Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I meant to hit 'reply'
It feels more accurate.
Women actually have to be gangraped by the army before you can see the need for an organised struggle for equality. Being raped by a civilian isn't quite bad enough. That's actually amazing. Hadn't heard that one before.
but yeah I guess.
I just wanted to provide a caveat
cos i'm not a woman
but yeah alright fine whatever
^ not a proper feminist
With one particular male friend who refused to identify as feminist
I was just wondering if it was normal to think like that.
I don't think it's hugely important how people label themselves in the discourse. It's far more important that men are aware of actual (positive or negative) contributions they make. E.g. I know a (cis gendered) man who frequently chairs a feminist meeting. His enthusiam for women's right is obviously really great but, erm, it's really problematic for men to play roles that involve directing/leading discussion and action.
directing/leading discussion and action whether it concerned feminism or not. I dont see it being peculiarly difficult than other contexts (maybe thats just me though)
except I wouldn't say its really 'appropriating' the term in the usual sense but more that their understanding of feminism means they'd rather contribute by allowing it to be autonomous.
A lot of feminists would argue its a lot harder for men to be feminists and also that the need to self-organise effectively means men necessarily can't have the same direct involvement in the movement. Personally I think men can be feminists but it's probably a lot safer for men to call themselves allies and keep their male privilege out of spaces where women are trying to organise.
the point is they're coming at it from a false epistemic viewpoint, i.e. that rationally analysing social-psychological phenomena can accurately determine it's cause and solution. It can't. Rationalism can only go so far. Experience is 100% necessary
...so yeah. I'm maybe overstating the value of experience, but definitely not understating the limitations of rationalism. So basically i wouldn't say i'm a feminist, simply because i don't really have anything of value to contribute to the debate by calling myself one and acting as such.
like my relationship with wiccan groups
IS NOTHING TO JOKE ABOUT.
you know the ones
It can be construed in a silly way, but that's not the same thing.
Do I have to do anything?
Well, if it will help ...
bit out there....
Women have got it pretty good now, I'm not sure there's a lot left in feminism. It's time to re-focus our efforts on advancing the rights of other under-represented members of society. Robot rights will be the next big thing.
But if nothing else, supporting feminism here could perhaps help on a global level, where there is an urgent need for it.
Also: animals first, then robots, then holograms.
I'd say there's an urgent need for feminism in this country.
I suppose some of men's violent behaviour can stem from feeling like one has to act in a particular way, which may increase violence within certain cultures. But given the apparently consistency of young men being victims and perpetrators of most violence across cultures, there's clearly a biological component too. Not sure feminism can do anything about that.
Your suggestion that propensity for violence is an innate and biological characteristic in men is really problematic. And stupid.
In the UK in 2008/09 71% of homicide victims were male:
The ONS has a graph showing men aged 16-24 are the adults most at risk of violence:
Annoyingly I can't find the total violence figures by gender. Women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence though, and I guess that's likely to be signficantly under-reported compared violence committed by strangers/non-domestic.
Don't see why it's stupid to suggest there is a biological component. There are genetic differences between men and women, and genetic variation of some genes (e.g monoamine oxidase) is known to influence risk of aggression under certain environments. So it's not at all far-fetched to believe there are probably male-female genetic differences that contribute to aggression/violence too.
Not just violence committed generally. There are of course material differences between some people but when we talk about them we shouldn't treat them as indissociable from the social and discursive practices that we view and construct them through.
as the akin comments and whatnot over the last week prove. plus there is still a pay gap between men and women doing exactly the same jobs and with the non-ironic reappearance of lad culture and abundant internet pornography, misogynistic attitudes are once more becoming normalized and accepted as valid pov's.
besides which youngsters are woefully ignorant of what constitutes a healthy relationship and a lot of young lads believe coercion and bullying are perfectly legitimate ways to obtain sexual pleasure from girls. girls themselves are being raised with people like rhianna willing to forgive and forget the violent transgressions of partners and news media claiming that women are as likely to commit domestic violence as men which is simply not true.
more to the point, girls are usually told from a young age not to get beaten or raped but boys are very rarely told not to beat or rape girls (if youngsters are told anything at all about what makes a healthy attitude towards women, which they rarely are). the responsibility for the prevention of rape and other types of violence against women is mostly placed on females as a result. this will have a tremendously detrimental effect on the way they choose to deal with domestic violence if it happens in their future relationships, and indeed how they choose to deal with sexism at work, on the street or in social situations.
steps are being taken but 'pretty good' is not something to be satisfied with.
Rihanna has been famous, people still can't spell her name properly
but i don't think it undermined my argument at all
although it is, i just worded my point badly.
basically, i should have said:
that rihanna and the music industry itself is willing to forgive and forget a sustained, violent attack against a woman because it helps everybody involved shift a few more records is a worrying example of how misogyny, woman-hating (and female self-loathing) are becoming re-normalized.
yes, she's shed more than a few tears in interviews and no-one can help being in love with someone even after that person does something like that. but the fact remains that how rihanna dealt with it means a lot of us are being encouraged to follow her example, forgive the unforgivable and forget the fact that a sexist asshole was allowed to beat up a woman and walk away relatively unscathed.
But I'm not sure I'd identify myself as a feminist per se, as a lot of feminism these days seems to align itself with more of an anti-male ideology (or many so called feminists I know do anyway). I'm all for women and men being equal, but I'm not down with either gender needing to feel empowered over the other.
but this is the internet, so i might actually just say that i'm not, for the record.
it's probably a lot safer for men to call themselves allies and keep their male privilege out of spaces where women are trying to organise.
why not just call them feminazis and be done with it
then it's not really feminism.
that second wave was well equalist, innit
But my point is: if people just let feminism as an ideology be taken by people with such attitudes, surely that hinders the fight for equality? As mentioned above, we are FAR from equal and society will not be completely equal in my lifetime. There is still a lot to fight for, and feminism holding negative connotations is only going to push us back further.
There should be no shame in feminism because it is not a negative thing. It angers me that people who are pro equality refuse to identify as feminists when it is essentially the same thing for this very reason.
My example was of an able bodied white liberal minded young man.
I don't think he feels alienated, I think he's an idealist who doesn't see the need for feminism because of the liberal bubble he lives in.
between being 'pro-equality' and acknowledging that women are systematically oppressed by patriarchy. The widespread refusal to even acknowledge patriarchal oppression speaks to the underlying poverty in our conception of equality.
is upholding a grotesquely inaccurate depiction of satyrs thereby perpetuating a systematically mendacious representation of fantasy creatures, so you should frankly be ashamed of yourself for citing them as a reliable source
because I finished off a dying mouse that had somehow got trapped in a mop bucket.
Help me, I don't wanna be a monster any more :(
I use the mop bucket when cleaning out the fish tank, didn't notice the mouse was in there until it was about 3/4 full with dirty fish water. It looked sad. I broke its neck.
Lady, you've been in Ireland too long.
what more do you want?
but having one of those days when I've been exposed to radical feminist diatribe, so it's about the least happy I've ever been in saying it.
she might be kind of radical, and she's most definitely a feminist, but not a radical feminist.
I disagree with the harmful trend 'radfem' with all the transphoibc stuff but I do feel some radical feminists have been wrongly maligned. I don't think being a queer feminist is incompatible with still appreciating Andrea Dworkin, for example.
I wouldn't know enough about the different strands of feminist theory to really know what anyone was talking about.
turns out i is!
but, like a lot of people, perhaps not always in action.
seems to make sense to me, if you want equality then side with a movement that is trying to readdress the balance
I don't think it's massively important which labels you choose to apply or not apply to yourself.
