Positive viewpoints on feminism

[Andrew Gubb]

I'd like to hear about feminism from you guys. I'm particularly interested in feminism-positive points of view. (See this post for an explanation on this: How To Meet People Who Are Into Polyamory ) Feel free to say whatever you like about feminism, but as I said I'm particularly interested in those viewpoints, and I'd like to encourage long debates about feminism to happen in other threads.

I know there is the age-old problem with labels, but I think we've all heard that so let's assume here that labels are okay or can at least be used for the sake of understanding.

So tell me what your thoughts on feminism are. What does it mean to you? How do you live it? Why does it need to exist in this world?

I'm listening

[Mounds]

I'll be the first guy to say that I don't know the actual definition of feminism. That word falls under the topic of politics, and politics make me sleepy.

There's a reason debates about politics never end. They're always win-lose! I choose to steer clear of that hornet's nest by redefining (?) feminism to:

empowering women

No, that does not mean that empowering women = disempowering men. It just means:

helping women become better people

I think empowered women are sexy, and I'd like to see more of them on this planet.

-Tim

[Dimitri]

Empowering women?

Feminism deals with the equality between men and women. So it really should be called equalism. The only reason it focus on women is because women generally were not treated as equals to men.

What I'm interested in is why this subject is still relevant and why some people who live in North America insist that women are still being discriminated. That's no excuse to use for something that you can't do. If you live in North America, women can do just as much as they put their minds to.

[Albalida]

It's a miracle I got into feminism, actually. I was raised by a single mother (in the late 80's, in Asia, where the culture tended to encourage calling our whole family a disgrace,) and I all her superstitions led her to expect me to be a boy. She didn't tell me this in a "should have called the midwife to strangle you with your umbilical cord and present you as a stillbirth" way, but more in a "isn't that so funny? You could have been an emotionally stunted potential rapist! Haha!" -- she didn't have a good relationship with either my biological father, or any of her boyfriends before him, or even with my maternal grandfather. So, when I was older and we would watch television, something for girl-bonding time, like Sex and the City, and she would loudly proclaim that everything that went wrong in every relationship shown was the fault of men because they're men... I would actually be personally wounded, because I often wondered what would happen if I'd been born a boy, and didn't think that the content of my character would be all that different at all. I would look at my mother and think, feminism has gone too far.

Now I realize that my mother was no feminist. Real feminism recognizes that men are equal to women, as much as women are equal to men. Not only that, but that women are equal to women-- that the choice for one woman to be a housewife and mother, versus another woman to work and live childfree, are both valid-- it's not feminism that took away the former option from women, but it gave women the freedom to choose something else, and even for men to be househusbands and stay-at-home fathers if they wanted.

And even with my family being in this little bubble of matriarchy, I've eventually experienced-- and, well, suffered-- things that have been best explained by feminist social theories. I've never been raped, thank goodness, but my classmates would threaten to do that if I said anything that they didn't like-- and, because they were boys, I never had anything of the same impact with which to retort. My sister knew this, but ignored it just to say things like, "I can understand no boyfriends-- I mean, just look at you-- but no crushes? What else is wrong with you?" And I never understood why that rubbed me wrong, and called her boy-crazy and slut-shamed her in hopes that she would just shut up. Thanks to feminism, I realized that everything she told me held the undercurrent of that being an accessory for a man was all I was really good for. And that a part of me believed her. After being able to articulate this, I could get over myself and be more constructive.

The most difficult and valuable lesson I've learned was boundaries. What's my problem to deal with, that is really nobody else's business? What underhanded offenses can I ignore/forgive and just let go, because it's the other person's problem-- not mine? I've read and treasured articles by Erin Pavlina and Anna Conlan, who learned to set boundaries the hard way, through trials as professional psychics and personal conflicts as empaths. Feminist social theory analyzes how the boundaries of women specifically are regularly violated, and how even women just take that for granted as our right to do even though it's ill-founded. Building a strong foundation for boundaries based on deconstructing this sexist culture, allowed for the principle, the skill of respecting boundaries, to apply to everything else.

Originally Posted by Dimitri

What I'm interested in is why this subject is still relevant and why some people who live in North America insist that women are still being discriminated. That's no excuse to use for something that you can't do. If you live in North America, women can do just as much as they put their minds to.

Not completely. I think North American women enjoy a lot of rights that women in many other countries are deprived (such as not being set on fire just because your dowry's too low.)

