchy
to grow into the very roots of our cultures, and to get rid of the patriarchy we have to get to the very roots and shake the whole damned tree.

If that is what a radical feminist is, then I guess that I am one.

HOLY fuckitude.

"the patriarchy is safe. go back to sleep"


ahahaaaaaahhhahahahaha.

actually, I don't know if I should laugh or cry. the comments to that article are actually surreal.

Radical feminism has never meant anything more than the demand for complete gender equality and the end of culturally enforced gender roles. As a whole, we'd rather see these things accomplished now, not at the powers-that-be's earliest possible convenience, which is what liberal feminism has degenerated into. Wanting equality, but not doing anything to get it.

Radical femenists take femenism to radical extremes, like the radicals that hate men. There's a reason why they are called "radicals". They wouldn't be radicals if they didn't hold extreme, or radical, beliefs.

Radicals are usually bad. Radical Christians blow up abortian clinics. Radical Muslims blow up people and cars. Radical patriots are nationalistic to the extreme.

In the end, radical=extreme. If you're not radical, you're not a radical.

Radical femenists take femenism to radical extremes, like the radicals that hate men. There's a reason why they are called "radicals". They wouldn't be radicals if they didn't hold extreme, or radical, beliefs.

If you're not radical, you're not a radical."radical" , "extremist" , etc are tag words -often- used to spin the message.

several other tags are used to deliver a punchline "terrorist" , "anti-semite" , etc..
the choice of words does make an impact.. sect(instead of religion), regime(instead of administration).. the use of POW only for one side.. etc etc etc.

Radical femenists take femenism to radical extremes, like the radicals that hate men. There's a reason why they are called "radicals". They wouldn't be radicals if they didn't hold extreme, or radical, beliefs.

Radicals are usually bad. Radical Christians blow up abortian clinics. Radical Muslims blow up people and cars. Radical patriots are nationalistic to the extreme.

In the end, radical=extreme. If you're not radical, you're not a radical.the "radical" in radical femenism doesn't mean extremism. It's from the latin phoneme "radix" ie. pretaining to the root, or root cause.

radical femenists believe that sexism is more than just a problem that can be solved through politcal power, policy, or fair institutions. They seek to eradicate the patriarchal gender roles and socially-enforced sexual politics that underlie other gender issues.

..welcome back.. glad to see you around.

Radical femenists take femenism to radical extremes, like the radicals that hate men. There's a reason why they are called "radicals". They wouldn't be radicals if they didn't hold extreme, or radical, beliefs.

Radicals are usually bad. Radical Christians blow up abortian clinics. Radical Muslims blow up people and cars. Radical patriots are nationalistic to the extreme.

In the end, radical=extreme. If you're not radical, you're not a radical.someone's radical extremist is someone else's freedom fighter.

;)

welcome back.. glad to see you around.Hah. Couldn't really say the same, but, thanks, for what it's worth.

Hah. Couldn't really say the same, :( you are killing me



I really care *feels sad* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL1idpUX_Yo)

This thread is looking more like a troll than anything else. Where is the OP? Why is Kreitzmoorland not participating in their own thread? Busy cooking dinner?I know Kreitzmoorland from way back, you can trust this, she is NOT a troll. she is busy with school, thats all.

Radical femenists take femenism to radical extremes,

...sort of....

like the radicals that hate men.

No.

Radical feminists are radically in favor of equality, and advocate radical changes to ensure it.

Genuine female supremacists are not "feminists" at all.

Because

a) These people don't exist anymore on a large scale, sexists do not wield enough influence to make any sort of impression on kids anymore.



I wish this were true, but its not. Sexism is incidious and a lot occurs within families; in other words, in the environment that kids are most affected by. Here's one example of families treating kids differently due to sex:

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/sexist-undercurrent-in-parents-approval-of-hardcore-video-games-study/71025/

I doubt very much that video games is the only area where boys and girls are treated differently.