Time and time again, you see men who want to make that public declaration that they support smashing patriarchy. But what it really boils down to is that holding up that label "feminist" can sometimes be an exercise of privilege. That's why "ally" is the word I use to describe myself in feminist contexts.
not equality between everyone.
someone editing the taylor swift wiki really seems to care if she's a feminist or not
didn't realise that
It has been said that anti-Swift feminists "criticize Taylor for being repressive and perpetuating a patriarchal virgin/whore dichotomy by being repressive and perpetuating a virgin/whore dichotomy
But for some reason as soon as anyone proclaims themselves to be "feminist", I'm overcome with the urge to smack them across the back of the head with a large comedy wiffle bat
Need a secret handshake though
but, as soon as someone actually feels the need to label themselves an ally, I immediately picture something between the person who volunteered to be milk monitor at school and Gareth from the office.
Give me a definition of what a feminist IS, and I'll tell you whether or not I subscribe to it.
Feminism has so many twists, permutations and bullshit attached to it, it's difficult to know what it is any more...
From what I've read - whatever branch of feminism bell hooks is advocating is probably closest to what I think. Tremendous woman.
there's not really that much point calling yourself a feminist. also, if you don't think patriarchy exists as system of oppression, you're probably not a feminist. If you're a man and you argue with this post, you're probably not a feminist.
...so you believe feminism is an (academic) discipline, which one must be a student of to call oneself a feminist? Cool.
I agree with your second point, although voice concerns about the use of the word `oppression`, which can be a bit too loaded at times to fit across multiple contexts.
I don't disagree with your post entirely. But I do think that your first point has caused lots of problems within feminism, as feminists seem to have spent a lot of time historically arguing about `who is in the club or not`. Camille Paglia serves as a chilling reminder of this kind of struggle.
So based on your definition I'm probably not a feminist. More of a sympathiser.
All educating yourself means is listening to other people. If you're not willing to listen to women's experiences and points of views, there's not much point calling yourself a feminist. You may still be a feminist in some sense of the word, but you've already failed pretty massively in one respect.
I wasn't being facetious. I was saying `Cool` as in `I think I understand that - fine`. I wasn't deliberately misconstruing anything either, I was trying to understand something.
But you've made a bit of a rod for your own back there because your initial post said:
`...willing to educate yourself about the issues in feminism and what other feminists are saying`
and your second post says:
`All educating yourself means is listening to other people. If you're not willing to listen to women's experiences and points of views...`
Sorry to hang so much significance on a syntactic point but there is a strong difference between the `feminists` of your first point and the `women` of your second.
Now, if we redefine your original post in line with your second, and it's about listening to the experiences of women, as opposed to being a student of feminism, then I am much more in line with your definition I think. I firmly advocate listening to, and being potentially accepting of, ALL experiences as a central feature of any movement like this.
If you can't get on board with listening to women, you're not a feminist. If you can't get on board with listening to feminists, you're not a feminist. Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny.
Listening doesn't have to mean "being a student" of something.
^ This is all that needs to be said. It highlights that I misread your original point. Nothing more, nothing less. Apologies for that.
So, now we've got those errors ironed out, I largely agree with your original post, although I'll still call myself an ally/sympathiser. I'm happy with that.
have a good day
And also why I think it's not particularly important whether someone calls themselves a feminist or not. -there's a huge proportion of women who are never going to be in a position to educate themselves in feminism and what feminists are saying and, whilst I'd agree there's not much point in them calling themselves feminist, they'd certainly still have plenty to contribute to a debate about equality.
it really only means listening to other people. You can be a feminist without having any education or understanding of academic feminism, and even if you're not really on board with what most 'educated' feminists would say. The point crucial point is, ALL of our feminism needs to lived experiences of ALL women for. Feminism isn't just a "debate" - it's a struggle.
I really only mentioned educating yourself as they key because this is a discussion about the role of men in feminism, where listening and going away and finding out what other people are actually saying is a lot more key.
or do you feel it should make no difference as long as they are somewhat maluable and that you can move their views to some extent? ;D
i.e. do you have many discussions/disagreements/discussions with him about this? are the discussions normally positive and fruitful
(ok ok Im not saying its oppressed me as much as women)
On the one hand, I think I've studied feminism a bit. On the other, I don't quite think that "patriarchy exists as system of oppression". The bind comes from the fact that it's the former (or, at least, certain bits of it, along with quite a lot of what those bits draw on) that supports the critique of the latter.
Not entirely sure I'm comfortable arguing the point here, though, yet I also half feel that it might be a tiny bit patronising not to do so.
Basically, I'm screwed.
this is all so sanitised.
Im a feminist because
My mum was a single mum in 1960.
I have witnessed unbeknown to her at times, predjudice and abuse directed towards her and people like her, which has been totally misplaced and inappropriate as the negative values that society (men AND WOMEN) generalised as belonging to single mothers more often than not applied more to the perpetrators of the abuse than to my mum.
I have been hurt (and suffered much of it in private to spare her) by their comments. I have sometimes reacted against this which has had negative consequences and sometimes endured solitary guilt as a result of this.
My mum and me BOTH had harder lives because of sexism, because she got paid a shit load less and we all had less and had to do home working as a result.
Males (boys) can also suffer some consequences of sexism, therefore we can intrinsically also be feminists, because we know that things like unequal pay is a bad thing.
It is wrong to isolate and turn the sexes into 'Islands' because this is not the case.
I was brought up by two women, I might have male hormones, but I have also been criticised as a boy and teenager growing up for having more 'female' values (or not being au fait with blunt machismo learnt behaviours).
Many humans (as we are nowadays able to witness) do not feel comfortable with the male/female stereotype roles which many others are still brought up to see as 'the normal choices'
I appreciate that there is a lot of abuse and that some women would not trust men, and I appreciate that my presence or input is not always going to be helpful, but on such a forum as this, I think that we can be more mature in accepting that men/boys/infants can be affected by issues of feminism in more than just a way of it 'detracting from mens rights'
Feminism IS an issue for males as well as for many of us the closest relationships we have are with women, and if we love them then what hurts them also hurts us (emotionally economically and sometimes physically) (not as much many might say....OK fair enough, but often sometimes a damn sight more than some women who appear to be very happy to play the extant roles and game on the terms that are there. Men can want to change the playing field more than some women (in respect of decresing sexism)
and that is partly why I am angry as well, do you think that it doesnt make me want to explode when I hear stupid comments made by platitudinous twats that I dont know or care about, when they are essentially saying things that I know have made my mum cry.
I want to live in a world where I can call them twats and show them my anger so that they realise that It is not acceptable to display sexism and predjudice in front of someone just because they are male.
so probably not.
a) do you think that you should get paid less for doing the same job as a man, because of the gender difference?
b) do you think that you should get paid less for doing the same amount (and equivalent) amount of work, with the same qualifications and the same hardships for a type of job that is almost exclusively for women compared with equivalent job that is almost exclusively for men?
but if a woman does then society looks down on this?
Do you think that its right that some groups of people (in this country even) send their sons off for education and yet do not allow their girls to go to school?
Do you think that it is right that men should be allowed to drive but that women should not?
Do you think that women should cover their faces but men should not?
Do you think that a woman who is raped should be automatically assumed to be in the wrong? (and possibly get punished with the tacit approval of authorities for he having been a victim?
I think that you will find that most liberal decent people are feminists (underneath) they might just be not motivated enough to be active about it)
I think that there will be a feminist inside of you, there just hasnt been the occassion to make it rise to the fore.
but I don't act upon it. Do you have to act upon it to make it so?
You don't need to like, protest, or anything. Just for example, standing your ground against men being dicks, and supporting other women, you're helping women's liberation. It's totally ok to not define yourself as a feminist if you don't feel it describes what you do.
