Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
or is that an oxymoron?
I refuse to shave my legs and armpits in protest againsty tibet
Also.. I think you can have male feminists.
indeed you can
also covers green issues, liberty and homosexuality for example.
As long as they have penises
though it runs the risk of you coming across as the sort of man who uses feminism to "control" or "protect" women, a sort of "no, can't let them see this horrible misogyny, i must protect them". see: the dude fro....actually, i'm not going to make wild accusations now.
He didn't cross my mind at all from this thread came up...
within IR for example, there are male aythors who believe that IR theory is shaped far too much by male discourse, and that there is the need for a female influence.
I was one.
It meant I wasnt allowed to go out with anyone who
1)shaved armpits or legs (as you identified)
2) wore high heels
3) wore stockings
4) did their nails red
5) wore lipstick
6) ate meat (its all a macho conspiracy)
I was on well dodgy ground for liking the stranglers and have been rounded on and taken to task for this on several occasions
I was most dismayed when my sisters rejected me.
I was driving past greenham common in my escort crapavanette and gave a freindly wave of support to the sisters protesting there, they responded with two fingers and other gesticulations and jeers..... I felt rejected
if it didn't sound too wanky, i'd probably consider myself one.
they'd be all like 'hey thats my best bra you femenist bastard'. then they would shut a door in your face rather than holding it open for you.
bras are fucking expensive!
don't wear them then! why hide away such precious goods. plus they are well hard to get off nd stuff
this doesn't apply to those with 'well droopy swingers' because, well i just don't need that shit in my life.
In the same way I don't think you can have white members of black power movements or black members of white power movements.
I mean I think you can have men who sympathise with feminists and believe in gender equality but I don't think they'd actually be feminists.
isnt black power about taking the power back - so it makes sense that white people would want to join
but isnt white power just about racial supremacy and bigotry? why would a black person join that? unless they're a suicicidal emo maybe
or at least I remember reading an article a while back about a black woman who'd applied to join the US National Association for the Advancement of White People. No idea if she got accepted or not.
To me there's a fundamental difference between being a feminist and believing in equality. Technically speaking it's not dissimilar to being a racist, sexist or nationalist (in the strictest definition these mean that you believe the interests of your race, sex or nation should take precedence over those of other races, sexes or nations). Similary, however you dress it up, feminism implies a belief that the interests of women should take precedence over the interests of men. Male Chauvisnism is a closeer relative of Feminism than egalitarianism is.
I appreciate most people do use Feminism to imply a belief in gender equality but that's not really what it means and, in the same way that although not every nationalist will believe in conquering other countries, you can't escape from what the word implies.
And I can't really see why, unless you were a bit strange, any man would want to assert female superiority (rather than equality) so I don't really think you generally get genuine feminists who are male.
but I don't think that's the actual correct definition and it's not the definition I'd use. It's like the difference between nationalism and patriotism - subtle but quite important.
Whilst there's nothing wrong with advocating the inteersts of a dicriminated group I think there's everything wrong with advocating them over the interests of non-discriminated group. Creating a new prejudice or bias doesn't rectify a previous prejudice or bias, merely creates a new imbalance to replace the old one.
I see it impossible to reconcile an argument for doing so with a belief in egalitarianism.
there are various branches of Feminism?
I was merely commenting on how two individuals could have their own definition of a concept which is actually various different concepts
It doesn't really matter if you talk about 'mainstream' feminism. If you talk about animal rights on here people starting going off about insane factions of PETA who like to kill people...Muslims have issues thanks to a few extreme fuckheads.
So essentially any movement is tainted by its worst aspects and I think Feminism has been tainted by men-hating, bra-burning nutters and so it makes more sense to call yourself an egalitarian.
The processes which involve 'taking the power back' usually involve OTT protests and ations which dont redress the balance, but rather swing it in the opposite direction. In other words replacing one structure of domination with another
Anti-Slavery doesn't seek to prioritise the interests of slaves over slave-owners.
You clearly haven't understood my point at all.
The point is that with many (tho' admittedly not all) belief systems that are -ims (feminISM, NationalISM, SexISM, RaceISM, etc.), what that name implies is a belief system that interests of the Feminine, the Nationality you are, the Sex you are, the race etc. should be treated preferentially above others.
Anti-slavery is not an -ism so isn't really in any way relevant to the point I was making.
the idea of men promoting female superiority is actually the most sensible to me.