In their early years, children soak up information about their world without question. By the time they go to school, (by the age of 2, according to some studies) they have already absorbed some ideas about gender stereotypes, from the way their parents behave, the toys and activities they are given/allowed to play with and the tasks they are allotted to help with.

By the time they are old enough to think about these stereotypes, they are already pretty deep seated, and some people never stop to question them at all.

I was told, in no uncertain terms, by teachers at school and by my father that certain subjects and careers were simply out of bounds for me because I am female. Sexism is alive and well; it pervades our society and influences each new member from the moment they arrive.

1. Funny how on the one hand you say sexists don't have influence anymore but on the other hand you say that feminists should change their name in order to offset the influence of sexists.

2. Saying that sexists don't have influence anymore doesn't make it true. Anymore than claiming that women already have attained equality makes it true.
This.

Glad somebody caught the blantant contradiction in the whole "don't call it feminism because sexists won't like it" and "sexism is dead anyway so shaddup" thing.

It's actually a very common tactic among sexists and anti-feminists. They'll spend hours telling us how feminists just need to be nicer and then the boys will like us and open doors for us, but they'll also be quick to remind us that there's no such thing as sexism any more so why are we worrying our pretty little heads about it?

Wow.

This is even worse:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david20.htm

Apparently, modern feminism came from the KKK!

I need to go wash my brain out. With bleach. And possibly hurl.

Genuine female supremacists are not "feminists" at all.

The underlying misunderstanding in this thread. Some people think that they are, some people think that they aren't.

I think we've all had bad experiences with them, though.

Why must everyone on NSG pull off this same old, predictable, hideously pedantic bullshit.

1. Funny how on the one hand you say sexists don't have influence anymore but on the other hand you say that feminists should change their name in order to offset the influence of sexists.


When did I ever say it had anything to do with "offsetting the influence of sexists"? Here's a hint, I didn't. But I don't care, I've come to expect this typical strawman dodge from NSG.


2. Saying that sexists don't have influence anymore doesn't make it true. Anymore than claiming that women already have attained equality makes it true.

I didn't say women have attained equality. But sexism certainly doesn't have an influence as much anymore in the UK at least. It's certainly not supported in the media, nor is it present in education. I can't think of any famous self identifying sexists whom even have any students giving a shit about them as a matter of fact.

I do need food...

Uh, make me a sandwich for lunch. I'll cook steak for dinner. (since grilling is a man's area) ;)

Glad somebody caught the blantant contradiction in the whole "don't call it feminism because sexists won't like it" and "sexism is dead anyway so shaddup" thing.


Bottle, I'm actually surprised about this. I can only really describe this as juvenile and completely anti-debate. You just ignored everything I said about how it's nothing to do with making sexists happy, and more to do with making people who would otherwise be feminists less embarrassed etc... And for what? Why did you yet again create this strawman? So you could self indulge into your moral superiority, attacking me the evil "sexist/anti-feminist" for wanting to change the name and to actually encourage more support for feminism?

This.
It's actually a very common tactic among sexists and anti-feminists. They'll spend hours telling us how feminists just need to be nicer and then the boys will like us and open doors for us,

You forgot about shaving your armpits, legs and bringing us coffee or beer.

*runs*

Uh, make me a sandwich for lunch. I'll cook steak for dinner. (since grilling is a man's area) ;)

Some men show their manliness through cars. Some men show their manliness by the age they lost their virginity.

My friend Trollgaard shows his manliness by "My l33t grill skillz are fight".

Why must everyone on NSG pull off this same old, predictable, hideously pedantic bullshit.

I don't know. Why do you wish to describe legitimate criticism of your view as "old, predictable, hideously pedantic bullshit"? Isn't saying something like that and accusing me of a "typical strawman dodge" really old, predictable, hideously pedantic bullshit?


When did I ever say it had anything to do with "offsetting the influence of sexists"? Here's a hint, I didn't. But I don't care, I've come to expect this typical strawman dodge from NSG.