I've just never described myself as a feminist or anything really. Some people decribe themselves as a political party like its a part of their personality but i'm not like that I'm afraid. I just live and do what I think is right and don't make sure it lines up to some way of thinking/being. I really don't know. As long as you're a decent human being, you shouldn't have to be labelled....unless you're a cunt then you should be called a cunt.
It would be a lot quicker if you just admitted you hate Muslims.
<looks at username>
<goes back to dozing in the sun>
So are you saying that we should not respect the cultures of others? I'd agree with you that we should not, by the way.
in these, that have since been mitigated to an extent, by the gradual struggle by people and movements to eradicate elements of sexism from the mish mash of extant culture in our society?
It is still ongoing, in case you were unaware e.g. (although its hardly a horribly repressive manifestation, it is certainly indicative of reesidual sexist attitudes and values)
women in the clergy....why can they not become bishops, cardinals, pope, archbishop? Is this not an example of religious sexism within christianity that would not be tolerated anywhere else in the west?
perhaps you were unaware that women at one time did not have voting rights in this country, or that inheritance on the whole went to the eldest male (sexist and agist....because those that made the rules are not only male but also older?)
It took lots of effort to get these attitudes to be changed, but they were changed, and it is part of the idea of feminsim that it should also be held to be a beacon and an idea that could be seen as an example of what rights and equality should mean to women in other cultures/subcultures where some of the successes of liberation have not yet occured.
It doesnt help when trying to spread the very real benefits of equality of opportunity and rights to other cultures, that the overwhelming method of communication is through visual media as the western media does focus on the trivial and shallow aspects of women and how they are represented in an overwhelmingly disproportionate salicious way, and how they use the female form to sell capitalist concepts cheaply.
Even the lawyers have to be sexy and have short skirts (Ala Ali McBeal) Thus I am against this commercialisation of womens sexual/sensual liberation in the west, as this has not only become realistic, but also less than a good example, and will result in greater resistance to change in cultures that have not had as much liberation (were the wests media portrayal of women to be better)
that you can push my button so easily and to such effect ;)
They even have their own BIC For Her biro range! True equality. http://www.amazon.co.uk/BIC-For-Amber-Medium-Ballpoint/dp/B004FTGJUW/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
this is so seriously funny. The third review had me actuLOLing for 5 minutes.
But the funniest thing about it is the fact that they actually called them "BIC for her", as though there was a major fear that if they didn't directly signal to the target market that these are "for her", then the vast numbers of people wandering around yearning for a black pen in a pink casing would overlook the product.
He was one of those guys who join Men Against Sexual Assault groups and trot along to Reclaim the Night marches.
Ticked all the boxes, but was just the most massive po-faced cunt alive.
I feel you, bro.
But it's a bit like having a group that argues for the sky to be made blue. Have a look at http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/ if you want a laugh.
rather than a hearty empathetic one.
bunch of mummy never gave me enough attention neckbeards putting the world to rights, it's a freakshow.
but it's also a type of person, usually found on reddit. drinks 20 cans of mountain dew a day while lecturing the world on how to live as they sit in their mother's basement.
it's mutated into something other than equal rights. It's fucking moronic and I think it's damaging for women to associate themselves with what is essentially just a misandric movement.
I prefer to call myself an equalist. YEAH I MADE IT UP BUT IT'S MINE. GET YOUR OWN FUCKING WORD.
but you are a complete banana.
Who wants to join my equalist movement?
"Where everyone is equal apart from hate, which is less than equal"
Catchy title huh?
i've heard it SO MANY TIMES. It's pretty much the feminist equivalent of people that say `yeah communism is a lovely idea, but it just couldn't work in practice, y'know?`
Had some feminist writing published in a professional journal. Have taken part in public debates/meetings. Contributed to International Women's Day. Was reading about Anna Arrowsmith and Erika Hallkvist last night. You know, the usual stuff.
What's a boy gotta do to get laid around here?!
if I took back my comment that Germain Greer's best work by far was her appearance on BBC Four's »anarchic comedy game show« We Need Answers«. But I can't bring myself to do it.
Is it possible that some women use their gender to their advantage?
Say, there is a domestic dispute and the police are called. Why is the woman the first to be tended to? Why is her opinion more important? In most situations the man will be condemned and held responsible - what if the woman instigated the situation in a similar manner to that of another man, damaging him physically and psychologically? By a domestic, I'm not talking about a 'woman bashing' scenario just a kind of 'eye-for-an-eye' mentality that is, if a woman slaps a man, he can slap her back once (not repeatedly because that'd be abuse).
(I'm going to get slandered for this, I just know it)
Also, DarwinDude mentioned that if one cannot notice female oppression - they aren't feminist. How does this work exactly? In current Western civilisation how are women oppressed? (ignoring salaries for the sake of this topic). Will complete equality ever be possible?
Also, people reading this probably wouldn't be surprised by the fact that I do not identify myself as feminist - mainly because I'm male and I recognize there will always be gender differences regardless of education (small differences that is...). There are so many different aspects and definitions of 'feminism' that the whole topic pretty much eludes me.
I would imagine the police respond according to the details of the report, rather than assume that all cases of domestic abuse are those of a man attacking a woman.
How do you know they ALWAYS in every case tend to the woman? They'll either tend to the person who is physically hurt, if the dispute has ended or they will restrain the person who is going mental if thats the case when they arrive.
this should be illegal discrimination (as far as I can make out).
yes that is just a amall anecdote almost....but it is indicative that it exists and still needs to be guarded against
As you say, there are different types of feminism. Some feminists think we shouldn't be trying to eradicate biological gender differences, others think we should (or don't believe there are biological differences that contribute to personality/skills other than the obvious sex organ ones).
and I don't think any feminists are talking about "biological gender differences" - if you mean the category of sex.
looking at the possible ethical issues if artificial wombs were developed.
I read a number of articles that considered it from a feminist perspective. They pointed out that some feminists were in favour of such a technology as it would allow women to overcome 'Eve's curse' (i.e childbirth/pregnancy and the restrictions it imposes on women). But other feminists argued that the biological differences can be empowering for women in various contexts and that we shouldn't seek to 'overcome' physical differences between men and women using technology.
I don't have time to type out a response but read the introduction to Bodies That Matter by Judith Butler,
Sorry about that. You just rarely hear of men being abused by women that's all.
and then people like you make assumptions based on people not giving a shit
It's from 2 years ago and has been widely disputed. The premise of it is also really really weird. Like, instead of Working together to stop all violence and co-ordinating services, they're undermining women who come together to support each other. Its also really dangerous to make this claim of equivalency since it ignores or disguises the gendered nature of DV.
and pretty arousing when women fight for a cause.
the big lurker
Yeah I was belittled, patronised, threatened, beaten up, mugged, overpowered physically, mocked for my appearance, physicality and mannerisms. It was part of "growing up" and helped to form the scowling exterior that I wear to the outside world today.
Men are on top because they're hard as nails, take a leaf out of our book, bitches, and take what's yours.
can't see any problems here.
am i? anyone?
chicks dig that shiz
Feminism is something women do to men to get back at them for the sexism that men do to women.
the feminist struggle will continue indefinitely
but wishpig's logic is pretty much Orwellian doublespeak.
I find your views on women deplorable
I live in the US where the Republican party is out to take away my birth control and autonomy over my own fucking body. It's absolutely terrifying that things like this are still up for debate.