But rape is still, for the most part, a gender-based hate crime (with 1 in 33 men having experienced sexual assault, while 1 in 6 women have experienced sexual assault,) this non-YouTube link says more of the same, a lot of careers have this "glass ceiling" thing to them (like this interview with two supreme court justices, being asked how many female supreme court justices were "enough" -- I think that's the kind of question you ask in professions that see gender first, not competence. Not to mention the perils of serving in the military if one identifies as female.)

North America can not say that they've fully achieved real gender equality and can stop now. There's a lot to be done, still.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Albalida

It's a miracle I got into feminism, actually.

...

Thanks a lot for this post. This was just the sort of thing I was looking for. You put a lot of time into this, and I appreciate it

[aelle]

I find your topic oddly-phrased, Andrew, and can't really figure out how to answer. I have similar feelings toward feminism as toward being a LGBTQ ally: I'll proudly stand for it, but it sucks that it is still relevant.

Originally Posted by Dimitri

If you live in North America, women can do just as much as they put their minds to.

I love how you manage in one swift sentence to dismiss any experience of discrimination women may have experienced in America, and blame them for it at the same time.

One double standard that I find particularly interesting is that success and likeability are positively correlated in men, and negatively correlated in women. In other words, successful, powerful, accomplished men are perceived as role models. Successful, etc, women are perceived as domineering b*tches. Sure, many women could become CEOs, but the system we live in makes them not want to. We are not facing the same choice.

[NoJobRob]

Originally Posted by aelle

One double standard that I find particularly interesting is that success and likeability are positively correlated in men, and negatively correlated in women. In other words, successful, powerful, accomplished men are perceived as role models. Successful, etc, women are perceived as domineering b*tches. Sure, many women could become CEOs, but the system we live in makes them not want to. We are not facing the same choice.

I have to disagree with that. My favorite boss of all time was a woman, and she rocked. With me it's not a woman's status that makes her a domineering b*tch, or a guy a domineering prick, it's their attitudes. It doesn't matter what anatomical configuration someone has between their legs, if they act like an a**hole, then they're an a**hole.

I like what Dimitri said about calling it Equalism. I think that's a much more constructive way to put it. Something just doesn't sit right with me when I see and hear pro *whatever* groups. Pro this gender or that gender, pro this race or that race, pro this religion or that religion. All I hear is "Me, me, me! It's all about me!" I think to achieve anything constructive, ever, we need to be fair and equal (obviously). The message needs to be one of unity. When you have different pockets of people who all basically want the same thing, but don't work together, you're left with different factions who stand on their own, but could be much more effective if they worked together for a common goal. I know this is pretty elementary and obvious, but the obvious is often overlooked. Plus I'm exhausted. LOL But anyway, I'd really like to see a movement start that shed any and all attachment to specific groups of people, and had a more all-inclusive name. Like The Equalist Movement. I think that would stand a much better chance of being heard, and since it would represent every person on the earth, one would be pretty hard pressed trying to oppose it or ignore it... Just my $0.02...

[ZephyrusX]

I think the problem with that is that there are groups of people with competing value systems that don't want to work together. In Canada, for example, we are having a problem with an increase in honor killings. There is clearly a conflict of value systems in this case: one that posits women as the property of men and one that thinks women are autonomous human beings with the right to life. Is there room for a constructive solution, in this regard?

How about pro-life vs pro-choice? Is there a constructive solution that doesn't blatantly disempower one group at the expense of the other?


Honor killing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by NoJobRob

The message needs to be one of unity. When you have different pockets of people who all basically want the same thing, but don't work together, you're left with different factions who stand on their own, but could be much more effective if they worked together for a common goal.

Having said that, I don't think the issues of marginalization as they apply to women can be neatly separated from the social issues that regulate masculinity, and to be fair, gender roles do disempower and harm men as well.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by NoJobRob

Like The Equalist Movement. I think that would stand a much better chance of being heard, and since it would represent every person on the earth, one would be pretty hard pressed trying to oppose it or ignore it... Just my $0.02...

The fact that it is so broad is exactly what would hamstring it. The larger the net you cast the harder it is to focus on a single vision and the more likely it is that internal conflict will end the movement before it can get off the ground.