Gee, you never said the words "offsetting the influence of sexists." That was just inherent in your argument. My bad, I guess. :rolleyes:

I didn't say women have attained equality. But sexism certainly doesn't have an influence as much anymore in the UK at least. It's certainly not supported in the media, nor is it present in education. I can't think of any famous self identifying sexists whom even have any students giving a shit about them as a matter of fact.

ROTFLASTC.

Sorry, but "doesn't have an influence as much anymore in the UK at least" is a far cry from doesn't have significant influence anymore. I'm sure you can figure out the difference.

But, pat the little feminists on the head tell them it is all in there heads while claiming not to be patronizing.

And for someone that supposedly created a strawman, I seem to have pretty accurately forseen your views.

Bottle, I'm actually surprised about this. I can only really describe this as juvenile and completely anti-debate. You just ignored everything I said about how it's nothing to do with making sexists happy, and more to do with making people who would otherwise be feminists less embarrassed etc... And for what? Why did you yet again create this strawman? So you could self indulge into your moral superiority, attacking me the evil "sexist/anti-feminist" for wanting to change the name and to actually encourage more support for feminism?

More support for what? What you want is something that isn't feminism.

You want feminists to change their name and stop being feminists and you don't recognize anything vaguely anti-feminist in that? Maybe you should give it some thought.

Radical femenists take femenism to radical extremes, like the radicals that hate men. There's a reason why they are called "radicals". They wouldn't be radicals if they didn't hold extreme, or radical, beliefs.

Radicals are usually bad. Radical Christians blow up abortian clinics. Radical Muslims blow up people and cars. Radical patriots are nationalistic to the extreme.

In the end, radical=extreme. If you're not radical, you're not a radical.

I am a radical feminist, and yes I'm an extremist: an extreme defender of freedom. I also don't hate men (I happen to be one :p ).

Radical feminists have never done anything wrong to other people, unless of course those poor patriarchs feelings are taken into account.

I didn't say women have attained equality. But sexism certainly doesn't have an influence as much anymore in the UK at least. It's certainly not supported in the media, nor is it present in education. I can't think of any famous self identifying sexists whom even have any students giving a shit about them as a matter of fact.

Boy, I'd sure like to have a pair of the rose colored glasses you're sporting. (I live in the US, so my comments may not apply to the UK, but from what I've seen they're similar).

-Girls are still less likely to get called on than boys in class.
-Girls are told from a very young age that their bodies are ugly, that their hair is wrong, etc, etc.
-Women are still discriminated against in many major religious denominations.
-Women bear most of the burden of keeping house and raising children, even if they work or are the primary breadwinners in the house.
-No matter what men's rights organizations tell you, women are still much, much, much more likely to be victims of domestic violence than men.
-Women are less likely to be taken seriously as candidates, or CEOs, or pretty much anything where they have power over men.

And on, and on, and on... We've made great strides, things have improved a great deal (hell, we're no longer property!), but there are still problems.

The underlying misunderstanding in this thread. Some people think that they are, some people think that they aren't.

I think we've all had bad experiences with them, though.

we have?

perhaps you should share your personal horror story of a run-in you had with a female supremecist.

Boy, I'd sure like to have a pair of the rose colored glasses you're sporting. (I live in the US, so my comments may not apply to the UK, but from what I've seen they're similar).

-Girls are still less likely to get called on than boys in class.
-Girls are told from a very young age that their bodies are ugly, that their hair is wrong, etc, etc.
-Women are still discriminated against in many major religious denominations.
-Women bear most of the burden of keeping house and raising children, even if they work or are the primary breadwinners in the house.
-No matter what men's rights organizations tell you, women are still much, much, much more likely to be victims of domestic violence than men.
-Women are less likely to be taken seriously as candidates, or CEOs, or pretty much anything where they have power over men.

And on, and on, and on... We've made great strides, things have improved a great deal (hell, we're no longer property!), but there are still problems.

What? Women aren't property anymore? These feminazis have gone too far!

On a more serious note, I don't think your first two points are correct, but I can agree with the other four.

What? Women aren't property anymore? These feminazis have gone too far!