GIRL POWER or something
Thanks for sharing. What's the political climate regarding women's rights in the UK like right now? I feel like banging my head against a wall whenever I read the current Republican diatribe and frankly I'm scared to death of what will happen if Romney gets elected :(
legal rights aren't in as volatile a position like in the US. contraception is free and accessible to most, abortion is legal before 24 weeks(with some conditions), we have anti-discrimination and human rights legislation. buuuuuut read more here http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/
Interesting reads on there. The pay inequality is still shit, but I'm going to seek asylum in the UK should Romney get elected!
I want to go to California to study feminism!
imagine living in the US tho huh
I hope that if Romney does get elected, the Bay Area remains its quirky, liberal stronghold self. Perhaps we'll secede or something.
Santa Cruz is awesome! One of the prettiest campuses in the States. UC Berkeley is a good school but the people there take the term special snowflake to a new level.
we'll get there in the end.
Obviously I am by my own definition, but many people would argue I'm not, and they'd be right by their definition. Call it what you like, if you believe that women should not have to prove themselves twice as capable as men in order got receive broadly comparable treatment, then you're on the right track.
Personally I think that F/feminism needs a bit of a rebrand (urgh) and that the whole thing needs reimagining/reorganising under a different moniker. Obviously this is horrendously impractical to do but F/feminism is tainted by so much negative association and, as you can see by this thread, it isn't taken seriously by vast swathes of the populace.
Shame. But also, F/feminism is largely viewed, in my view, in line with the more vehement elements of the `Second Wave`, and this is an outdated association. What F/feminism needs to do now is very different from what it had to do in the 1960's and 1970's etc. (even if some of those battles haven't been completely won).
I'd bet that if you carried out a survey, 90% of women wouldn't be able to tell you what feminism was beyond a feeble, half-hearted fist pump and/or a mention of some daft bat burning her bra.
It's not taken seriously because the message isn't put across accurately, well enough, or to nearly enough people.
Some would argue this suggests it's just not that important, idk.
...but there's been a few instances in this thread where female posters have said `I don't know...` but have then gone on to detail their own personal take on feminism which is totally valid. However, if I was a Feminist (capital F) I'd be very worried that people are defining themselves strongly outside of Feminism... very much undermines Feminism as a means of organising women to fight male subordination*.
* - I prefer the word subordination to oppression in this context. Don't really want an argument about it, it's just a personal syntactic preference.
On the one hand, you've got these birds fighting against women being viewed as sexual objects, then on the other the sex-positive feminists chucking their bits around.
Something about having cake and eating it.
I know you're only being light-hearted in lieu of wanting to explore the seriousness beneath your point but, y'know... we wouldn't get this level of Bants™ in a racism thread, for instance.
But then i'm not sure sexism is as important as racism, either today or historically, though i'm sure this has been done before.
Anyway, i'm gonna leave this here. Don't particularly want to spend the afternoon getting bullied by the Femidom Three.
I refuse to get involved in this sort of shit. You can try to bait me as much as you like.
Or a new name. Its not a product. Its not even an ideology. It's not feminism that has to change but people who can't currently see past their own privilege and dont get why it's necessary.
Why are you saying "F/ feminism" ? Stop doing that.
Honestly, if you want to help women's liberation, stop undermining the organised struggle against it, find out what's actually happening and speak up about why it's so important to support it.
I spend literally hours every day reading, writing, talking and organising about this. I am aware of what feminists are doing today. You are clearly not. remember when pussy riot got sent to prison last week and it was on the news all over the world?
DO start undermining the organised struggle against it. But to avoid double negatives: stop undermining the organised struggle for women's liberation,
Which placed the worlds media attention on 3 young women who embody everything that makes me excited and hopeful about the possibility of emancipation. Even if it was under the guise of anti-Putin or liberal-humanitarian objections, they had solidarity for their political act and became a global feminist symbol.
...until you mentioned it just then. Honest to God. I just saw them as a band. A rock band. Gender didn't consciously come into the analysis at all.
They're called "Pussy Riot."
It's not the angle most of the coverage took but a quick search shows a lot of the news articles introducing them as a " feminist punk band".
Their lyrics about stuff like calling on the virgin Mary to become a feminist.
Feminism was even discussed in their trial as treated as a form of political intolerance.
I wasn't commenting on it by the way, I just found it interesting how I hadn't considered them as symbolic of a feminist struggle, more a political one concerning Russia. But that's understandable - I haven't really made the time to go beyond the headlines and analyse them really... But fair point re: their name. Bit naive of me not to notice that to be honest...
...does it not trouble you that certain women appear to be put off defining themselves as being `feminists`? Do you not think that's more undermining in itself than anything I'm saying? If the answer to both of these questions is no, then that's fine, you're much more learned in this area than I am...
But I'm not going to criticised them for not doing so. I'd rather people made meaningful contributions towards liberation than got bogged down on who does and doesn't. Patti smith doesn't define as a feminist but shes still inspired women and changed attitudes about gender. I think she has a misguided understanding of what feminism is and can be be but I'm also not going to judge other women for the way that they've internalised the misogyny that's shoved at them from birth.
What I think is never ok is people being anti-feminist. Backlash against feminsm is really damaging.
It's also not a legitimate criticism to make of feminism that it's not gained enough or won enough supporters. For the sea change that's required to bring about a world where women and men are equal, people can't really just lazily dip into discussions about it and never really seriously consider how they MIT support it.
If you are or aren't a feminst, you've still got a duty to help empower women. Sometimes this will mean speaking up. Sometimes this will mean shutting up. Sometimes you'll get it wrong and have to accept criticism. But if you're not willing to put in effort, then I would question whether or not you really have equality and liberation at heart.
Proves both that feminism is as necessary as ever and how evil Sean Adams really is.
...just highlighting an area of concern. I am not anti-feminist. I am not anti-women's liberation. Just wondering whether or not the label of `feminism` has baggage which is detrimental to women's liberation. I think that definitions and words are important, sadly. I agree with you though - ACTION is more important than definition.
I can 100% get behind your post - all makes perfect sense to me. I'll happily accept criticism. I've been getting some in this thread after all!
But backlashing iand how we deal with it is all very central to the problem of getting men to support feminism, so I thought it was worth elaborating on.
but it's pretty hard to tell
or is it?
7% of rapes reported to the police end in convictions. (That's not a typo - seven percent). Rape by a husband or boyfriend is almost impossible to achieve prosecution for.
Childcare is too expensive for the vast majority of families; women are somehow expected to shoulder the responsibility for juggling their career and childcare, whilst not supported properly by the state. Indeed many mothers are either trapped at home as they cannot afford childcare, or effectively compelled to work full-time to scrape enough money to pay for their child's care.
There is nowhere near the same level of pressure for young boys on their bodies as there is for girls - the proliferation of sexualised images of women - from prostitute chic pop stars to advertising to Nuts to the ease of access of hardcore porn.
The lack of females in executive boardrooms is a significant issue - yes it has improved but Swedish research has shown that until a company has around 40% female executives you don't see the change in company culture. And when the company culture changes, it produces radical benefits such as massive childcare improvements for all staff and performance benefits for the company.
And, that's before you get to the plight of women in less developed countries. A woman in India or sub-saharan Africa is just as worthy of feminist attention as any white middle class woman in some London suburb. Genital mutilation, forced polygamy, stoned to death for supposedly looking at someone or 'witchcraft', being forced to cover up, being a baby making machine, etc - all very real and happening outside your immediate surroundings.
what percentage of other reported crimes end up in convictions, roughly?
That 7% figure sounds very low, but it only really means anything as a statistic if we have a frame of reference.
When someone burgles my house, I don't know who did it. The police may have to look for fingerprints or look at CCTV footage near my house.