Our mothers were the first and foremost big caring figure. I love and adore women and would give them far more slack in everything. At school i lilked loads of female teachers I was either frightened of, wanted to challenge or punch the the male teachers, I thought they were gitty heirarchical tossers.....(not all were of course, but those that tried to be reasonable rather than forceful and confident sounding were described as being 'less masculine')
A lot of human attributes are ascriubed to a gender, which is bizarre and wierd and ties up with ideas of personal confidence and peer positioning. Its incredibly muddled and complex....I acknowledge that women can make the most awful leaders when we only have a few (like thatcher) but aethetically having a 'Goddess' seems a lot nicer than a 'God'
I have problems accepting that other males are more alpha than me...i would have no problem in accepting that a female might be the leader of the group.
paradoxically this actually makes me appear to be quite heirarchically macho which im not. Im not going to ruin my soul to get to the top of all males when it is merely artificial societorial constructs that provide the unatural measuring stick for leaders and power.
And Power is what the whole 60's/70's/80's feminist thing tended to be about (nowadays it mainly foicuses on equal pay and 'number' of women in government and judiciary and upper management)
In its purist form it wanst just about power of actual gender but also power of relative human qualities, thus the 'macho' nature of military matters also became an integral part of feminism to some. the feminists protesting outside of greenham common would not have been glad that nowadays some women can also now fly fast jets and bomb people.
The true feminist (in my view) should aspire to no one being unfairly falsely discriminated against (with opportunity or opinion) due to the mores of society when this is an artificial quirk of society and not nature. They should also aspire to not allow certain qualities to rule unfairly over otheres when it makes little sense to do so
perhaps its because of they indulge in less 'conventional male banter' which kind of leaves me cold, probably cos I was brought up by my mum and gran and most older blokes I knew just seemed to obiously talk a load of blustery bantery shite.
On this site there are loads of lovely blokes who do not care so much about appearing to be one thing or another...which is great.....I seek out people irl like this too, we all do I guess. I can do the gruff macho ting to and be perfectly disguised in old men pubs, and I like pushing them a bit, but I tend to know how far they will tolerate......of course with individuals and one to ones it is easy to get past roles and many an old macho bloke can easily burst into tears when your talking about life, if they feel they can trust you.
'feminism implies a belief that the interests of women should take precedence over the interests of men'
oh man that is SUCH bullshit. anyone who takes that as a foundation of their belief wouldn't count as feminist. the VAST majority of feminists would entirely reject as feminist one who believed in the superiority of women over men. the reason that feminism exists, essentially, is because women have very rarely had equality in the eyes of the law and wider society.
it's all very well trying to argue this on the basis of an '-ism' being inherently concerned with asserting superiority, but whilst this may be so for many '-ism's it is not part of the meaning of the word, the ending -ism actually technically defines a belief system without any reference to content. don't misappropriate that in order to justify a belief which is simply wrong!
ps germaine greer is not a feminist, she is a cunt. glad i got that out of my system
you see at one point the most extreme of the feminists also objected to many women who also seemed to support the status quo and traditional roles and values ( like Anne coulter does today)
Men like me who did not genuinely care whether women shave their pits or not were considered far more feminist that women who insisted that a woman should support a man in his career (for instance).
During a period of feminisms history the 'vanguard' of the movement was also concerned with the definition of femininity being synomynous with appearance (and artificially constructed/enhanced appearance at that)
They objected (rightly) to the definition of womanly being mostly associated with visual appearance, obviously we now all acknowledge that being a shallow society this is an agreed benchmark but for individuals this is of course bollocks so although hairy legged feminism might look ridiculous to modern sensibilities it did have some relevance.
Of course nowadays we are all celebrity seeking tarts so its kind of evened up, men also have beauty products now
cos that was as much about female empowerment as it was having a hot girl kick ass in a short skirt
"Whedon identifies himself as a feminist, and feminist themes are common in his work. For his part, Whedon credits his mother, Lee Stearns, as the inspiration for his feminist worldview. When Roseanne Barr asked him how he could write so well for women, he replied, "If you met my mom, you wouldn't ask."
The character Kitty Pryde from the X-Men comics was an early model for Whedon's strong teenage girl characters: "If there's a bigger influence on Buffy than Kitty, I don’t know what it was. She was an adolescent girl finding out she has great power and dealing with it."
