|
|
|
Apprentice
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:34 AM
Posts: 12,
Visits: 309
|
|
| Marios, I would be delighted to make your acquaintance and explain why I feel that feminism is the only alternative to misogyny.
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 28, 2008 2:06 PM
Posts: 796,
Visits: 1,062
|
|
| Let me start by saying that I am generally uncomfortable with this kind of man hating feminism. But do I really have the right to judge the early feminists because I dont agree with their extremes? The shape and flavour of feminism has changed a lot since the 1970s and 1980s, because of the successes of that early feminist movement. A nice tongue in cheek book that nicely illustrates what I mean is Fay Weldon's Big Women which charts the rise and fall of a feminist publishing agency. There was a time when no-one batted an eyelid at casual sexism in the workplace, at sexual harrassment, at unequal pay, domestic violence, the assumption that women were walking wombs, and so on. These days these things are not so commonly accepted. I'm not saying we're fully there. Although educated people generally accept gender equality, there is still a lot of casual sexism in society. But things have improved immeasurably. There are battles that I will never have to even fight because earlier women fought and won them for me. So it is very easy of me to feel uncomfortable about the methods of some extreme feminists, but what choice did they have back in the early days? Being quiet and polite wouldnt have achieved anything except ridicule. What does feminism mean in the 21st century? Its hard to say because it is not a defined political movement. So many women take their equality for granted that they are not interested in the wider implications. But looking at the US, freedoms won can also be lost (I'm talking about abortion rights, contraception, the right to be considered as a human rather than as a potential baby machine), so we need to maintain our vigilence and make sure we dont lose our freedoms. The concept of femininity is equally difficult and is inextricably tied with feminism. Is it possible to wear girly dresses and be a feminist? I believe it is, but some people dont. Is it possible to have a good career and be strong minded and still be feminine? Again I believe it is, but there is one person who reads these forums who claimed I was unfeminine, thus illustrating that some people still think femininity=quiet and unassuming. Where am I going with this? I'm not entirely certain so I'll wind it up with repeating myself. For those of us who believe in women's rights, we mustn't take our eye off the ball. Vigilence is vital, or we'll lose the ground we've already gained.
_____________________________________________________ It is not a competition. It is a web forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, March 30, 2007 10:27 PM
Posts: 115,
Visits: 143
|
|
Ocelot (3/8/2007)
None of the women I know seem to think so. A lot of them seem to find borderline psychotic bastards with the sexual morals of a priapismic tomcat ideal partners. Not much hope for a short, shy, not quite overweight (but borderline) man of distinctly average looks and very little charisma in that arena, no matter how respectful to women and emotionally developed they are. I should imagine.  Nope, sorry, you are quite correct - no hope at all. Yuo fail it! Only kidding. I was having a K5 moment. It often seems the way you describe - I think it's 'media ideal' being projected into 'this is clearly what everyone actually thinks' but it takes all sorts really...
_________________________________________________________________ The nature of man is the same as the nature of a wolf and the same as the nature of an ox?
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, March 30, 2007 10:27 PM
Posts: 115,
Visits: 143
|
|
Matt Pennington (3/9/2007)
Marios (3/9/2007)
'Not being a feminist' is like being 'a racist'?Yes. At it's core I'd say that racism is inherently about treating people differently based on their race. And sexism is about using gender as a basis for treating people differently. I can't think of an antonym for racism, but the principles of feminism that I've outlined above are really about opposing sexual discrimination. While feminism calls for the institution of equality of opportunity for women, the policy developments demanded in order to secure this seem to involve treating women more differently in order to secure their positions in society.
_________________________________________________________________ The nature of man is the same as the nature of a wolf and the same as the nature of an ox?
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:33 PM
Posts: 1,456,
Visits: 2,020
|
|
Wen Jian (3/9/2007)
While feminism calls for the institution of equality of opportunityfor women, the policy developments demanded in order to secure thisseem toinvolve treating women more differently in order to secure their positions in society.
Positive discrimination is always a difficult issue. As said, the moment you move away from the fundamental principles into questions like "how do we accomplish this" or "what does this mean in practice" then the issues and the answers become considerably more complex. I don't think that undermines my point that feminism is fundamentally about removing gender prejudice.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:05 PM
Posts: 190,
Visits: 1,518
|
|
Did I miss something?
I know I'm not the shiniest spoon in the drawer but am I the only one that feels slightly confused as to the point of this thread?
So someone dredges up some trite sensationalist diatribe from a clearly troubled individual seeking validation who passed away 20 years ago and I can't help but wonder what possible relevance it has?
____________________________________________________________
Idiots can be so much fun, thats why every village wants one....
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
Matt Pennington (3/9/2007)
Positive discrimination is always a difficult issue. As said, the moment you move away from the fundamental principles into questions like "how do we accomplish this" or "what does this mean in practice" then the issues and the answers become considerably more complex.