The sad truth with rape is that actually in the majority of cases the victim knows the rapist. The conviction is not achieved through a combination of the Crown Prosecution Service saying there's not enough evidence to mount a case or, unfortunately, the case going to court but the jury deciding that they can't be 100% sure a rape took place through the defendant's lawyer casting doubt...
Doubt such as... she wanted it, she likes it rough, she's had more than one boyfriend in her sexual history, she was wearing revealing clothes, etc, etc.
7% conviction when the perpetrator is known in most cases is not acceptable.
I would bet my bottom dollar that for serious crimes against a person - GBH, ABH and murder conviction rates are substantially higher.
Car crime, burglary, etc are not relevant to compare.
There is a legal issue (i.e. the law specifically for rape needs some extra fine-tuning) - and for this the charge would be that politicians have been far too slow to deal with this.
A difficulty is that because rape trials are jury based and need to reach either a unanimous or majority verdict, trials are subject to the jury members interpretations and beliefs about rape. This is very different from what is a far more black and white - for example, do you believe from the evidence that this man murdered this man, and there is a chain of evidence to back this up - DNA, fingerprints, motive, weakness of alibi, etc.
Rape cases are by their very nature far less centred around a procession of concrete evidence: often the fact intercourse took place is not disputed. Sometimes even the presence of significant bruising is put down to she likes it rough. What the jury then have to decide is can they be sure beyond reasonable doubt that party A did not consent to intercourse. That is kind of ridiculous and allows a significant gap for convicting offenders.
Add in to that mix the fact that a significant proportion of the general public hold very dodgy views about rape - the view that dressing sexy is cause for a girl to be asking for it, or the more pernicious view that going to someone's house may validly allow a man to believe that you understand going to his house means you will have intercourse, etc. All of that is in the jury room potentially.
On top of all of that, the actual process of the trial may contain things that seem repugnant. A woman is being cross-examined about her sexual history - for example how many men have you slept with in your life? It's not relevant to the case. Rape cases contain the paradox where the victim is scrutinized and morally judged in the coutroom, to the point where victims often say the experience is on a level with the actual crime.
I refuse to believe that were the legal profession and political houses filled with as many women as men, that there would not have been greater evolution of the way we deal with this crime.
And if it sounds all too hypothetical - conviction rates and approaches (both legally and by the police) to the prosecution of it are well-recognised as being superior in many European countries.
THere's something wider at stake here for me (which is the fundamental tenet of 'innocent unitl proven guilty') but I absolutely agree with your point on juries.
Eve Was Framed by Helena Kennedy. It's the best book I can suggest on this topic and still hugely relevant today. It's well- written, from the point of view of someone with first hand experience at all levels of the criminal justice system and a really sharp understanding of gender and class and the social factors that can disadvantage people in the justice system. And how law reinforces and constructs our understanding of those things.
There's some actually shocking stuff in their about things judges have said in their deliberations and the attitudes of many of her colleagues at the bar.
is that lack of consent is part of the definition of the offence of rape.
Unlike some people (including many feminists), I don't think that we could get rid of that completely. But you could drastically cut things like the harm of cross-examination, jury prejudices, etc by having a variegated definition of rape: i.e. an offence that can be committed in a variety of different ways.
For example, if violence, threats or fraud are used to obtain sex, then that just IS a violation of someone's sexual autonomy. You shouldn't need to prove lack of consent over and above that: the wrong is already made out without needing to 'put the victim on trial'. Likewise if the victim is just too intoxicated to give valid consent.
On the superiority of European countries: that's partly to do with how continental criminal justice systems work generally, but also that there's no culpability requirement for rape in many European jurisdictions. That makes meaningful comparisons difficult. A more illustrative comparison would be the US or Canada or Australia.
since that statistic isn't kept for other reported crimes. The police and the CPS will tell you it's a lot higher for other violent crimes though.
I think that it runs at something like 70% of women in Mali have it done.
It being the worst think you could mutilate.
I mean thats terrible stat for an awful thing, it would be great if all the countries with more advance womens rights could be presurising the UN to help more to try to change this.
THEN the Internet could be amazing.
I'm man enough to admit I know that.
Been thinking about this a little since it started ... Come to the conclusion that while I agree women get a rough ride, male privilege is a pretty problematic concept. Where is the privilege in being more likely to die young, be murdered, spend time in prison, not seek necessary medical attention, commit suicide or become estranged from your family? Where is the privilege in having your social, emotional and sexual development, your fundamental ability to feel and express intimacy, stunted by a culture that tells you women are lesser receptacles and non-masculine traits are wrong at every turn?
Seems to me patriarchy is one big shitty stick that 99.9% of people are beaten with, albeit using different ends. Maybe I'm not a feminist.
I hope you all appreciate the thought I put in before replying. No need to thank me.
than it is for women.
Every cloud ...
As much as it is very likely that I am wrong, my understanding is that the belief that personality traits and standards of behaviour (<<non-masculine traits are wrong at every turn>>) shouldn't be pigeon-holed or assigned due to gender is pretty much a feminist idea. But good for you for facing down suppressive gender expectations and reading Grazia.
I think it could also read like this. I do not have such a wide range of clothing available to me, If I do opt for wearing a wider range of clothing my sexuality will be called into question in a bullying manner and I run a large risk of being assaulted, some of these privilages are actually imprisonments for individuals of both sexes
(Ive got up to 14/15, and here I hit a bit of an issue, for me I see this as a possible disadvantage, as I cannot read what big male bosses want, and this gives me a problem. I see 14 and 15 as being slight disadvantages for me
actually also 17, I think that the role models for boys were also VERY stereotyped (of course this probably changed and is just due to me being VERY old)
however I notice that although there is reference made to women drivers, no where does it mention map reading.
even the link's an anagram of MALE PRIVILEGE.
1. Probably true. In my organisation I’d imagine the biggest concern is maternity leave. We’ve had a couple of heads of departments out in the last year on maternity leave and it’s very disruptive. I’m not saying it’s right to discriminate on that basis, but it makes sense.
2. Only 10% of people on my course at uni were female. No females went for my role.
3. No, it’s because I’m lazy and have low self-esteem. I should be able to take advantage of being a man more.
4. It would be sexist to think such a thing. I’m sorry people do think that way.
6. I will have done, but this won’t be because of my sex. It would be sexist to think it was
7. True, but I’m over 6 feet and over 14 stone, I was bigger in my teens, so it would be harder to rape me. What can be done about rapists though? Thankfully the majority of men aren’t rapists.
8. Again I’m naturally relatively larger than most women. I have had someone try to mug me a few times. Each time when I’ve been with a girl(s), each time they’ve ignored the girl(s). well except that time my girlfriend jumped on him and I ended up having to tear her off him.
9. not entirely true.
10. it would if I started breast feeding.
11. That’s because people are nice to me because I’m nice to them.
12. Assuming the mother’s career isn’t more lucrative than mine, which let’s face it, as a women, it wouldn’t be. If though it were, I’d gladly stay at home with the kids, you know doing some dusting, watching neighbours, changing nappies, going to tumble tots, having a casual fling with at least 3 of the mothers.
13. It will when I have sexual relations with her.
14. I guess. I wish there were more women in power. Imagine once a month when they all align, the elected men would spend all day backing down and making hot water bottles. It might teach them a thing or two about listening and caring for others.
15. it’s for the best
16. I HAVE NO SISTERS. We did dress my little brother up as a girl once though. I also forced him to play cricket a lot as a child.
17. Really? Reeeeally? Not stereotyped?
18. I can only speak from experience, and this wasn’t true. In year 3 and 4 I was in the top group of 4 kids who were good at maths, 2 were girls and my friend luke was also in the top 4. It’s not my fault my designs for paper aeroplanes always won the paper aeroplane contests.
