|
On November 18 2013 21:04 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2013 20:59 Crushinator wrote:On November 18 2013 12:34 semantics wrote:On November 17 2013 21:15 gedatsu wrote:On November 17 2013 17:45 metroid composite wrote:On November 16 2013 11:38 L1ghtning wrote:
I believe you can find a lot of crap ideas and opinions on both sides, but feminism is just pure poison at its core. It teaches us to put ppl into categories That's...not actually what feminism does at all. Feminism, is concerned with fighting against gender discrimination; this includes discrimination against men. Feminists often claim they fight against discrimination against men, but I have never witnessed it. We'd all be better off if feminists realized that there is a discrepancy between the textbook definition and the way it is practiced today. Feminism is about equality of choice and role of females. A Feminist would support a stay at home mom as much as they would support a female CEO the important part is that they had the choice and equal opportunity to be either. I think you get people who call themselves feminist yet aren't. I think this again is an inaccurate portrayal of what feminism is in practice. Many (most) active feminists are openly disapproving of women who want nothing more than be a stay at home mom. Some will argue that their lack of ambition is the result of patriachical opression, and/or that these women are complicit to their own oppression. By spinning it so that feminism is only one thing that nobody can object to, and that anybody who does more that that isn't a real feminist, you are basically commiting the ''no true scotsman'' fallacy. Honestly, I think you simply mix up radical feminism with feminism, and define every radical feminist you see as a typical feminist, while you define every feminist you see as, well, normal.
No I think it you who is confused. Radical feminists actively seek female dominance, neutralizing the threat of men to women to vaying extents, from institutionalized matriarchy to replace thepatriarchy to the complete extermination of all men. Obviously these views are not representative of feminism as a whole.
This is why I have purposefully chosen viewpoints that are very moderate and very relevant. All of the stances I have mentioned in this thread are on the political agendas of mainstream parties throughout the western world.
|
And you have never in your life seen an instance where the principle of equality for women has been applied in a sensible way? Like, say, the right to enter the army? Or the right to have an abortion? Not to mention everything to do with various non-western countries, which still very much are patriarchies. What about that? Is that not feminism, too?
|
On November 18 2013 21:30 Conti wrote:
And you have never in your life seen an instance where the principle of equality for women has been applied in a sensible way? Like, say, the right to enter the army? Or the right to have an abortion? Not to mention everything to do with various non-western countries, which still very much are patriarchies. What about that? Is that not feminism, too?
Yes sure?
|
Northern Ireland26676 Posts
Then why IS feminism so grossly misunderstood?
I think at the crux of the issue it's a poisonous term to many people. You can see this in blind tests, asking somebody if they identify/agree with feminism, and ask them their stances on specific issues and there's quite a bit of discrepancy.
I remember something in the States was done in a similar vein. People were asked of they were 'conservative' or 'liberal' (itself a missused term IMO) and what they identified as and what their stances were on particular issues reflecting each overarching philosophy (by and large), and there was often fuck all correlation.
|
On November 18 2013 21:34 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2013 21:30 Conti wrote:
And you have never in your life seen an instance where the principle of equality for women has been applied in a sensible way? Like, say, the right to enter the army? Or the right to have an abortion? Not to mention everything to do with various non-western countries, which still very much are patriarchies. What about that? Is that not feminism, too? Yes sure?
You argued that "feminism in practice" is only whatever bad examples you provided. I provided counterexamples to that. And you seem to agree that they are valid, so I'm really not sure what your point is.
|
Austria2609 Posts
On November 18 2013 21:30 Conti wrote:
And you have never in your life seen an instance where the principle of equality for women has been applied in a sensible way? Like, say, the right to enter the army? Or the right to have an abortion? Not to mention everything to do with various non-western countries, which still very much are patriarchies. What about that? Is that not feminism, too?
Because the ideal and the followers are two different pairs of shoes?!
|
On November 18 2013 21:35 Wombat_NI wrote:
Then why IS feminism so grossly misunderstood?
I think at the crux of the issue it's a poisonous term to many people. You can see this in blind tests, asking somebody if they identify/agree with feminism, and ask them their stances on specific issues and there's quite a bit of discrepancy.
I remember something in the States was done in a similar vein. People were asked of they were 'conservative' or 'liberal' (itself a missused term IMO) and what they identified as and what their stances were on particular issues reflecting each overarching philosophy (by and large), and there was often fuck all correlation.
The term is only poisonous because of deliberate efforts to paint all feminists as irate. If people agree with all actual feminist positions but still refuse to call themselves feminists then what are they but cowards and idiots? In the united states it's now common to call yourself a progressive when before you were a liberal due to the right-wing assault on the word. Similarly, many men now brag about being an equalitarian or something like that instead of a feminist. Seems pretty pathetic to me...