That is generally the argument of a fundamentalist - you have to accept these principles as pre-eminent now. We'll discuss the fine details of implementation later.
Matt Pennington (3/9/2007)
I don't think that undermines my point that feminism is fundamentally about removing gender prejudice.
No, I think he's right. If "Feminism" can be accepted as a synonym for "removing gender prejudice" then what's the point in talking about feminism? I don't think that feminism is a fundamentally about 'removing gender prejudice' any more than national socialism is fundamentally about 'removing racial oppression'. In each case, a whole bucketful of assumptions about who is oppressing who and what should be done about it slip in the back door quite unnecessarily.
Is there anyone here who doesn't think that 'positive discrimination' undermines the tenet that society should not support 'discrimination'? There's a not particularly subtle shift from 'everyone should be equal under the law/equality of opportunity' to 'society must be re-engineered until everyone is equal-in-fact'. It's irrelevant if women artists aren't very good - we should still have 50% of galleries full of female art. Anyone criticising this is clearly a crypto-sexist.
Moreover, if you support the deployment of anti-male gender prejudice - as many non-straw women feminists do - then I do think that rather undermines the concept that it's all about removing 'gender prejudice'.
I don't see any reason why lobby groups should stop at 'equality' when they can push for more for their consitituency. Nor, seemingly, do they. In the same way that lawyers are expected to make absolutely the best case they can for their client and trust that the opposing lawyer does the same, I expect lobby groups to push as hard as they can until they counterbalance the opposing lobby group. I don't see how you can really define 'equality' other than that point at which a rough balance seems to be struck (i.e. a situation of gross inequality is defined as one where as a situation of gross political instability).
So long as 'feminism' is viewed as _the_ political movement for 'removing gender prejudice' we're never going to have 'equality' because there's always going to be uneven advocacy. I find the suggestion that we can argue the case for the necessity of a feminist approach in the West by making reference to different belief systems within the West (which the adherents also view as feminist - http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/) a tad obnoxious. Worse is the tendency to toss in some stuff about how women are treated outside of the West to beef up the case that we need more 'feminist' legislation in the West, then more or less ignoring the plight of the people you just referenced. It's reminiscent of Sephardic Jews milking the Holocaust (largely affecting only European Ashkenazi Jews) to get their own state and for continued political capital, while happily shitting on Poland (containing lots of European Ashkenazi Jews), treating Ashkenazi like second-class Jews and suppressing discussion about the Armenian genocide because Turkey is a key ally of Israel. None of these people are doing anything new or particularly suprising, so long as you don't fall into the error of confusing self-interested propaganda for reality - but it's terribly hard if you've grown up in a culture that automatically presumes that victims (and their supporters) are washed free of the sin of hypocrisy through righteous suffering.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
happybat (3/9/2007)
Marios, I would be delighted to make your acquaintance and explain why I feel that feminism is the only alternative to misogyny.
You're more than welcome, but I feel it would be more interesting to see you try to explain to a woman who doesn't believe that she's a feminist why it is that she must actually be a misogynist. If you find that you have to redefine feminism to mean something distinct from what the person who you're talking to thinks it is, then isn't that the time to wonder whether you are actually talking about feminism or whether you are just talking about values you feel to be unassailable and calling them feminism?
What is the opposite of straw-manning? I couldn't accept a girlfriend who wasn't a Christian - it would be like dating someone who didn't think love was important or that all individuals are deserving of respect. If you're redefining a term to mean "socially acceptable" then I think you're just rejecting any possibility of dialogue (either you agree with me or you're a racist).
Matt Pennington (3/9/2007)
Yes. At it's core I'd say that racism is inherently about treating people differently based on their race.
So anyone who supports 'positive discrimination' or 'affirmative action' is a racist? Equally, people who head up racial lobby groups (why doesn't the Anti-Defamation League seem to give a shit about the defamation of people who aren't Jews? Why aren't they screaming the house down about the Armenians, Kurds and Arabs?).
Matt Pennington (3/9/2007)
And sexism is about using gender as a basis for treating people differently.
Like being strictly hetero/homo-sexual? I can't think of much interaction that more fundamentally alters how people treat eachother than whether they consider someone a potential mate or not. That said, I do note a lot of young, impressionable people seemingly claiming bisexuality simply because they feel expressing a strong preference one way or the other to be despicably antiquated (irregardless of how they actually behave).
Matt Pennington (3/9/2007)
At a fundamental level I think issues like racism and sexism come down to binary questions.
That's a pretty honest, fundamentalist quote - "With me or against me.". Aint it awful how namby-pamby moderates always pretend that there's grey areas just so they can avoid taking sides like a decent person?
Matt Pennington (3/9/2007)
So yes, I consider not being a feminist to be morally similar to being a racist.
Matt Pennington (3/9/2007)
Racism's great, it's like paedophilia, it's the two glorious no-go areas of modern western thought.
Hurray for the suppression of dialogue! A still tongue makes for quiet mind!
Marios
|
|
|
| | |