19. What the fuck sort of freak talks to episode?
20. Yes, I’m human.
21. Should be though.
22. Yeah, ok, I admit, I’m bad at this. I’m getting better though I know make sure I attribute gender to all my road rages.
23. That’s because my level of perspiration and red facedness disguise my sex.
24. Yeah. Down with this sort of thing, sex is fun
25. Yeah, I can also get ready to go out in about 5 minutes without trying on my entire wardrobe before settling on my first option.
26. My body is generally a more uniform shape, I refuse to pay stupid amounts for clothes and the men’s department is much smaller than the women’s.
27. Throughout the bird kingdom, male birds are seen as being the pretty ones. It’s not our fault that it’s the same with men.
28. I think you’re meant to barter with car dealers. I’d get an awful price unless I’d had a few drinks.
29. You mean it’s easier for a man to jack off than a woman right?
30. Well, you learn something every day. If I’m a dick, I’ll be called as such.
31. that’s just plain wrong and needs to change.
32. This is changing, especially now women are bothering to do mail rounds, chair meetings and study.
33. It’s scientifically proven that women get more stressed and angry when they are suffering a period, most of them use it as an explanation for that. stress and anger does influence decision making. it shouldn’t be joked about though, you might get hard objects thrown at you.
34. Some women think it romantic. Others don’t want to. You should be able to agree on such a thing with whomever you’re going to marry beforehand. For example, my girlfriend and I are both going to change our name to anew more awesome name.
35. Unfortunately smart business sense deems that if you know a new starter is going to have almost a year off within a year, it’s going to influence the decision.
36. I’m not a big fan of human religions, you can have them if you want, but why not chase your own spirituality with people who aren’t dicks?
37. Exactly, most major religions can do one. (except in the bedroom, then my wife should be subservient to me, but only with consent and a safety word.)
38. That’s for the couple to agree between them.
39. WHY DON’T YOU TRY NOT LACTATING FOR YOUR ENTIRE FUCKING LIFE AND SEE HOW YOU LIKE IT!!?!>
40. This is just a rehash of point 12.
41. Is it our fault that we appreciate the human form and women are willing to accept lots of money to expose their form?
42. Yeah, probably and unfair if so.
43. My girlfriend punches me allll the time, I’m just stronger than her so I don’t’ punch her back, I do ask her to stop sometimes and sometimes I’m forced to grab both of her hands with one of my hands and tickle her with my other hand, just to prove a point.
44. That’s because I walk around with a gormless grin on my face all the time.
45. a girl grabbed my groin as she walked past me not 4 weeks ago. I turned round, smiled and said thanks.
45. What? Studies have shown that on average women say 3 times as many words as men, if we want to interrupt because we actually have something important to say every now and then, fair play, I say. They are after all 3 times more likely to be saying something which will last 3 times as long as anything a man has to say.
46. I did until I read this.
47. It should also be noted that as a man, I’m allowed to eat 500 more calories per day and drink 25% more alcohol. This is the real oppression. Oh, and unless I’m buying them for my girlfriend, I don’t need to spend vat on certain female only products.
That's probably just your prejudices shining through. Unless you genuinely believe that people aren't ascribed roles based on their (perceived) gender regardless of what that gender is, or that being raised in a rape culture that inhibits intimacy benefits men as a whole.
I doubt you do.
power is conserved within a group, which means that it is not meritocreus and does not have to earn it by 'being right', it just has to earn it by 'fitting the bill'
This means that those iin power do not have to take the whole of reality into account, they just have to justify their position in relation to competition with another 'big dick'
this is bad for many many people, and as power increases we are now seeing it threatening to bring all human societies down, because it has not all been built on sense, but instead on (oh....as you say) privilage.....but this is a phallacy, i dont see it as a privilage, i see it as a threat and the major cause of all intitutionalised/sociatal isms
it doesn't mean the same thing as 'certain disadvantages.'
The way we construct gender - our episteme - systematically oppresses women. I could quote endless reasons why this is apparent in the everyday lives of women around the world and throughout history. But really?
It's not unfeminist to posit that patriarchy can be pretty shit for people other than women.
Not sure that calling a concept problematic is really the same thing as denying women are oppressed really. Equally unsure that things as fundamental as, dying early or being statistically more likely to kill yourself, are merely 'disadvantages'.
Which is kinda beside the point because you seem to have missed the crux of my point- it was not that women are not oppressed. It was that the oppression of women, the boxes they are forced into (and the opposing boxes that men therefore occupy) does not benefit our progress as a race or species. Women obviously suffer more immediately, but our culture of inequality is ultimately a bad thing for us all. We could be so much more.
women are actually more likely to attempt suicide; men are just more likely to choose more effective methods. this isn't to downplay the fact that many more men do die by suicide, but often that stat seems to be mentioned to imply that men are more likely to hit the rock bottom of attempting suicide (and hence must have it psychologically 'worse' on some level), which is not really an accurate representation of the statistics
from what i've experienced (sadly), women are much more likely to attempt suicide, but men much more likely to actually commit it.
i doubt it's got anything to do with hitting rock bottom quicker or harder, more that maybe there's more of a stigma towards male depression than female depression, perhaps that men typically have fewer people they feel they can turn to, or that, weird as it might sound, they're just more, for want of a better way of putting it, mechanically-minded about the actual deed.
just wanted to point out that the 'men are more likely to commit suicide' thing isn't as straightforward as it's usually made out to be
The way we construct gender - our episteme - systematically privileges men. I could quote endless reasons why this is apparent in the everyday lives of men around the world and throughout history.
You've not denied that women are oppressed. You've questioned whether men are truly privileged. They historically just evidently are. Women suffer immediately, of course. But that seems to imply that they don't suffer that much in the long term? Argh I get so angry about thinking about history and the fact that women until very recently HAVE NO HISTORY.
Our culture of inequality is bad yeah but that's really because of many overlapping vectors of oppression (class, race, gender, disability). Lots of things that men are disadvataged through are inseperable from these other things.
Being more likely to die younger and commit suicide are huge disadvantages and you can even identify harmful gendered norms as the cause of this. But this absolutely does not disprove the existence of male privilege.
if you want power you're going to have to take it! Fannying around writing lists or trying to make men 'aware' of their privilege will make fuck all difference.
If you intend to kill a substantial amount of people, you're increasing your chances of blowing your cover.
of the people alive today. Stuff like racism where progress has been made through a fair amount of non-violent means has nowhere near the level of penetration!
Just need to know if I'm in the firing line.
if they came to take your male privelege away?
we have armies.
they're going to kill you and your family! You going to let them do that??
but as far as death is concerned, we men live in a city without walls
You'll be alright then. Lucky you
I've just watched "centurion" because it was free on lovefilm. Total bollocks but quite enjoyable.
he was a bloke?
let us know when you start caring about women's lib though, we won't make fun of you!
as it is what my Mum uses to describe all forms of female emancipation.
but then I read this entire thread in one go
I of course fully support gender equality without exception and always have done but I still can't help thinking that it is class oppression more than anything else that we - male, female and transgender - have been put to the sword by since time immemorial
in modern times this comes in the form of the jackboot of corporate capitalism which, to borrow from an observation upthread, treats us ALL as objects and none of us as people
Now, having said all that perhaps Wishpig or DD can point me in the direction of a worthy tome which explores why and how the shackles of the economic/class system could only have come from patriarchy ... obviously I am familiar with the notion that testosterone and competitiveness go hand in hand but is patriarchy ultimately to blame for class divide and if Power was gender neutral would Power even exist ?