Whedon was honored at an Equality Now benefit in 2006: "Honoring Men on the Front Lines", and his fans raised a considerable amount of money in support of the organization"
interesting debate going on in this thread..
To be technically correct - the best kind of correct - the answer is yes. Feminist 'theory' as method can be applied to a wide variety of research fields, separate from any notion of the 'struggle for equality' or any of that business.
it is all about the methodological approach to research.. Much of the theories born out the enlightenment are weighted in 'masculine' doctrine..
apparently kurt cobain was.
feminism you can have people who are just being humanist and wanting the individuals rights to be not curtailed by anything that society would like to pigeonhole that individual as.
There are lso more pragmatic feminists who felt that because male rights and power seemed (on the surface) nto be well catered and acknowledged, the only way to promote female power more was to fight (because many incumbant status quo supporters with power and influence, DID resist sensible reasonable claims for more equality....the incumbants with power basically shaped the direction that the feminists had to struggle with at the time...........nowadays its accepted that women should get equal pay for equal work...its just that the discrimination is with the demographic of the type of work and pay and coupled wit hthe type of work and gender distribution that produces the horrendous anomolies in pay..............in the past many people just resisted the idea of women being any good at say maths or science or technical stuff or being managers or leading or analysing or whatever ....really was a load of crap.
Hence many tried to advocate positive discrimination (which i am unhappy about but understand why people felt they needed to resort to it)
The consensus view seems to have shifted nowadays
You're a feminist if you believe in equality of the sexes, and don't think that people should be reduced to simply what genitalia they have. And I'd say I, and most people on here, fit that bill.
Feminism really isn't this militant bogeyman that the media likes to portray it as.
but I'd argue many of them aren't really feminism although they come under the same umbrella term. In the same way there are lots of variants of, say Socialism or Marxism where the person invovled would say they're practicing socialism or marxism but I'd argue it not to be true. And there's a danger of definitions of words getting diluted to the kind of meaningless nonsense where (to quote Coupling) "vegetarianism is about me saying yes to things - even meat".
I think there's a world of difference between believing in gender equality and being a Feminist. I'd definitely say I believed in gender equality but I'd certainly never describe myself as a Feminist.
that, like most -isms, the most accurate and strictest definition of Feminism at its fundamental root is the beleif that the interests of the feminine should be prioritised above all else (in the same way racism strictly means promoting the interests of your race above all others and Natioanlsim means promoting the interests of your nationality of all others)
Obviously the defintion has got diluted over time and is generally used a by-word for equality but I disagree that this is what Feminism implies and I believe that being a Feminist inherently implies a desire to promote female interests over male interests (in the same way being a racist implies a desire to promote your own race over others and being a Socialist means a desire to promote the interests of your society above all others). However wooly the definition has become I don't believe you can escape this. And it would be unusual for a man to beleive women's interests are more important than male interests. They could feasibly of course but it'd be an odd position to take
And it strikes me as far more likely that a man would believe in gender equality than female interests taking precedence.
Really, that's just not true.
The "femin" in feminism reflects the fact that it looks at the female role in society, *not* that it is concerned with promoting female interests (although those naturally follow). To say it's inherently interested in promoting "above" men is just nonsense, because that's merely one of the resulting conclusions some feminists reach *after* looking at feminist issues in society.
And your other examples are just wrong. Seriously. Just because racism and nationalism have those structure doesn't mean that it makes socialism and feminism the same. The structures of words in english rarely follow grammatical rules like that anyway.
By your logic atheists all want to destroy religion. Your confusing the desire to promote a school of thought with the desire to promote the object of that school of thought.
it implies an absence of God and promoting an absence of God in all your thinking on religion.
In my thinking, I don't consider god, yet if I apply the same bizarre linguistics you've displayed here anything that ends in -ism is an ideology concerned with promoting itself over another.
So, I can clearly think about things without considering god. Yet that doesn't translate to a belief in removing god in other things outside of my thoughts.
'ism' refers merely to a system of belief or ideology. you're basing your argument on a false belief about linguistics
It's a school of thought which examines the power roles between men and women in society. From a female perspective usually, yes, but that's because they're the ones who get oppressed the most. At its most moderate feminism is based on the idea that historical prejudices against people based on simply what sex they are is irrational and unjust. Sure, there are many, many strands that come from that, but the basic premise is a general belief that sex and gender are irrelevant when deciding who wears the trousers.