On a more serious note, I don't think your first two points are correct, but I can agree with the other four.

Really? I'll admit, I haven't seen a lot of recent studies on point one, but a few years ago, they were running a special on Barbie's anniversary. It showed little (six to eight year olds, IIRC) girls, holding up Barbies and complaining that their hips were too flat, that their hair wasn't nice enough, etc. I nearly puked. I did switch the channel. Children are bombarded with images of what 'normal' people look like from a very young age. In America, at least, the 'norm' is either anorexic-thin and blonde or unrealistically curvy (Barbie wouldn't be able to stand up straight if she were a real woman) and... surprise! also blonde.

I am six feet tall and built big all around. I'm also carrying a few extra pounds. I'm healthy, my blood pressure is usually under normal, and I'm relatively happy with the way I am. It's taken me nearly fifteen years, six of which were spent with a man who adores me and thinks I'm hawt, to get to that point. There is so much societal pressure to look a certain way, you internalize so much of it... Makes it hard to be a six foot tall woman, sometimes.

Really? I'll admit, I haven't seen a lot of recent studies on point one, but a few years ago, they were running a special on Barbie's anniversary. It showed little (six to eight year olds, IIRC) girls, holding up Barbies and complaining that their hips were too flat, that their hair wasn't nice enough, etc. I nearly puked. I did switch the channel. Children are bombarded with images of what 'normal' people look like from a very young age. In America, at least, the 'norm' is either anorexic-thin and blonde or unrealistically curvy (Barbie wouldn't be able to stand up straight if she were a real woman) and... surprise! also blonde.

I am six feet tall and built big all around. I'm also carrying a few extra pounds. I'm healthy, my blood pressure is usually under normal, and I'm relatively happy with the way I am. It's taken me nearly fifteen years, six of which were spent with a man who adores me and thinks I'm hawt, to get to that point. There is so much societal pressure to look a certain way, you internalize so much of it... Makes it hard to be a six foot tall woman, sometimes.

Ok, I see what you're saying. I agree that there's a lot of societal pressure on women, but honestly, I think this is something that women help perpetrate. If more women, more celebrities would stand agaisnt this sort of thing, than it would no longer be as popular. And in any case, a girl doesn't have to do what everyone else is doing. A person, man or woman, should always do what they think is right.

Ok, I see what you're saying. I agree that there's a lot of societal pressure on women, but honestly, I think this is something that women help perpetrate. If more women, more celebrities would stand agaisnt this sort of thing, than it would no longer be as popular. And in any case, a girl doesn't have to do what everyone else is doing. A person, man or woman, should always do what they think is right.

its not a men against women thing. its societal pressure that comes from a variety of sources as you suggest.

feminism isnt about demonizing men. the vast majority of men dont have the power to enforce sex roles. its the pressure of society from all sources including women enforcing sex roles on other women that feminism is fighting against.

its not a men against women thing. its societal pressure that comes from a variety of sources as you suggest.

feminism isnt about demonizing men. the vast majority of men dont have the power to enforce sex roles. its the pressure of society from all sources including women enforcing sex roles on other women that feminism is fighting against.

That's definitely true, but it's not something I hear a lot from girls.

Really? I'll admit, I haven't seen a lot of recent studies on point one, but a few years ago, they were running a special on Barbie's anniversary. It showed little (six to eight year olds, IIRC) girls, holding up Barbies and complaining that their hips were too flat, that their hair wasn't nice enough, etc. I nearly puked. I did switch the channel. Children are bombarded with images of what 'normal' people look like from a very young age. In America, at least, the 'norm' is either anorexic-thin and blonde or unrealistically curvy (Barbie wouldn't be able to stand up straight if she were a real woman) and... surprise! also blonde.

I am six feet tall and built big all around. I'm also carrying a few extra pounds. I'm healthy, my blood pressure is usually under normal, and I'm relatively happy with the way I am. It's taken me nearly fifteen years, six of which were spent with a man who adores me and thinks I'm hawt, to get to that point. There is so much societal pressure to look a certain way, you internalize so much of it... Makes it hard to be a six foot tall woman, sometimes.