Some literature that explores these ideas and perhaps offers some vision of what a gender neutral political future might look/feel/sound/smell/taste like
basically I'm a bit remote from the whole male privilege thing - it seems to be presented with a similar logic to converting the statement <<all terrorists are muslims>> into <<all muslims are terrorists>> - a white working class male doesn't have a de facto universal advantage over a black middle class female (yes it's a highly complex mix of 'oppression vectors') and so the 46 point list reads in large part (though not entirely) as a list of empty facts(some debatable) with not much true (as opposed cosmetic) advantage to be found depending on other factors besides purely gender
anyway - school me with some if-women-were-in-power-there-would-be-no-class-conflict-and-we'd-be-free-from-the-yoke-of-military-industrial-corporate-slavery-forever stuff
or that gender oppression is the only and fundamental oppression to be overcome (and in my view, any theory that posits one oppression or power relation as fundamental and prior to all others is suspect). have you read much on intersectionality? that's quite important for some of the stuff you're saying. fwiw i do have some issues with the way that the concept of privilege is sometimes uncritically relied on in discussions of gender (it originated as a racial concept, and i'm not sure it can be as easily transposed onto gender as many people have assumed) but i can see why it's a useful concept for maintaining the basic point that power relations are gendered and that men necessarily have a different relationship to feminism (because a lot of people still seem to have real trouble with that); what it comes down to, and i guess what that list partly tries to convey, is that men are still very much regarded as default humans with women as periphery in our cultural consciousness
I can't really make any contribution to this discussion, as much as I'd like to do so. I'd only end up writing another 2,000 word post, and no one wants to be subjected to that again.
I think you're just about the only person capable of adding something worth reading to this thread who hasn't yet weighed in.
So many people have made a hash of dipping their toes into philosophical waters that it'd be a shame if you didn't up the standard of debate a little.
Also, your mum was saying something last night along the lines of »these two posts just aren't enough«.
I've really been enjoying the way you've been upping the stakes in the "your mum" jokes over the last couple of months. I just wanted you to know that, in case you felt like your work wasn't being appreciated.
Also, I upped the stake in your mum last night.
other people (notably you) say it more cogently and more succinctly than I ever could, with far less deleterious consequences for my rate of productivity.
I barely got a scrap of work done during the Assange threads.
i have a job where i get to sit and do nothing all day now; productivity is so overrated
i'm not sure anyone in this thread has argued that the 'the shackles of the economic/class system could only have come from patriarchy'
- yeah exactly... I'd like to see that argument and wonder if it is a central part to any strand of feminist discourse. I think it would be an interesting exploration of gender roles and their history in power politics
I disagree with your second point - 'any theory that posits one oppression or power relation as fundamental and prior to all others is suspect' because the privilege that is most keen and most apparent is the privilege of the global corporate ruling elite under which we are all little more than subjects or wage slaves or market points ... thus my desire to read something from a feminist perspective on class politics in advanced global capitalism stems from my suspicion that patriarchy has (if not) constructed (then certainly enabled) this enourmous disparity between the elite and the rest of us
basically does feminism seek to make men & women equal slaves to military-industrial power systems or does it seek to replace those systems with a truly egalitarian society
because as much as it might seem straightforward to say 'men are still very much regarded as default humans with women as periphery in our cultural consciousness' it's a little troubling when you compare the space given in our cultural consciousness (and in our history books) to the male peasant farmer of the Elizabethan era to the space given to Queen Elizabeth
I am not trying to deny the inequality of gender that exists by the way - or any other inequalities, it's just that I DO believe that the oppression of wealth/power elites/corporate fascism IS fundamental
it feels almost absurd to have to point out that... it depends on the brand of feminism? i mean, my feminism is very much of the smash-the-whole-system variety, but there are many more conservative elements that fall under the banner of 'feminism'. in the same way one can be an anti-racist or an LGBT activist and also a capitalist, i don't think those things are necessarily incompatible; i just think they're wrong, because i think those things are all interlocking systems of domination that can't be treated as discrete entities. but that's a matter for debate. i disagree with your position on class-as-fundamental for the same reason you'd disagree with any feminism that only seeks to make men and women equal under capitalism: because military-industrial power systems could continue to exist even if gender equality was achieved, and by the same token, there's no reason to think smashing capitalism alone is a solution to gendered oppression.
(it's worth noting that many of the writing in praise of queen elizabeth relied on the notion that she had the 'soul of a man', and the male peasant farmer played a prominent role in literature if not in history books; the female peasant essentially had no existence except as an object of desire. and in all cultural and political movements that have recentred the peasant or the worker, until very recently, that figure has had a default status of male. *this* is what i mean when i say that men are default humans, not that all men are 'more privileged' or more revered than all women)
i'll see if i can dig out some recommendations later
the overthrow of patriarchal power will entail the end of all oppression, and on the other hand plenty who think the overthrow of capitalism and the end of class oppression will entail the end of gender oppression. personally i find both of those positions a little naive, because i think power is more complex than that, but hey
particular anything that deals with or explores the interlocking systems of domination as being traceable to a historical culture of partriarchy (and militarism) if anyone is ploughing that furrow
goes into the details of socialist feminism (as distinct from merely avowing it).
Still, I can't imagine how reading Donna Haraway could ever do any harm (to anything other than conservative thought, that is).
donna haraway is fab and does sorta go into this quite a bit, but more in an erratic conceptual kinda way than a detailed objective analysis kinda way
cyborg manifesto can be found here http://www.egs.edu/faculty/donna-haraway/articles/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto/
bookmarked - I'll give it a good read later
'Radical feminism' itself is quite Marxist in its analysis. Power is seen as something which one group (men) obtains or holds over another (women). Women are fundamentally disempowered at the hands of men. However pretty much all strands of contemporary theory see power as relational and do not seek to explain all forms of oppression as emanating from a single, analytically discrete system.
Predictably, I suppose many of the things you're asking about what feminism seeks to do are up for grabs. But, as Alan Shearer alluded to above, oppression is intersectional. I think socialism is necessary for women's emancipation. I almost wish it was as simple as 'Socialism will set everyone free, including women' or 'feminism will set everyone free, including the working class' but it's not...
<My feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit>
but is intersectionality discourse weighted? I mean there isn't really an equivalency as far as I see it
what I mean to say is there is far more room for solidarity between working class males & females than there is between working class and ruling elite males or females - or do I only think this because I am male?
solidarity depends on an infinite number of factors and situations.
they don't need to be mutally exclusive anyway.
that's kind of my point
but I just can't get past the feeling that, in my 1st world industrial nation social patriarchy is the persistent slap to the face compared to global corporate fascism being the bullet to the head - maybe cos I'm a guy I dunno
but anyway I think we've covered that, I'm just after a reading list now :)
so it's quite problematic for you to try to characterise women's oppression in these terms.
FYI I don't understand my own oppression as a 'slap in the face.' It's something far more ingrained and internalised in me that I'm constantly and desperately trying to discover and understand so that I can overcome it. It's not even something that I'm constantly reminded of like a slap to the face. The problem is I'm *NOT* constantly reminded of it and have to work out *for myself* why I've been normalised to accept my experience as natural and ok. Surviving rape, having eating disorders, having cripplingly low self esteem... change who you are on a far more deep level than 'a persistent slap in the face.'
it was not intended thus
I didn't think you mean someone was literally being slapped. Dont know how you could gather that from my response. You compared it to being slapped though. And it is not like being slapped.
if the oppressive force of corporate fascism is like a bullet to the head then the oppressive force of gender inequality European democratic society is...
I don't...think capitalism is like a bullet to the head?