Now, women's lib has already been pretty successful. There's a long way to go but at least you're not hamstrung at birth for being born with a vagina in first world nations. You could broaden the focus without sacrificing its integrity per se, but keep in mind that playing a semantics game isn't necessarily going to change the content of the debate or the course it takes. People who are against women's rights wouldn't support equalism because in their minds the genders are fundamentally unequal. If you, say, included race in this, you'd actually create a bit of strife because some people who support gender equality are neutral on racism, or perhaps they are racist even though they're not sexist. People have lots of conflicting beliefs and loyalties and because of that you create a cluster$%^# when you try to do too much with one thing.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Mounds

I'll be the first guy to say that I don't know the actual definition of feminism. That word falls under the topic of politics, and politics make me sleepy.

There's a reason debates about politics never end. They're always win-lose!

Well, if we want to get into the nitty-gritty of it, it's because the victors of the win-lose scenarios mostly have their own power/careers in mind when they make decisions. Politics is a realm of ideas and of course some ideas are going to lose-some of them should-and what ends up causing damage is politicians playing to corporate interests, religious fanatics, etc.

Not engaging a win/lose that the world has forced on us isn't changing things for the better, it's forfeiting. People who would oppose religious rights or women's empowerment or free speech should be completely and unequivocally defeated. That gets rid of the bad and paves the way for something better to take its place. Without destruction nothing new can be made.

Anyway, that's pretty far removed from the actual subject matter. It's relevant to the extent that it's a part of my philosophy concerning feminism but it's not addressing the core question. Regarding that... What Mariana said, basically. I'd add that denying women their due hurts men just as much, and the stereotypical macho-meathead persona is so far removed from real masculinity that catering to it kills the spirit and sustains systems of psychological control to such a degree that I'd cite it as a reason we don't have a more advanced and educated society in America. (Perhaps the west as a whole but I don't know enough to comment.) Gender is allowed to say too much about who someone is without their choosing and I think, perhaps, it's time feminism evolves to a larger movement that focuses on that and all the issues it creates.

[Lioness]

Feminism to me meant equal work, equal pay and the advancement of women into top management and into fields such as construction and engineering. The end of tolerating sexual harrassment.

I think some of the unintended consequences are:

It now takes 2 incomes to support the average middle-class family, whereas before it was more of a choice for mom to work outside the home.

The number of single mothers increased dramatically. The idea that mom can be a superwoman and do it all by herself.

Chivalry is dead or dying. Men bust in front of elderly women and ladies with babies to board a bus first all the time. And men used to refrain from cursing in front of women in public. I know, some women do it as much or more than guys do now, but there's still something so nice about a man who abides by a little old-fashioned courtesy.

If you saw "Starship Troopers", there was a scene where male and female officers showered together without anyone batting an eye. I think we are becoming more jaded to differences between the sexes, and it will be a sad day when unisex showers appear in the name of equality and when a (straight) man looks at a nude lady and has no reaction at all.

I also don't see how much longer we can justify an all-male military draft/registration. Not sure that's a good thing.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Lioness

The number of single mothers increased dramatically. The idea that mom can be a superwoman and do it all by herself.

Yes, all societies see the divorce rate (and therefore the number of single parents) skyrocket shortly after their women's lib movement. That's because women are no longer forced by safety or economical considerations to stay in abusive, stifling or simply miserable relationships. I would argue that this is generally a good thing.

Originally Posted by Lioness

If you saw "Starship Troopers", there was a scene where male and female officers showered together without anyone batting an eye. I think we are becoming more jaded to differences between the sexes, and it will be a sad day when unisex showers appear in the name of equality and when a (straight) man looks at a nude lady and has no reaction at all.

Ah, science fiction. I would also argue that this scenario is orders of magnitude better than today's truth: that women in the military are more likely to be raped by fellow male soldiers than to die at the hand of the enemy.

I have attended unisex saunas, which are common in some parts of the world (you know, for the purpose of relaxing in a steam room and enjoying a hot bath, not to get laid) and felt infinitely more comfortable-not sad at all- being naked in a general indifference than if the men present had been looking at me and, um, reacting.

Originally Posted by NoJobRob

I have to disagree with that.

It's not my opinion, it's peer-reviewed science (Burgess & Borgida, 1999; Heilman, 1983; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007).

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Lioness

It now takes 2 incomes to support the average middle-class family, whereas before it was more of a choice for mom to work outside the home.

I don't think that has anything to do with feminism. That's a result of other economic factors such as inflation and a rising standard of living.

The number of single mothers increased dramatically. The idea that mom can be a superwoman and do it all by herself.