While this is true, I'm not sure that this insecurity is entirely the province of women; men are just as insecure, but about different things. If I wanted to be purely anecdotal about it, I'd point out that women aren't encouraged via ad or movie to climb a mountain wearing $100 footgear, drive really fast cars in suspiciously empty roads, play professional sports or otherwise make at least $100k per year, etc, to prove their desirability.

My point isn't that men have it as bad or that feminists ignore the plight of males (they don't, and feminists are uniquely attuned to pointing out males getting the shaft). Rather, it's that what's often referred to as anti-women trends in advertising is really just doing what advertising of all kinds is designed to do to both men and women: convince us that we have a significant problem that can only be solved by an endless succession of consumer products. As such, feminism doesn't seem uniquely-suited for solving this problem, because the problem isn't so much that there's anti-feminine bias in ads so much as the systematic toll ads themselves take on both men and women. Some kind of populism rather than feminism seems to be the better response.

That's definitely true, but it's not something I hear a lot from girls.

well if you think about it, its unreasonable to expect that girls who have never been taught much about feminism should understand its subtleties just because they believe they are the equals of boys. all they really know is that they sometimes get the short end of the stick for no good reason and they get pissed at boys for it instead of realizing that we ALL get the short end of the stick when we are only allowed certain roles by society.

For all the people claiming that sexism is dead, I invite you to venture into the toplessness thread that's currently on the front page. We currently have somebody arguing that women who bare their chests should expect to be harassed and mistreated, and that it's their fault for showing off body parts that men find sexually appealing.

I didn't say women have attained equality. But sexism certainly doesn't have an influence as much anymore in the UK at least. It's certainly not supported in the media, nor is it present in education. I can't think of any famous self identifying sexists whom even have any students giving a shit about them as a matter of fact.

Since when do bigots typically self-identify as such?

I don't know. Why do you wish to describe legitimate criticism of your view as "old, predictable, hideously pedantic bullshit"? Isn't saying something like that and accusing me of a "typical strawman dodge" really old, predictable, hideously pedantic bullshit?


Yes it's predictable that I have to keep pointing out these strawmen, perhaps it wouldn't be so much if you didn't keep making them.


Gee, you never said the words "offsetting the influence of sexists." That was just inherent in your argument. My bad, I guess. :rolleyes:


But that would be flawed also, since I didn't say or intended to suggest this.


ROTFLASTC.

Sorry, but "doesn't have an influence as much anymore in the UK at least" is a far cry from doesn't have significant influence anymore. I'm sure you can figure out the difference.


If you look earlier in the thread, I mention that I am mainly talking about the UK. I don't live in America, so I can't speak for America.


But, pat the little feminists on the head tell them it is all in there heads while claiming not to be patronizing.


What is it with this ridiculous attitude, where if you disagree over the most minor trivial details (in this case the name feminism), you are portrayed as a patronizing evil anti feminist. Something I would expect more from a fundamentalist.


You want feminists to change their name and stop being feminists and you don't recognize anything vaguely anti-feminist in that? Maybe you should give it some thought.

More speculative crap? I tire of this.


Oh and to bottle, I never said feminism was dead. Just that it doesn't have much of an influence any more especially on students, from what I see in Europe.

I'm happy to see that I am in the at least narrow majority of "feminist and proud." However, I have to apologize in advance, because I haven't read the whole thread. On the first two pages, all that crap about how feminists are disturbing because they don't seem feminine got me so angry that I skipped to the back only to see a bunch of shit about who's fault it is that women's bodies are still being treated as sex objects in popular culture and whether feminism is dead or irrelevant or not.