I mean, if the use of the word 'female' makes you shudder there must be some metaphorical extension that can illuminate to a man how it feels to be a woman in the patriarchal grip
oh shit, I've just realised that Semantic Alley is a dead end
this is terrible
the normal use for a metaphor
but I agree it's terrible
everything is 'discourse weighted' in a way but there's no hierarchy of oppression.
I have no idea how you would derive a rule about where there is more or less possibility for solidarity.
"males" and "females" makes me shudder btw. We are men and we are women.
men & women - good
males & females - bad
is there an etymological power no-no at play here or are these just personal shudders?
There's noting really offensive about calling women females. But the words do denote different things and classifying someone as "male" or "female" does not mean their being a man or a woman or neither automatically emanates from that category. http://www.autostraddle.com/judith-butler-101-58115/. I also find it quite diminutive and far less often applied to "males." e.g. "You should come for a night out at my college. It's 80% men so would be a really great night for you and any other females you want to bring." (actual thing that was said to me once). It might be grammatically offensive too but I don't have the best grasp of the English language so can hardly talk.
if he had said 80% male then it would be ok but like for like should be used so male/female or men/women.
I agree in that context it makes women sound like an ''other''
I mean, that's equal billing
if anything I'm trying not to crosscut the gender argument with the additional stress of adding physical maturity or any other social qualifier to the debate
The majority of people haven't given much thought to whether the fact that the body itself is discursively constructed makes it wrong to reduce gender to certain biological descriptions.
Lots of women don't have a 'female' body.
so many you shouldn't get offended at all these people using terms they see as entirly innocent just cos they haven't read/thought about gender identity to the same extent you have.
If you said that sentence above to average Joe McSchmo on the street they'd look at you blankly.
I just don't know where to start with it.
It's not an issue that really impacts on my life chances and happiness cause I'm cisgendered. But i have enough friends who are transgender, to think it's worth bring up the fact that sex and gender are not the same thing, in a 400+ reply discussion about gender.
does that necessarily make me an oppressor too?
I wasn't thinking about your body when I referred to the companion form of male as female - I wouldn't objectify you that way
I never knew I required so much correction
I evidently have a lot to reassess
if 99% of the world are using a word without it meaning any offence then just cos a small amount of people decide it's offensive doesn't make it so.
(Not that I'm saying it can never be used in an offensive context, I agreed with DD's example up thre^ that it was a bit off - but standard use isn't offensive).
especially if you don't even know or can't understand why it might be offensive to them!
that's what it seems like. You say it's offensive so it is; as you're much more read up on this subject than all those other people blindly following the patriarchy and participating in their own or others oppression without even knowing cos they use a word that you decide is wrong.
Ultinatly we're talking semantics here and my point is it's used all the time by people who aren't using it to oppress women not everyone thinks about what kind of context is behind everything.
It just gives the whole discussion a ''I am right and look at these poor unthinking drones who don't understand the real issues - I pity them*'' tone to it.
And I do understand how I could be offensive in some situations (like the one you mentioned) but but to most people it's not used in such a way or even thought of it that way.
*example exagerated for comic effect - please let's not go off on that tangent
Yeah, basically. If you use a word to describe a particular social group (for want of a better term), and someone who belongs to that group says "Please don't use that word, we don't like it" – isn't it easier to stop doing it? Instead of saying "Oh I didn't mean it offensively so it's OK."
For example, let's say you didn't know it was offensive to describe someone as "coloured", and then one day you use that word to describe someone and they explain to you that it's not cool. Don't use that word. You can either take that lesson on board, or you can try to argue with them. And the second option is the choice of a dickhead, frankly.
You (and I) don't get to decide whether it's offensive or not. That's the bottom line.
I mean, if I knew a particular person found the word 'female' offensive then I might not use it to them but I wouldn't stop using the word outright unless I felt there was a general social acceptance that particular word was considered offensive.
*specifically people that word is used to describe.
The first question will probably be: what do you base that general social acceptance on?
And I don't actually mean social acceptance per se, in so far as certain words such as 'retard' or the use of 'gay' as a pejorative are possibly socially acceptable but I wouldn't use them or condone their use.
I guess it's more whether there's a body of evidence that a significant number of people within the group being assigned the label see it as problematic. As to how I'd define 'significant', that's not entirely clear either. But I do think it has to be about more than simply accepting that, because some people within a sub-group find a word offensive, that should automatically be taken as representative of the feelings of the sub-group as a whole.
I don't believe there are any words which are objectively offensive.
But I was trying not to post in this car crash of a thread. and now I've failed.
but we're not talking about words that are recognised as unacceptable or have a history of negative connotations. Yeah some people might used coloured not meaning to be offensive and someone might say ''excuse me, I'd rather you didn't use that term''.
But i'm talking specifically about the word ''female''. If you were down the the pub and said ''female'' and someone asked you not to use that word; 99% of the world would think that unusual.
I assumed she also meant in the context of this discussion it was problematic. We're not discussing 'female' as a word in a vacuum.
with that word it depends entirely on the context. maybe it's unlikely that you'll ever have a conversation with anyone that would find the word objectionable, but it doesn't change the fact that there are such people. it might not be exactly the same the situation as it would be with another word but no two situations are ever exactly the same.
political solidarity? you'd probably be right that few working class women feel much solidarity with the views of a feminist like louise mensch, for instance, but it's possibile for women who are part of the 'ruling elite' to show feminist solidarity towards working class women. by the same token, many working-class women have felt profoundly alienated by the rhetoric and priorities of male-centric socialist movements. and they were alienated by the same line of argument that you're taking: class struggle is the fundamental issue, women are expected to show solidarity with their brothers and not fragment the movement with 'identity politics' while men have no obligation to engage with women's oppression except as an incidental side issue, etc. and in the same way, the radical feminist analysis that patriarchy is the root of all oppression is difficult to show solidarity with if you're a black working-class woman who experiences much more profound marginalisation on axes other than gender. this is the problem with 'weighting' the discourse in any direction: in any group there are always people with even less social power who inevitably end up being marginalised in your struggle against the One True Oppression
"...but it's possibile for women who are part of the 'ruling elite' to show feminist solidarity towards working class women"-whilst also employing them as cleaners, no doubt.
just to remind myself I've read this thread already.
hey, Id be an ally to femenists.
But fuck me, you bitches dont half go on about some shit.
that by going on and on about 'male privilages' and all this shit to a bunch of guys who do treat people equally will really help us get on 'their side'
and for the feminists.. i see lots of ranting but very little action. whats the grand plan? first DIS then the world? talk evryone to sleep?
Good luck with that.
(i.e. I'd hope) is broadly "feminist", its first target would be "the feminists", its second "treat people equally", its third "us", its fourth the implied opposition between talk ("ranting") and "action", its fifth "grand plan", and its sixth "everyone".
i've been reading a bit about it, honestly, and they almost all seem bisexual.
is that just how it works?
i mean, i don't judge, each to their own, just interested in the reason why there seems to be such a high proportion of fence-sitters.
I wouldn't be surprised if lesbian and bisexual women were more likely to be feminists. I don't have a great understanding of the LGBT movement but I'd imagine gender equality playing a fairly important role.
Could be a decent thread spin off.
*Them being the DiS Debate Club, no lesbians...they seem fine for ideas.
Personally, I still say I'm not a Feminist.
Thanks for listening.
THEY CALL ME PEVERTED!
actually just incredible.
this thread: it's all my fault.
What are you like
SHAME ON YOU ALL.
also, it's been surprisingly civil with only a couple of inane digressions. good work all round, i reckon
I bet it's fine.
and once you're banned, the site deletes all your posts.
as if boycotting the Moscow Olympics wasn't enough.
who make the excuse that they're female for their failure.