I don't feel qualified to delve too deep into this but-at least in America-there's this odd idea that strength, independence, and individuality means not accepting anyone's help or advice, ever. It doesn't just impact women, rather it's the result of introducing feminism into a culture that still idealizes patriarchal values. As I said before, that's not good for anybody, and men are not only prone to a kind of superhuman attitude, it's encouraged. You're not supposed to feel. You can't appear like you don't know what you're doing or buckle under pressure because then you're weak.

One criticism I've leveled at the women's lib movement has been that a lot of women seek their freedom by acting more like men, or rather what society thinks a stereotypical man is supposed to be. Does that have anything to do with this issue in particular? I think aelle got closer to the root of it, but on a broader scale I'd imagine this is a factor, too.

Chivalry is dead or dying. Men bust in front of elderly women and ladies with babies to board a bus first all the time. And men used to refrain from cursing in front of women in public. I know, some women do it as much or more than guys do now, but there's still something so nice about a man who abides by a little old-fashioned courtesy.

To be frank, this is a good thing. The whole idea of "bad words" is pretty stupid to begin with, and while it might be considered rude to step in front of an elderly woman or what have you that's just general disrespectful behavior which isn't inherently gender charged. Busting in front of anyone is a dick move, and if someone isn't doing that then there's no reason they should have to cede their spot unless it's a genuine act of kindness. Equality means getting the same treatment regardless of which set of genitals you have and while it can be argued the standard of behavior should be bettered for everyone I don't think the death of chivalry in the classic sense is hurting anybody.

If you saw "Starship Troopers", there was a scene where male and female officers showered together without anyone batting an eye. I think we are becoming more jaded to differences between the sexes, and it will be a sad day when unisex showers appear in the name of equality and when a (straight) man looks at a nude lady and has no reaction at all.

We're all born naked, and in a different society we'd all walk around naked. It's natural, it's beautiful, and it would take a lot more than casual nudity for the spark of sexuality to fizzle out. (Just look at Europe.) There's a whole host of other factors which determine how something is perceived and making nudity a non-issue is way healthier than the seeming condemnation of the human form we see today.

I also don't see how much longer we can justify an all-male military draft/registration. Not sure that's a good thing.

My opinions on the draft are best saved for a thread where it's more appropriate. To keep it short, I don't think it should exist at all. As for voluntary military personnel, the more equality the better.

[ZephyrusX]

I agree that chivalry is pretty stupid. It is offensive as it is always framed in terms of what men do for women, which simultaneously implies that women have nothing to offer and overlooks people (not just women) who actually need help. Everyone has their weaknesses and strengths. From each, according to his/her ability; to each, according to his/her need. I will help people who actually need my help. That may mean giving up my seat to a man who just finished getting chemo therapy and is on the bus going home.

Originally Posted by Cado

To be frank, this is a good thing. The whole idea of "bad words" is pretty stupid to begin with, and while it might be considered rude to step in front of an elderly woman or what have you on a bus that's just general disrespectful behavior which isn't inherently gender charged. Busting in front of anyone is a dick move, and if someone isn't busting in front of someone else then there's no reason they should have to cede their spot unless it's a genuine act of kindness. Equality means getting the same treatment regardless of which set of genitals you have and while it can be argued the standard of behavior should be bettered for everyone I don't think the death of chivalry in the classic sense is hurting anybody.

[Albalida]

I might just be repeating what Cado said, but on the unintended consequences of feminism: Yes, the first consequence is better blamed on inflation.

Originally Posted by Lioness

The number of single mothers increased dramatically. The idea that mom can be a superwoman and do it all by herself.

That's still working on the patriarchal separate-but-equal thing. If feminism had gone far enough, than single fathers would roughly be just as common. Instead, we have a stereotype where mothers naturally know everything about their own children, while fathers are focused on their careers and vaguely aware of some very short people who also live with them. That's not equality.

Chivalry is dead or dying. Men bust in front of elderly women and ladies with babies to board a bus first all the time. And men used to refrain from cursing in front of women in public. I know, some women do it as much or more than guys do now, but there's still something so nice about a man who abides by a little old-fashioned courtesy.