Look, people, it goes like this:

1) "Feminine" describes anything directly connected to females, whether any given person finds it attractive or reassuring or not. So I will thank the whole world to quit trying to beat women up with words like "feminine" and "unfeminine." Female cows chew cud and produce milk all day long and do nothing else, and for them that's feminine. Female lions organize their prides and kill large animals with their teeth and claws, and for them that's feminine. The same variations apply within the human species. So, when the Blood Countess Elizabeth Bathory tortured, murdered and bathed in the blood of over 600 peasant girls, she did it in a feminine manner, because she was female. And if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency (not my fondest hope, but still, as an example), then she will do it in an emminently feminine manner, because she's female. And when I punched the snot out of some random loon who tried to feel me up in a park, once upon a time, long, long ago in my life, I did that in a feminine manner, too -- and he ran away in a masculine manner. Understand this: The job of females is to be female, NOT to make males feel safe as babies. So if there is any aspect of feminine behavior that some people wish wasn't there, take it up with nature. Nature decides what's feminine, not society.

2) Feminism is a social and political movement to correct a pre-existing inequality. If feminist social and political action is waning in any given place, there can be two reasons for that: (A) the goal has been reached and further action is not needed, or (B) the society is backsliding, in which case feminists need to wake up and get busy again. Neither scenario means that feminism is dead. Ideas don't die. Action doesn't die -- it is either needed at the moment or not needed at the moment. Saying that feminism is dead is like saying brooms no longer exist because people don't bother to sweep their floors as often. As long as floors need sweeping, there will be a need for brooms. As long as discrimination based on gender is accepted within a society, feminism will be needed, and it will be there, just like the broom in your closet.

3) As to images of women in popular culture, I personally rank this matter as a bit less important -- or maybe less urgent, if not less important -- than matters of equal pay for equal work and fair representation of women in leadership positions. In all cases, popular culture reflects and follows reality; it doesn't make it or lead it. A society that questions the femininity of a woman running for US president is not one that is going to give much support to young girls in bucking the Barbie tradition. A society that questions why more women aren't running for president is likely to make it easier to find alternatives to the Barbie model. The same goes for a society that criticizes women for demanding equal pay for equal work, versus a society in which it never occurs to anyone to base pay rates on anything other than skill and job peformance. And a society in which women can be blamed both for being not pretty enough AND too pretty and spends time debating over that, versus a society in which how people look is no one's business but their own.

I grew up in a family dominated (by sheer chance of births) by women -- and older women, at that, who were all products of traditional Italian culture (not the most egalitarian in regards to gender) and old-fashioned US culture of the 1930s - 1950s. Yet, by force of necessity, the majority of those women worked outside the home, and by force of family tradition, all of them were highly educated. They were mothers, union members, politically active, high academic achievers, fashion and make-up addicts, houseproud homemakers and obsessive cooks of family meals, and never shy about expressing their opinions in public and/or in front of men.

As a child, I played with Barbies. Yet for me, Barbie was never anything more than a plastic doll. I never identified with Barbie in any way. I had other real-life models of femininity to follow, and I looked to other pop culture sources for fantasy role models -- models that fit my reality, the reality of what I was being taught about women. My personal favorites were Emma Peel and Morticia Addams.

I tell this personal anecdote as an illustrative example of how reality molds image. This is why I say work hard for the social and political goals of feminism, and the cultural imagery will follow.

EDIT: Ah, I got caught in the nostalgia of my girlhood. :) The funny thing is, as glamorous as Mrs. Peel and Mrs. Addams were, what they did was always more important than how they looked. Nevertheless, this is how I used to dress up my Barbie dolls:

http://dissolute.com.au/avweb/emma/emmapeel.jpg

http://dissolute.com.au/avweb/emma/mappeal.jpg

http://www.addamsfamily.com/addams/morticia5.jpg

http://www.addamsfamily.com/addams/mortic01.jpg

For all the people claiming that sexism is dead, I invite you to venture into the toplessness thread that's currently on the front page. We currently have somebody arguing that women who bare their chests should expect to be harassed and mistreated, and that it's their fault for showing off body parts that men find sexually appealing.

Well Bottle?

If you want to go topless, it's ok with me.

My conversational skills will probably diminish but I won't harass or mistreat you.

