|
On April 09 2013 13:03 IshinShishi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 12:50 ktimekiller wrote:
Popular feminism tends to be problematic where kids on tumblr go in hordes to blame everything in the world on men and patriarchy and dismiss any problems or disadvantages men might suffer due to feminism. You don't need to be an expert to realize how one sided family law is for example, and yet when men try to speak up about the bullshit of becoming a working mule to feed a family you should no longer legally be tied to, you get shut down by screaming hordes of feminists trying to destroy your shit.
There are many agreeable points in feminism, but the way it is practiced by many people, even high profile spokespersons make it detestable in many different ways. Pretty much this, there might be reasonable, self-proclaimed feminists out there that I'd totally convene with (as I do agree with the general equality concept behind it), but the term itself is so attached to illogical idiocy in my mind that I just tend to shy away from these people, which are quite clearly the minority of the movement.
Ditto. Few movements have been damaged as much by extremists as feminism. My subconscious and emotional perceptions of feminism have been utterly wrecked by the idiocy I see spouted by extremists. Even worse, confirmation bias starts to kick in as one's viewpoint begins to solidify, so whenever people touched by these extremists see feminists, they actively look for mistakes they're making and enlarge the significance of these mistakes.
That's a massive issue for feminists everywhere.
|
My problem is that trying to abolish gender roles is to try to end a fact of nature; it is natural that men are generally dominant and that women are care takers (note I am speaking in general). Gender roles are not a societal construct.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Yet if I were to write an article to that effect (Change the name of Diamond league, Blizzard!) I would promptly be laughed off TL.
You're probably right in this regard, and your decision to not go into the details of your beliefs and opinions on the subject is most likely prudent.
But on the other hand, there are undoubtedly some on the forum including myself who will think that you have a very good point in this regard (certainly something that never occurred to me), so thanks for at least writing a short blurb about the matter.
|
Northern Ireland23666 Posts
I see parallels between that and the term 'socialist' taking on a quasi-pejorative meaning over in the States for example. I see people using the term 'progressive' to self-identify if they are left-leaning more and more, which appears to be an acknowledgement of this.
Would feminists benefit from doing something similar perhaps?
|
Northern Ireland23666 Posts
On April 09 2013 13:11 Xayvier wrote:
My problem is that trying to abolish gender roles is to try to end a fact of nature; it is natural that men are generally dominant and that women are care takers (note I am speaking in general). Gender roles are not a societal construct.
Physically men are, I don't buy the rest of it as 'natural' and we live in a society where physical brawn is not as advantageous or important as it once was.
|
One of the other major issues is that the feminist cause is much of the times harmed directly by those they are trying to help, i.e. other women.
To give a crude example: Women are often portrayed as pieces of meat in popular media, i.e. objectification of women as sexual things. That is deplorable, and I think that's an issue, as it encourages people to treat women as if they are merely sexual objects.
But fuck, it's hard for the movement to gain traction on that ground when many women continue to choose to portray themselves in such a way that reinforces the idea that women are merely sexual objects.
With regards to this particular issue, women are fighting for, on the one hand, the idea that women should be sexually liberated but also against the idea that women should not be objectified. It is a tough line to walk, and I'm not sure it can be walked successfully.
|
Northern Ireland23666 Posts
Agreed babylon, this is the thing that actually gained me a lot of ire and backlash for saying. That and that women-centred media in the Cosmopolitans and Hello! magazines of this world, also feed into things like negative body image, but are written by and consumed by women primarily. I saw an interesting study on body image for example that had men's 'ideal size' for a woman be a good bit larger than what women believed that men found most attractive.
Gender relations are exactly that, a relationship in which both blocs have an input into how the other perceives them, interacts with them etc etc. You can't absolve women of what responsibility is theirs to bear for creating and perpetuating certain beliefs and archetypes.
|
On April 09 2013 12:37 HawaiianPig wrote:
Let me try to summarize feminism as succinctly as possible. At its core, Feminism is a stance promoting substantive equality with a particular focus on gender.
This is what bugs me, in a probably-juvenile but undeniable way. Being a feminist (in the real world, not internet-land) essentially seems to mean that you're a socially-progressive, liberal-minded person who strives for acceptance and equality for all kinds of gender identities, sexual identities, and so forth. And that's great! That's really awesome, and I can one-hundred-percent get behind that. The problem is, I can't get away from the extremely-gendered name that implies that equality is an exclusively-female thing or at least largely inspired by women.