I'm sure there are times when a guy comes in with an armload of stuff, and it's just basic manners to open the door for them if you're just standing nearby whether you're male or female. Why isn't it chivalrous if it's a female who opens the door, or draws a chair out, for a guy? If a bunch of guys censored themselves in front of me, I would just presume that they were looking for smarter ways to say what they really meant instead of just making swear-word noises. If they said that I wasn't fit to hear it just because I'm a girl, that would certainly be insulting. Also, that means they would swear freely in front of other guys-- whether those male individuals would be offended by swear words or not. Isn't that rude to other men, to other people, to stereotype them so? What's needed all around is a better sense of manners, for everyone. Not manners based on sexism.

I think we are becoming more jaded to differences between the sexes, and it will be a sad day when unisex showers appear in the name of equality and when a (straight) man looks at a nude lady and has no reaction at all.

I won't be sad. When that day comes, it would just be normal. Actually, there must have been a time where that was normal to begin with.
Evil begins when we start thinking of people as things, and sexual objectification of women was the first spark of that. How is it so terrible to do away with all potential for that? To have to depend on intellect, personality, and virtue, to sexually interest someone? Why is it so much better to isolate the physical appearance that it would be a tragedy if men wouldn't objectify women? I noticed that you didn't say it would be a sad day if a heterosexual woman looked at a naked man and felt nothing. Would it be a tragedy to you if she felt something?

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Lioness

It now takes 2 incomes to support the average middle-class family, whereas before it was more of a choice for mom to work outside the home.

I did hear some stuff by the anti-feminists that sounded like it made sense in that respect. The Powers That Be take advantage of women being able to work to be able to exploit them, too, and exploit the totality of employees more overall.

In part this spills over into the problem of exploitation and brainwashing by employers and the System (tm). It's good that women have the power to work, though, and potentially their extra presence could help us overturn the unfair work situation once and for all. (We can hope).

The number of single mothers increased dramatically. The idea that mom can be a superwoman and do it all by herself.

This seems like quite an American thing, I've not seen it in Europe but I have seen it in my contact with America via the internet and other media. It sounds crazy, kind of like women are being expected to be BOTH the old ideal of a woman and the new ideal. Women should be what they want to be... no more, no less.

I also wanted to comment that being a single parent could be a good thing. Or at least having the potential to be a single parent. Before, women who wanted children were dependent on finding Mr. Right. Now, if they can't or don't want to find such a guy, they can work things out on their own, and that does seem very empowering to me. From .. I don't know if I should say a LOA perspective, it seems very wrong to put your dreams in the hands of another person such as in the case of expecting a man to come along and make it possible to have kids.

Chivalry is dead or dying.

I think that's a good thing, even though chivalry was something that was imbalanced *in favour* of women. I don't think women have any particular need to have their needs looked after to the expense of men; they should be considered equal. I mean we don't need to open doors for them, if they can do it themselves.

In the past women needed to be looked after especially for the survival of the species. One man can impregnate many women, and a woman can look after only a certain number of children. So men were those who fought in wars and so on. They were more expendable. This is where a large part of the code of chivalry came from. Humanity doesn't have a problem with underpopulation any more, so we don't need this stuff, and it's actually a sort of anti-male discrimination. Anti-female discrimination is worse, but anti-male discrimination does exist in our culture.

Men bust in front of elderly women and ladies with babies to board a bus first all the time.

This is more a gender-inspecific case of being an assh*le than anything to do with the code of chivalry. I haven't lived 60 years ago when men were men and everything was in black and white, but I do think that people were often assh*les too back then.

If you saw "Starship Troopers", there was a scene where male and female officers showered together without anyone batting an eye. I think we are becoming more jaded to differences between the sexes, and it will be a sad day when unisex showers appear in the name of equality and when a (straight) man looks at a nude lady and has no reaction at all.

Ever been to a nudist beach? I think it's a wonderful thing to be able to look at a naked lady and not consider it something shocking or out of this world. You can still later get excited about her body when you're in a more sexualised setting. It's not an either/or situation.

I also don't see how much longer we can justify an all-male military draft/registration. Not sure that's a good thing.

What's wrong with it? Seems like that anti-male discrimination again. Men don't have to be chivalrous knights who sacrifice everything for women. If we're going for equality, women should also be able to make those traditionally male sacrifices.

That said I HATE war and I totally and utterly disagree with obligatory drafting. I get what you're saying if you say it's a bad thing if obligatory drafting for women means twice as many people get drafted. We should abolish obligatory drafting everywhere and then let women have total equality in the military

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

This is more a gender-inspecific case of being an assh*le than anything to do with the code of chivalry. I haven't lived 60 years ago when men were men and everything was in black and white, but I do think that people were often assh*les too back then.