That's the basic premise of egalitarianism for sure but I disagree that's the basic premise of Feminism.
the Scottish National Party's main function is to ensure equality between the English and the Scottish.
Clearly it isn't - the SNP's main function is to ensure Scottish interests are represented (there's no implication one way or other on whether this should be equal). They might then still believe Scottish people and English people should be treated equally but it's by no means the basic premise of their definition.
Even racism isn't inherently the belief your race is "better" than an other, even if that's the most common manifestation. It can take the form of merely thinking different races should stay apart, or that races are culturally distinct, or whatever, where the end result is something with some kind of equal-but-separate situation.
No-one's said sex or gender isn't different from interests such as race.
Even if you accept Proslo's defintion of examining the role of gender in society from a woman's perspective rather than my stricter definition which Im prepared to accept is a bit too hardline in its phraseology, it doesn't change the fact that there is a difference between Feminism and a belief in equality (the two aren't mutually exclusive but neither are they implied).
And I still can't see rationally why a man would be a Feminist rather than an Egalitarian (for one thing, however much he wants to, a man would ultimately never completely have a woman's perspective). Obviously women have been repressed by society for hundreds of years. I don't think anyone questions that.
But at the same time the solution to this is clearly ensuring people are treated equally, which has to involve looking at society from all perspective's and working out what's fairest for all. As soon as you try to think from one perspective only you're basically creaitng new imbalances.
I beleive in equality.
But I don't actually agree that all the things you describe are Feminism.
Those are all key areas of feminist thinking. The gender expectations put upon men are criticised just as much as those put upon women.
then you are completely misguided about what the basic tenets of feminism are. and it's not a question of 'well, our definitions are just different' because there is one essential definition of feminism, as a movement committed to the equality of the sexes.
it's essentially a theory of social justice from the perspective of women. the reason it exists is because many societal structures clearly undermine women's equality.
and though there are strands within feminist thought (there's not a simple 'unitary' definition) tey are all driven by a commitment to equality and social justice
your argument is tantamount to arguing that those things in parks aren't trees because trees have an engine and 4 wheels.
I also feel through it's own nature it can never actually achieve that.
what 'in its nature' do you think precludes the possibility of achieving equality?
is by considering matters fairly and equally from all perspectives
I do not for a second dispute the good intentions of Feminism or the logic of the argument that women have historically been oppressed and therefore thinking about matters from a female perspective will help to redress the balance.
But there comes a point when that creates new imbalances in an attempt to redress old imbalnaces. And creating new imabalnces doesn't necessary balance things out - it just creates lots of little imbalances in lots of different directions and not a balanced a whole.
By coming at the issue of gender imabalance from a specific bias (however well-intioned) any conclusions you come to must carry that bias and will not constitute thinking fairly and equally from all perspectives and will pontentially cause bitterness and new inequalities down the line.
a little hung up on the idea of redressing imbalances; that application of feminist theory still has to be some kind of heated, emotive thing. While addressing gender inequality was certainly the driving force behind the creation of the principles of feminism, a researcher with different motives may use those principles to illuminate an entirely separate issue.
In my experience, feminist analysis (good feminist analysis anyway) doesn't even show a 'bias' for women over men; it simply examines problems in terms of gender issues.
Because I have to say, that's simply not the case.
There's no reason binaries have to be privileged one over another, that's simply how humans tend to think. Feminism is a conscious recognition of the imbalance between the binaries to do with sex and gender, and to uncover those - the results of that can be either equality or reversal of the situation, but regardless it all stems from initially recognising the imbalance, not from a belief that women should be superior. That follows later.
You're equating all things that end in "-ism" as being concerned with promoting someone's interests 'over' some other group, but that's clearly not true, even in the examples you've given.
But, even accepting that, feminism would still imply considering the Feminine first and foremost in your thinking.
Which in itself contradicts a belief in equality.
No different to considering the fox when wanting to ban hunting.
Feminism IS NOT a power system. It starts from the basic premise that everyone should be equal, then proceeds to analyse why everyone isn't equal from the perspective of gender inequalities. It's called feminism purely because women make up the bulk of thinkers on the subject, because they are the ones who are repressed and thus had the greater interest to start investigating in that field.
You can't equate a form of enquiry and a social structure. They're not the same thing.
Liberal feminism - definitely
Radical feminism - probably not
Separatist feminism - definitely not
Postmodern feminism - the whole notion of "gender" is constructed by language/society. So..err..