Here's another problem I can't quite get around: By becoming the all-encompassing socially-progressive -ism, I'm worried about other legitimate and necessary 'movements' will get swallowed up into feminism. Transgender issues, for example, seem to always be discussed as a feminist topic. Gay rights stuff is kind of the same way, but got large enough early on that it splintered into its own thing as well as far as I can tell. (As a disclaimer, I'm not heavily involved in lgbt stuff at all. If I was, I'm sure I'd see it independent of feminism all the time-- but the fact that as an outside I never do is not a good thing!) How are important social issues like that supposed to get any major traction if they're 'just a part of feminism'? Is it even an impediment? I don't know!
If feminism was a movement concerned exclusively with women's rights and women's place in society, I'd be all for it. I think that kind of stuff is great. I'd also be all for gay rights, transgender rights, men's rights, every kind of rights imaginable. Equality is pretty great, and-- again, maybe this is me being oversensitive and juvenile-- but associating it with one gender really puts me off of actively identifying myself as a feminist.
|
There is no problem with feminism, there is a problem with people who call themselves "feminists", and in reality feminism in everyone's mind becomes what they see feminism to be, which has become a lot of nitpicking and cis white male-hating. If you care about equality for everyone, why label yourself with a term clearly favouring a particular gender? We are far from gender equality for women, but at the same time it's nowhere near as one-sided as it once was. Modern feminists don't care about men's issues while expecting men to care about theirs.
Thus I call myself an egalitarian and in my opinion the term "feminism" has just been poisoned and is beyond saving.
|
On April 09 2013 12:50 ktimekiller wrote:
Popular feminism tends to be problematic where kids on tumblr go in hordes to blame everything in the world on men and patriarchy and dismiss any problems or disadvantages men might suffer due to feminism. You don't need to be an expert to realize how one sided family law is for example, and yet when men try to speak up about the bullshit of becoming a working mule to feed a family you should no longer legally be tied to, you get shut down by screaming hordes of feminists trying to destroy your shit.
There are many agreeable points in feminism, but the way it is practiced by many people, even high profile spokespersons make it detestable in many different ways.
Your example of men suffering is actually men suffering because of patriarchy I feel. Patriarchy meaning men should be the ones battling it out in society earning the family's money, women staying with the kids and managing the home. Family law in a patriarchy is then being intended to work best for that setup, which makes it rigged if you want to live differently than what was the perceived ideal in the 1950s. The hordes of women you hear bitching are of course working for their "side". 
|
Northern Ireland23666 Posts
On April 09 2013 13:23 Ruscour wrote:
There is no problem with feminism, there is a problem with people who call themselves "feminists", and in reality feminism in everyone's mind becomes what they see feminism to be, which has become a lot of nitpicking and cis white male-hating. If you care about equality for everyone, why label yourself with a term clearly favouring a particular gender? We are far from gender equality for women, but at the same time it's nowhere near as one-sided as it once was. Modern feminists don't care about men's issues while expecting men to care about theirs.
Thus I call myself an egalitarian and in my opinion the term "feminism" has just been poisoned and is beyond saving.
Boom, 100%. Perception is important, and feminism is rightly or wrongly perceived differently, imo because of the focus on one half of the equation.
I don't see many other movements that define themselves in the same way. With the exception of Malcolm X and his ilk, black Americans and what they strived for were under the banners of 'civil rights', or their modern equivalents are generally 'anti-racist' or something like that. I do vervently believe that if the Civil Rights movement had been titled something akin to 'Afro-Americanism' (can't think of anything remotely pithy for this lol) it wouldn't have accomplished its aims as quickly
I understand that the arguments against say a re-brand to 'gender equality movement' or something like that, but I disagree with them for the most part.
|
This thread has really been informative about the legitimate side of feminism. I've met a few feminists before, and they have all been completely irrational people, so I tend to dismiss a lot of feminist groups the same way I dismiss PETA or Westboro baptist church. It's good to hear that the feminist movement is based on a few legitimate and very important ideals. I will be following this thread closely because I am eager to learn more on this topic.
|
On April 09 2013 13:13 babylon wrote:
One of the other major issues is that the feminist cause is much of the times harmed directly by those they are trying to help, i.e. other women.
To give a crude example: Women are often portrayed as pieces of meat in popular media, i.e. objectification of women as sexual things. That is deplorable, and I think that's an issue, as it encourages people to treat women as if they are merely sexual objects.
But fuck, it's hard for the movement to gain traction on that ground when many women continue to choose to portray themselves in such a way that reinforces the idea that women are merely sexual objects.
With regards to this particular issue, women are fighting for, on the one hand, the idea that women should be sexually liberated but also against the idea that women should not be objectified. It is a tough line to walk, and I'm not sure it can be walked successfully.