I still live in black and white. It's a stylistic choice. I can show you how to change the settings if you'd like. You could also try high-contrast and super bright. You've just got to toy with the settings until you get something you like.

[ZephyrusX]

If you look at advertisements for anti-depressants and Ambilify (a fairly new drug marketed that is suppose to be taken with other anti-depressants), quite the few of them deliberately target the 'super-mom' - a working, professional women that comes home and takes care of her kids (and husband!). I thought that was crazy at first and didn't believe it, but yah... it is true.

I always thought clinical depression was indiscriminate; why is it marketed towards women then? Probably because the majority of people who get anti-depressants are women.

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

This seems like quite an American thing, I've not seen it in Europe but I have seen it in my contact with America via the internet and other media. It sounds crazy, kind of like women are being expected to be BOTH the old ideal of a woman and the new ideal. Women should be what they want to be... no more, no less.

[Lioness]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I mean we don't need to open doors for them, if they can do it themselves.

There's something I love about keeping little traditions like this. It's not like saying - you poor weak female, I, the big strong man will open the door for you. It's more of a respect thing. Like putting women on a pedestal as a tradition. I like being on a pedestal occasionally! I don't think this equates to discrimination, any more so than men greeting each other with a fist bump or shoulder bump, when they wouldn't do the same to a woman.

Ever been to a nudist beach? I think it's a wonderful thing to be able to look at a naked lady and not consider it something shocking or out of this world. You can still later get excited about her body when you're in a more sexualised setting. It's not an either/or situation.

Yeah, I thought about nude beaches. But they're not the norm and it's your choice to go there. Suppose fitness centers started adopting unisex locker rooms and showers. Suppose the bathrooms on your job and bathrooms in public building and malls were not designated by gender. Suppose school gyms and college dorms had all-gender bathrooms with open showers. Would we get used to it? Should we?

Men don't have to be chivalrous knights who sacrifice everything for women. If we're going for equality, women should also be able to make those traditionally male sacrifices...That said I HATE war and I totally and utterly disagree with obligatory drafting. I get what you're saying if you say it's a bad thing if obligatory drafting for women means twice as many people get drafted. ...)

More than just the draft, what bothers me is the idea of women going into infantry and other combat arms. Not because women are delicate little things that must be kept out of harm's way. But because IMO, this would compromise military effectiveness. Let's be real. With some exceptions, of course, men are bigger, stronger and faster. There are plenty of things women can do as well, if not better than men; fighting against men on a physical level isn't one of them. Even if a woman can meet the same physical fitness standards required of men (currently, there is a lower standard for women) and want to be infantry etc, I think the gender politics would still be a distraction. We can't afford to lessen our strength in combat - it's life and death, and the fate of a nation at stake.

We are different creatures and not interchangeable in all situations. I think there are still a few things that should be kept women/girls only and some men/boys only.

[ZephyrusX]

I'm sort of confused by what you mean by feminism-positive. You seem to be implying in the other thread that any point of view that promotes conflict is not good. I see some merit in that, but I also think conflict is a defining characteristic of human society. In saying that, I don't mean to suggest that we are at 'war' or that I spend the majority of my time 'struggling'. I'm actually pretty laid back despite my interest in politics. What I mean to say is that I know very well that my values go against the values of other groups in society, but I take a stand for what I believe in knowing that scare resources will be allocated towards the programs I believe will create a society where men and women can have equal opportunity regardless of their historical, class or racial background. I know in doing so that I will be depriving other groups of that power and scare resources. It is conflict.

To dismiss conflict or critical theory from feminism is sort of reminiscent to the 'bitchy feminists' dialogue that tries to dismiss feminist thought as being propagated by 'angry, bra burning feminists'. There is 'no relevance' to be found in feminism from this perspective. We are 'just' angry women with a bone to pick with men.

There is relevance though. I don't believe that all women (and men) have equal opportunity in North America (let alone in some third world countries!). Besides equal opportunity, I would also define feminism as theoretical discourses and practical action that is simply meant to empower women, and so long as there are women, there will always be feminist* discourses as our needs will always change as our environment (law, technology, medicine) changes. Human society is politics and conflict. You can ignore it if you want, but it doesn't change that fact.