:D

well if you think about it, its unreasonable to expect that girls who have never been taught much about feminism should understand its subtleties just because they believe they are the equals of boys. all they really know is that they sometimes get the short end of the stick for no good reason and they get pissed at boys for it instead of realizing that we ALL get the short end of the stick when we are only allowed certain roles by society.

Is feminism the answer? Or would things improve for women if men took more of an interest in their daughters lives?

Is feminism the answer? Or would things improve for women if men took more of an interest in their daughters lives?
How are those two things mutually exclusive?

My father took a very active interest in my life. He's a feminist.

Frankly, I think one of the worst things that could possibly happen to a girl would be to have a father who isn't a feminist yet who takes great interest in her life.

Is feminism the answer? Or would things improve for women if men took more of an interest in their daughters lives?

I fail to see any great divide between feminism and active and interested fathers. I don't see much overlap, either.

How are active and interested fathers going to enforce equal pay laws? How are active and interested fathers going to stop making it okay to try the victim in sexual assault cases? How are active and interested fathers going to make sure that women get equal service from health care providers and in terms of medical research?

To be honest with you, TBF, your question sounds to me just a little like, "Is it really necessary to stand up for women's rights at all? Wouldn't it be better if we just let men look out for their little girls? That way women could trust men to safeguard their fates, and wouldn't that solve the problem?" Gosh, I wonder why that doesn't appeal to me.

I fail to see any great divide between feminism and active and interested fathers. I don't see much overlap, either.

How are active and interested fathers going to enforce equal pay laws? How are active and interested fathers going to stop making it okay to try the victim in sexual assault cases? How are active and interested fathers going to make sure that women get equal service from health care providers and in terms of medical research?

To be honest with you, TBF, your question sounds to me just a little like, "Is it really necessary to stand up for women's rights at all? Wouldn't it be better if we just let men look out for their little girls? That way women could trust men to safeguard their fates, and wouldn't that solve the problem?" Gosh, I wonder why that doesn't appeal to me.
Aww, come on! You mean you don't like the suggestion that the solution to sexism and discrimination against women is to focus more on what men can do with the females in their lives?

So I guess a man like me who looks like a freakin lumberjack, the essence of masculinity, who labels himself as a feminist, really fucks with your mental image.

Indeed. I got an "F" on my word association test. :(

Frankly, I think one of the worst things that could possibly happen to a girl would be to have a father who isn't a feminist yet who takes great interest in her life.

Indeed. The last thing a young girl needs is her father taking an active interest in making sure that she's a good little submissive wife.

Indeed. The last thing a young girl needs is her father taking an active interest in making sure that she's a good little submissive wife.

I see way to much of that happening where I live. /shudders

I'm feeling appreciative of my Dad all over again. He taught me to box (he boxed Golden Gloves), encouraged me to take TaeKwon Do and Karate, and when he was called to my Jr High School because I punched some guy for snapping my bra Dad gave me a high five right in front of the principal.
Yay Dad!

I'm feeling appreciative of my Dad all over again. He taught me to box (he boxed Golden Gloves), encouraged me to take TaeKwon Do and Karate, and when he was called to my Jr High School because I punched some guy for snapping my bra Dad gave me a high five right in front of the principal.
Yay Dad!

Ah, but did he teach you....






























http://www.nwhfa.com/images/pic3-morozzo.gif

'Fraid not dear. Dad's a Texan. We either punch or shoot people. He did teach me to shoot, but in spite of the fact that he's a markman, I can't hit the broad side of a barn. I have to stick to shotguns.

My dad never taught me to fight, at least not physically. (My mother insists that my father and I have the same style of verbal fighting.)

In fact, I think the only stereotypically "manly" thing I learned from my dad was how to throw and catch a ball. He and I would play catch a lot when I was little.

Maybe I'm just not thinking of all the important "manly" lessons. What would be examples of stereotypically "male" skills that a father might impart to his offspring?

Spitting?
My dad used to flip out if I so much as chewed with my mouth open. I don't know what would happen if I spit in his presence, and I am not eager to find out. O.o