Yeah. The goal is to manipulate the conscious and unconscious attitudes a society of billions possesses. Even if the sheer scale wasn't enough, the manipulation needs to be incredibly delicate as the end goal seems to require contradictory states of mind in some ways.
|
Like others in this thread, I feel feminism is badly tainted as a brand. In most people's minds it is strongly associated with extremist feminists, and just by saying the word you nearly always ruin the debate. When I want to talk about sexual politics I feel I can get a lot further in conversations by saying 'x seems kind of sexist because..." rather than using feminism theory as a whole.
Even the term itself is kind of confrontational, implying they want a female instead of male perspective, which rubs many up the wrong way. A better term would be 'genderism', looking at how people's genders (male and female), and the expectations which go with them, can sometimes cause problems. A lot of the best feminism writing I've read talks about this stuff, but by calling itself feminism alienates people who would otherwise agree.
Finally, while this is obviously anecdotal, everyone I've met who has called themselves a feminist, has been rude, sexist and unpleasant to talk to. I'm not sure why, but it definitely doesn't help.
|
On April 09 2013 13:18 Wombat_NI wrote:
Agreed babylon, this is the thing that actually gained me a lot of ire and backlash for saying. That and that women-centred media in the Cosmopolitans and Hello! magazines of this world, also feed into things like negative body image, but are written by and consumed by women primarily. I saw an interesting study on body image for example that had men's 'ideal size' for a woman be a good bit larger than what women believed that men found most attractive.
Gender relations are exactly that, a relationship in which both blocs have an input into how the other perceives them, interacts with them etc etc. You can't absolve women of what responsibility is theirs to bear for creating and perpetuating certain beliefs and archetypes.
It is extremely difficult to resolve this sort of tension, though, and I'm not at all certain it can be done until feminists somehow distance themselves from the women who are making their cause difficult. It's just a sad truth that not all women are feminists (either out of ignorance or apathy, or on purpose), and how do you push for progress given the lack of unity? It is no longer about mainly blatant, outright discrimination (e.g. as it was in the civil rights movement, the LGBTQ movements, etc.) but it's about patriarchy, gender roles, etc. -- abstract concepts around which it's hard to form a forceful united movement that can help educate people and therefore push for efficient, real change.
|
Canada5155 Posts
On April 09 2013 13:07 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 13:03 zbedlam wrote:
Nothing is wrong with feminism.
Something is wrong with feminists in general however, every feminist I have met has acted like all men are rapists etc.
Women are not a minority, women are not repressed in the western world, there is very little reason for the hate mongering this fringe group seems to vocalise consistantly. They're not legally discriminated against for the most part, I still feel there is much to say about media culture and portrayals of women in that sense that is an important to discuss and debate.
Yup on the media portrayal stuff.
Legally, however, the law isn't necessarily free of systemic gender inequality either...
Sexual assault cases are often the worst on this. There are pervasive, popular, and harmful opinions that often negatively impact these cases.
The most common of course is that women are somehow responsible for their victimization or are "liars". Most people are no stranger to this problem. There's no shortage of pictures on tumblr and reddit of women holding up signs on the matter. It's easy to dismiss the matter as Yet Another Internet Social Justice Campaign.
But these opinions are widely held, sometimes unconsciously. Worse so, they have a real and harmful impact.
One of the more shocking examples of this happened in Canada a few years back -- where a judge of the Alberta Court of Appeal, Justice McClung, commented in a sexual assault case that "the complainant did not present herself to Ewanchuk or enter his trailer in a bonnet and crinolines”. He went on to talk about how, if she really didn't want to have sex, she would have physically resisted.
This is a comment by a member of the judiciary. Not some uneducated juror.
To top it off, the case was appealed to our Supreme Court and a female Justice (L'Heureux Dube) rebuked those comments, pointing out that requiring physical resistance means that women across the country would have to literally fight off their assailants.
Immediately after the decision was rendered, the Justice McClung wrote a letter to a national newspaper stating that: "The personal convictions of [Justice L'Heureux Dube], delivered again from her judicial chair, could provide a plausible explanation for the disparate (and growing) number of male suicides being reported in the province of Quebec."
Yep. In his mind, Justice L'Heureux Dube is responsible for a male suicide epidemic because of her feminism.
To add salt in the wound, L'Heureux Dube's husband had actually committed suicide many years ago.
It's a sensational example of course. It's not often that there is a public controversy between judges. But in any case, it's an example of how harmful stereotypes can pervade the system--even manifesting itself in written judgments.
It's obvious in this case. McClung's views are so ensrhined in him that they made it into his written decision, but what happens when these things aren't on the surface? It's not so obvious when a trier of fact unintentionally disregards a female witness because he feels she was asking for it.
And yet, more often than not you'll see plenty of people respond to these problems with, "Yeah but what about all those wrongful convictions of males!?" As if a) it happens as often (it doesn't) and b) two wrongs make a right.