* Some professors want to change feminism to womens' studies to put more emphasis on the need to address womens' issues as opposed to the politic of equal opportunity. I'm not sure how I feel about that one.

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I'd like to hear about feminism from you guys. I'm particularly interested in feminism-positive points of view. (See this post for an explanation on this: How To Meet People Who Are Into Polyamory ) Feel free to say whatever you like about feminism, but as I said I'm particularly interested in those viewpoints, and I'd like to encourage long debates about feminism to happen in other threads.

I know there is the age-old problem with labels, but I think we've all heard that so let's assume here that labels are okay or can at least be used for the sake of understanding.

So tell me what your thoughts on feminism are. What does it mean to you? How do you live it? Why does it need to exist in this world?

I'm listening

[aelle]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Besides equal opportunity, I would also define feminism as theoretical discourses and practical action that is simply meant to empower women, and so long as there are women, there will always be feminist* discourses as our needs will always change as our environment (law, technology, medicine) changes. Human society is politics and conflict. You can ignore it if you want, but it doesn't change that fact.

* Some professors want to change feminism to womens' studies to put more emphasis on the need to address womens' issues as opposed to the politic of equal opportunity. I'm not sure how I feel about that one.

I hear what you are saying (and you are making a very useful distinction here), but as for the bolded part, I really hope this will not be the case. I believe it is possible that a time will come when there are still genders and sexes but no gender discrimination.

Oppressions can end - in France, I think you can safely say that no one gives a crap if you are a protestant. There is still a Roman Catholic church and there are still protestant believers, but apart from private considerations of personal beliefs, there isn't any public interest, let alone discrimination. What Christian denomination you come from is no longer a relevant identity through which to consider your environment.

The fact that this is the only example I can think of off the top of my head, and that it isn't even applicable to the whole of the Western world, isn't super positive, I know, but hey...

[ZephyrusX]

I think it is possible to end discrimination as well. I was thinking more in terms of womens' issues when I wrote the bold part. In Canada, there is a discussion in universities over whether we ought to rename the discipline of feminism to womens' studies. I don't think it is a good idea as it obfuscates the politics of equal opportunity, patriarchy and discrimination, in my mind. Ha! I have to wonder why I defined feminism the way that I did then.

The undergraduate courses that I took were called womens' studies (if I recall correctly) and some of the issues we addressed didn't seem to directly pertain to structural marginalization and discrimination. A lot of it was about female sexuality and reproduction and current issues on those topics, but it wasn't framed in what I would consider a feminist discourse. It was more like, 'Here are some issues that are important to your sex! Learn!'

May be the instructor did that though as there isn't must emphasis in popular society placed upon female sexuality and reproduction. A lot of stuff I learned in that class was actually new to me.

Originally Posted by aelle

I hear what you are saying (and you are making a very useful distinction here), but as for the bolded part, I really hope this will not be the case. I believe it is possible that a time will come when there are still genders and sexes but no gender discrimination.

Oppressions can end - in France, I think you can safely say that no one gives a crap if you are a protestant. There is still a Roman Catholic church and there are still protestant believers, but apart from private considerations of personal beliefs, there isn't any public interest, let alone discrimination. What Christian denomination you come from is no longer a relevant identity through which to consider your environment.

The fact that this is the only example I can think of off the top of my head, and that it isn't even applicable to the whole of the Western world, isn't super positive, I know, but hey...

[Mariana Trench]

The basics?
Feminism is the reason any progress in these areas has been made:

Women being able to make the choice to have sex, or not, and with whom, without being shamed or forced.

Women being able to do things in the world like make their own money (and therefore not be economically forced to get married),

Women being able to have their ideas and art not automatically dismissed (without pretending to be a man).

Women being able to have an influence on the world socially and politically.

Men and women being able to transgress traditional gender norms without facing unnecessary consequences in their communities.

And to the extent that those principles are still compromised, it continues to work for change in that direction.

Feminism is also a massive resource from a personal development standpoint, as its analysis provides an extra tool for critically examining the (often harmful) messages society gives us about sex and gender.

That's just the beginning too--there are all sorts of niche ways feminist analysis is helpful in PD.

[Andrew Gubb]

Men and women being able to transgress traditional gender norms without facing unnecessary consequences in their communities.

On this note, I think there needs to be more effort put into it for men. Women managed to be able to wear male clothes, whereas men can only really go so far as to wear their hair long. I'd like to see us be able to wear dresses or similar if we want to.