Also, constantly trying to convince people to do something that they don't want to do might eventually result in them being accepting of your ideas, but will only sour them on you personally. (since people have their pride)
|
On November 18 2013 21:39 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2013 21:34 Crushinator wrote:On November 18 2013 21:30 Conti wrote:
And you have never in your life seen an instance where the principle of equality for women has been applied in a sensible way? Like, say, the right to enter the army? Or the right to have an abortion? Not to mention everything to do with various non-western countries, which still very much are patriarchies. What about that? Is that not feminism, too? Yes sure? You argued that "feminism in practice" is only whatever bad examples you provided. I provided counterexamples to that. And you seem to agree that they are valid, so I'm really not sure what your point is.
I do not think my examples are bad, what other causes are there that feminism is fighting for in the present day? Abortion and military service are non-issues in much of europe. It actually seems pretty relevant to me that you can't think of anything except rights that have largely been acquired already.
My point is that about 7 different people insist on pointing out that feminism is only a good thing that nobody can object to, while blatantly ignoring the fact that active feminist agenda contains alot of viewpoints that are very far from unequivocally good. It just seems intellectually dishonest to me to insist that feminism is not what feminist do/want but rather only some abstract notion about equality.
|
Northern Ireland26676 Posts
I don't think it's the same as the States. At least here we don't have big media personalities who cannot even use the word socialism without sneering, on the rare occasions they actually use the term correctly.
I understand the concept of the malleability of language, but flagrant misuse of actual technical terms is ridiculous.
I think you underestimate the negative reaction self-described feminists can do to those associated with the name, it's not just those who actively work to disparage feminism that do it.
|
On November 18 2013 12:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
Examples L1ghtning?
Hm well, feminist ideas as to gender role designations influenced the Swedish system of relatively equivalent shared parental leave.
Meanwhile in this country, I got 2 weeks leave from work and was back at the grind, and though we're together my partner gets all the tax credits and child benefits etc.
Because women are meant to be more caring, and regardless of the individual's involved by default the primary carer.
The swedish political system can be divided into 3 left wing parties and 5 right wing parties. Together, they are about equal in size, and it's the right wing that is currently in control. All the left wing parties are feminist. All the right wing parties reject feminist, but they believe in equality. The former swedish minister of equality was a woman, and she's not a feminist, as she's from one of the right wing parties. I haven't heard the current minister of equality make any statements about feminism, but most likely she's not, as she's from the same party as the former one.
Anyway, I think 2 of the 3 feminist parties wants to enforce a 50/50 even parental leave, while all the right wing parties are against it. They do support that some of it gets split, but they don't want to split all of it, and would rather leave it up to the families to decide on their own. Vote feminist, and you're forced to split all of the parental leave 50/50. Vote non-feminist and you split a portion of it, and then you get a portion of optional parental leave that you as a family can divide however you want. This means that the man could take 70% of the parental leave. Feminists thinks that this should always be 50/50, because in their world, equality is about numbers, and special circumstances doesn't exist. The non-feminists believe that both parents should be get a basic parental leave, but they want to give them the choice to decide about the rest.
This is not a question of equality, it's a question of having the right of choice as a family. The major feminist party was openly communist until 1990. It's not a surprise that they picked up feminism, as both ideologies likes to restrict the freedom of choice, and would rather tell us how to live our lives.
|
On November 18 2013 21:54 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don't think it's the same as the States. At least here we don't have big media personalities who cannot even use the word socialism without sneering, on the rare occasions they actually use the term correctly.
I understand the concept of the malleability of language, but flagrant misuse of actual technical terms is ridiculous.
I think you underestimate the negative reaction self-described feminists can do to those associated with the name, it's not just those who actively work to disparage feminism that do it.
I think the term feminism is associated with advancing the position of women, and no longer has much association with striving for equality. I would say few people now think that women are facing very much insitutional oppression at all (could be wrong), and now the cause is simply statistical equality, and only in areas where on the surface this seems desirable for women, while ignoring areas in which men are getting a bad deal. Nobody is talking about having more female builders or plumbers, or more male daycare workers, but having more female CEOs seems top priority. Even though (atleasst on the surface) it would seem that having more female CEOs won't havve much of an effect at all.
I will grant that feminists also strive to fight sexual violence against women, but this is something we call agree on to such an extent that it hardly seems like a uniquely feminist stance. The same for the rights that have been acquired in the past, everyone agrees that women should have equal opportunities, that it hardly seems like a feminist stance anymore.
|
On November 18 2013 21:54 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don't think it's the same as the States. At least here we don't have big media personalities who cannot even use the word socialism without sneering, on the rare occasions they actually use the term correctly.
I understand the concept of the malleability of language, but flagrant misuse of actual technical terms is ridiculous.
Don't forget that they think that Obama is the anti-christ.
I think you underestimate the negative reaction self-described feminists can do to those associated with the name, it's not just those who actively work to disparage feminism that do it.