Anyway, I'm kind of rambling here. I've used your post as an excuse to go off on how the justice system is by no means perfect... but I think I've touched on what really gets me going when it comes to these discussions online. That is, people often respond to valid feminist complaints with, not a rebuttal, but a deflection.
There are already a couple in this thread.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 09 2013 12:37 HawaiianPig wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 12:08 Wombat_NI wrote:
Feminists are often right, but their cause has a major, major image problem because the term itself is far too broad and ill-defined. A breakdown into say, I don't what terms I'd use, but ones with more specificity could be prudent.
I agree with what they say regarding games sometimes, but equally I feel it is rather like fussing over a cigarette that you drop on the floor when your house is already burning to the ground around you.
Feminists also far too often give women a pass in perpetuating the gender roles that exist today, in my experience. I'll address each bolded point real quick because it made me twitch: a) It's not that it's ill-defined, it's that people misuse it b) This is a result of people misusing the term "feminism" Detach the word from whatever bad experience you've had Let me try to summarize feminism as succinctly as possible. At its core, Feminism is a stance promoting substantive equality with a particular focus on gender. Substantive equality is the root of the ideology. That is to say, that equality is not a "treat everyone the same" affair, but rather, "recognize the differences and account for them" affair. The goal is to avoid a differential impact. A simple example of this is workplace leave and discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. In Canada, at least, discrimination in the workforce on the grounds of pregnancy is a breach of equality rights. Don't let some teenage kid who spouts "girl power" on her tumblr affect how you view a very real and very important lens you can use to view various issues.
I think it's especially problematic that when critiques are made, many people automatically receive them as if they're making a direct attack on an overt decision, which is generally not the case. Often feminist critiques are meant to recognize something much more subtle and unintentional, where no one is specifically "at fault" but the consequence may be dangerous.
|
Canada5155 Posts
On April 09 2013 13:19 Eiii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 12:37 HawaiianPig wrote:
Let me try to summarize feminism as succinctly as possible. At its core, Feminism is a stance promoting substantive equality with a particular focus on gender.
This is what bugs me, in a probably-juvenile but undeniable way. Being a feminist (in the real world, not internet-land) essentially seems to mean that you're a socially-progressive, liberal-minded person who strives for acceptance and equality for all kinds of gender identities, sexual identities, and so forth. And that's great! That's really awesome, and I can one-hundred-percent get behind that. The problem is, I can't get away from the extremely-gendered name that implies that equality is an exclusively-female thing or at least largely inspired by women. Here's another problem I can't quite get around: By becoming the all-encompassing socially-progressive -ism, I'm worried about other legitimate and necessary 'movements' will get swallowed up into feminism. Transgender issues, for example, seem to always be discussed as a feminist topic. Gay rights stuff is kind of the same way, but got large enough early on that it splintered into its own thing as well as far as I can tell. (As a disclaimer, I'm not heavily involved in lgbt stuff at all. If I was, I'm sure I'd see it independent of feminism all the time-- but the fact that as an outside I never do is not a good thing!) How are important social issues like that supposed to get any major traction if they're 'just a part of feminism'? Is it even an impediment? I don't know! If feminism was a movement concerned exclusively with women's rights and women's place in society, I'd be all for it. I think that kind of stuff is great. I'd also be all for gay rights, transgender rights, men's rights, every kind of rights imaginable. Equality is pretty great, and-- again, maybe this is me being oversensitive and juvenile-- but associating it with one gender really puts me off of actively identifying myself as a feminist.
Yeah I agree with this to an extent. To me, I think of it as a subset of general "socially-progressive, liberal-minded person who strives for acceptance and equality for all kinds of gender identities, sexual identities, and so forth"
Or as someone else pointed out in this thread, the "egalitarian"
I think the real problem with it all ... is that people choose to identify with an ideology.
Instead I think a person should only *use* ideologies to view issues. I've never been able to describe myself with an -ism, and I think most who do tend to miss the point.
|
Northern Ireland23666 Posts
I tend to view that as a problem of societal norms, and the opinions of individuals can influence criminal proceedings.
The actual laws themselves have, in many places been redrafted to place less of an onus on women to physically resist. I think Germany was thinking of making some changes in this regard, in terms of redefining consent.
I draw a distinction between 'the laws' and the 'the judiciary that applies them' in this case, whereas some people may think that a silly distinction to make.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 09 2013 13:13 babylon wrote:
With regards to this particular issue, women are fighting for, on the one hand, the idea that women should be sexually liberated but also against the idea that women should not be objectified. It is a tough line to walk, and I'm not sure it can be walked successfully.
These come from two different branches of feminism. Again, it's an extremely broad and possibly misnamed field. There's plenty of feminists who are okay with everyone being meat. Some don't want anyone seen that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