As for the rest of that post, I have just two words (so far): ...attempted rep.

[Andrew Gubb]

I'm sort of confused by what you mean by feminism-positive. You seem to be implying in the other thread that any point of view that promotes conflict is not good.

I'm really not sure why you think I am implying that views that promote conflict are not good, and I really don't understand what you're getting at with the rest of that post...... something not quite clicking here

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I know there is the age-old problem with labels, but I think we've all heard that so let's assume here that labels are okay or can at least be used for the sake of understanding.

And as a side note, I don't think there's a problem with labels, per se. There's a problem with people using labels as the sole and most-important way to define and identify themselves and others, especially when those labels make inaccurate assumptions or are used as weapons.

[Albalida]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I think the problem with that is that there are groups of people with competing value systems that don't want to work together. In Canada, for example, we are having a problem with an increase in honor killings. There is clearly a conflict of value systems in this case: one that posits women as the property of men and one that thinks women are autonomous human beings with the right to life. Is there room for a constructive solution, in this regard?

I wouldn't consider one person's desire to murder, and the murder victim's desire to live, as a mere difference of opinion. One defining trait about a human right is that everybody has them: free speech, privacy, pursuit of happiness. If the enjoyment of your rights has to end so that mine can begin, then not only do you not have any rights anymore, but neither do I-- I have privilege, disguised as a right.

If someone says Twilight is the greatest love story ever told and I disagree, then I have as much freedom as they do to say what's on my mind. Or roll my eyes and go somewhere else, write in my diary, complain to like-minded friends. And watch/read something I really like.

It doesn't hurt me for them to enjoy their Eclipse / New Moon / Midnight Sun marathon with their friends, and it's actually no skin off their nose if I don't like it. They're not setting werewolves on me to tear my throat out so I can never say another word in detriment to perfect Edward Cullen, and I'm not calling for book-burning, movie censoring, and franchise banning. If that did happen, then one or the other's rights have been infringed upon.

Take the same template and apply it to something more serious...

How about pro-life vs pro-choice? Is there a constructive solution that doesn't blatantly disempower one group at the expense of the other?

If you believe that an embryo in your body is a person who you're obliged to carry to term and support, that you want to birth alive and nurture and watch grow and fulfill their potential, then don't get an abortion.

But don't tell other people what to do with their... not even their kids, because it's not yet only their kids, it's also entangled with the other person's body, which is an extremely intimate thing to presume to dictate, and a very large factor to ignore.

I first mentioned the matter of one person enjoying murder at the cost of another person enjoying their life. However, this isn't the case with terminating pregnancies because for both to live, the host must suffer.

It's quite disingenuous to direct an entire system to force someone to withstand nine months of discomfort, hours of horribly painful contractions, genital tearing, the stress of which has a chance of them dying even with present advances in medical technology. If you would personally go through all that or even die so that your unborn child would fulfill their potential, that would be respected as your choice-- but that has to be a choice, and that means allowing other individuals not to do the same.


Shakesville: You have no rights

Rights are for all. When only some people have them, they're just privileges. And privileges can be taken away.

Think through the consequences of what equal rights for all really means, and you wind up with a system that doesn't look much like what we have now. There's lots more about it here, but this is the bit (paraphrased) that concerns us right now:

The right to control one’s own person is fundamental. Even the right not to be murdered is secondary, since killing is allowed in self-defence.

Abortion muddies the argument only because some people believe the fetus is a person with legal rights greater than those of the mother since it can require her life support. There is nothing to stop women from believing this and living accordingly because there is a right to control one’s own body. Depending on beliefs, an individual's dilemma about abortion may be very complex.

But fair social policies are simple. Either every one can live according to their beliefs, or nobody can.

[ZephyrusX]

I agree. Nicely said. My questions were more rhetorical than anything else.

Originally Posted by Albalida

I wouldn't consider one person's desire to murder, and the murder victim's desire to live, as a mere difference of opinion. One defining trait about a human right is that everybody has them: free speech, privacy, pursuit of happiness. If the enjoyment of your rights has to end so that mine can begin, then not only do you not have any rights anymore, but neither do I-- I have privilege, disguised as a right.

[Albalida]

Mostly stolen from the irrepressible Melissa McEwan, since your rhetoric is something that many others offer in all sincerity, so it certainly deserved to be addressed

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I agree. Nicely said. My questions were more rhetorical than anything else.