You don't have to tell me how toxic for instance the feminist blogosphere can be (you'd find less hate on stormfront), but there is still a deliberate effort to highlight certain behaviors. There is, say, a pervading negative opinion of feminists and the only thing that's necessary is to find some suitable examples from time to time to throw fuel on the fire. I think a more unbiased, historical perspective would show that the effect of feminists on the world has been almost purely positive.
On November 18 2013 22:19 Crushinator wrote:
I will grant that feminists also strive to fight sexual violence against women, but this is something we call agree on to such an extent that it hardly seems like a uniquely feminist stance. The same for the rights that have been acquired in the past, everyone agrees that women should have equal opportunities, that it hardly seems like a feminist stance anymore.
Yet if you say the word "rape culture" it magically summons anti-feminists to trivialize the issue.
|
On November 18 2013 21:52 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2013 21:39 Conti wrote:On November 18 2013 21:34 Crushinator wrote:On November 18 2013 21:30 Conti wrote:
And you have never in your life seen an instance where the principle of equality for women has been applied in a sensible way? Like, say, the right to enter the army? Or the right to have an abortion? Not to mention everything to do with various non-western countries, which still very much are patriarchies. What about that? Is that not feminism, too? Yes sure? You argued that "feminism in practice" is only whatever bad examples you provided. I provided counterexamples to that. And you seem to agree that they are valid, so I'm really not sure what your point is. I do not think my examples are bad, what other causes are there that feminism is fighting for in the present day? Abortion and military service are non-issues in much of europe. It actually seems pretty relevant to me that you can't think of anything except rights that have largely been acquired already. My point is that about 7 different people insist on pointing out that feminism is only a good thing that nobody can object to, while blatantly ignoring the fact that active feminist agenda contains alot of viewpoints that are very far from unequivocally good. It just seems intellectually dishonest to me to insist that feminism is not what feminist do/want but rather only some abstract notion about equality.
In that case, I'm not one of those 7 people. Feminism as a principle is a good thing (and as far as I remember, you agreed with that). Feminism in practice depends on, well, whatever it is that happens in practice. But taking the most extreme examples one can find to discredit the basic idea behind a principle is a very common tactic, and it appeared you were doing just that.
I agree that people take it too far, and certain 50/50 rules are just not very useful. But you have to consider the history behind this. You don't even need to go back one generation to find blatant examples of sexism and inequality all over the world, and considering that, it makes sense to demand such rules. Again, I don't always agree with them, but I see where they're coming from.
Read the post by Wombat_NI. I really don't think your actual views on equality differ all that much from what your average feminist fights for, extreme examples and populist demands by politicians notwithstanding.
|
Northern Ireland26676 Posts
@Grumbels and Crushintor, largely agreed.
Feminism vs racism, now there's an interesting discussion. The former, a lot of people seem to be content with legislative equality, and a shift in cultural norms isn't expected, or actively rallied against. For the latter, racism is seen as something that legislative equality isn't enough to tackle, and cultural shifts are needed.
Notwithstanding other issues such as the great multiculturalism debate, do you see this vague idea as even vaguely correct, and why/why not?
|
I think the term rape culture is very vague and easily misunderstood, sadly. Just based on that I don't think denying the existence of rape culture makes a person anti-feminist. I definitely think there are cultural elements that contribute to the prevalence of rape. But this is quite a loose definition, and authors can definitely make it sound like it is much more pervasive and sinister than that.
|
On November 18 2013 22:30 Wombat_NI wrote:
@Grumbels and Crushintor, largely agreed.
Feminism vs racism, now there's an interesting discussion. The former, a lot of people seem to be content with legislative equality, and a shift in cultural norms isn't expected, or actively rallied against. For the latter, racism is seen as something that legislative equality isn't enough to tackle, and cultural shifts are needed.
Notwithstanding other issues such as the great multiculturalism debate, do you see this vague idea as even vaguely correct, and why/why not?
I think the fact that people from different races/ethnicities usually also come form different socioeconomic backgrounds is part of the reason why quotas based on ethnicity are more difficult to justify. Men and women can be assumed to be distributed over the socioeconomic layers evenly, for obvious reasons.
(note I said socioeconomic background and not position)
|
11589 Posts
If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
|
You should watch popular entertainment from the 80's. A comedy show like Cheers, which is devoted mostly to gender issues, will constantly refer to discussions that were going on at the time about the role of women. It's one of my favorite shows, actually, but a lot of it seems very quaint. If you watch Frasier then there will be the running joke of mockery of Roz's "sluttiness" that would no longer be acceptable in a show today. There are a lot of cultural shifts.
|
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote:
If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
|
On November 18 2013 22:53 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote:
If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept. I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.' I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Honestly, I think it simply boils down to us having very different associations with the word "feminism", and nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
