Welcome to Gaia! ::

JuiceBox974
Onolia
JuiceBox974
The problem is most "feminists" want equal rights but at the same time to be treated like a lady (or have special privileges). I find most feminists to be hypocritical with the exception of few. I'm sure this has already been said though.

Like with just about anything, everything is good to an extent... Feminism being a golden example.


Unsubstantiated generalisation is unsubstantiated.
Your point has been found null and void.
Have a nice day.


Sadly that is the way most feminists come off to me. I have not studied feminism to the point of being an expert (or knowing much at all) but unfortunately the most I've been exposed to have been uneducated females thinking they deserve "equal" rights but at the same time be treated with chivalry. If anything all they complain about is sexism.

As a woman myself I'm not against having equal rights, but I do believe men and women are different and therefore should be treated differently.

So you are right, my opinion is null and void but sadly... it's the truth.

Please prove me wrong. I would very much like to be given valid points from a feminist.


So, you admit you know virtually nothing about feminism but feel comfortable enough to make massive sweeping generalisations about feminists based on sketchy anecdotal evidence... now, that kind of rationalisation is the furthest antipodes you can get from understanding the 'truth'.
Chivalry is not high on feminist agenda...if at all. Generally feminists tend to be divided on the issue of chivalry with feminsts who favour complete abolition of gender being against chivalry. This is because chivalry reinforces the gender divide where men are prescribed one set of behaviours and women another. Feminists for chivalry argue that in the current social context women are often victims of male intimate violence and male sexual harassment. Typically men are stronger then women and can easily enforce their will through physical violence on women if they choose to do so. The social rules that chivalry embodies teaches men to not be violent towards women, and also teaches them to be respectful towards women by doing simply gestures like opening a door for a woman. So those are the two binary argument.
Again this tends not to be major issue in feminism, there are much more serious social issues for feminists to worry about then men opening doors for them or not. However I will say that from my own experience on these threads, the issue of chivalry tends to cause men a lot of anxiety opposed to feminists. Feminists are kind of blamed and I think this is probably where you adopted your argument, rather then actually 'encountering' feminists, but that's speculative. Equal rights denotes equal treatment and men sometimes find it hard to orientate themselves in a social situation that chivalry maybe expected from them. On the one hand they want to respectful to women by engaging in chivalrous act, but on the other hand they don't want to offend women by giving them special treatment which indicates that they are unequals. It's a kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario because either action or inaction could potentially cause offence. So yeah, chivalry in itself is not a big issue in feminist discourse, but is often misconstrued as one because some men make a big deal of it.
Below is an example of a feminist argument for chivalry and a criticism of radical feminism.

Tiny Roar's avatar

Seeker

8,250 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Popular Thread 100
Onolia
iMOOFINz
Onolia
iMOOFINz
User Image
I think that the Men's rights movement is sort of replacing feminism, but for good cause. Feminism is good, yeah, but it's also starting for some women to be this stage for "all men are evil and deserve castration". Which is just as sick and evil as men who beat women. I mean, there's a time and place for "angry feminism" like in the movie Hard Candy, I think that was an appropriate setting to display and call out some of the "evil" of men. However, the workplace is not a soap box for women's rights... for example, my brother was telling me he read this article about these guys at a convention for work, and they were sitting in front of this woman and making jokes about penises. The woman filed a complaint for sexual harassment, stating that making those jokes was a direct attack on women in the workforce and that the two men should be fired.
It ended up that all three individuals were fired. My brother, being really into the Men's rights movement, kind of suggested that the woman should have just excepted it because the workplace is man's territory and men have to adjust for changing gender roles. Which is bullshit, but oh well.
Idk, I just thought that I'd share ^__^


I hate to break it to you but the male rights movement (MRM) is actually relatively small and has been described by some social justice organizations as a hate group due to its misogynistic undertones. Universities tend to steer away from the male rights movement because of this and they tend to not allow male rights societies and groups to operate within the university due to these concerns. Your assertion that male rights movement is replacing feminism, is unfounded. There are few universities that teach male rights and the majority of them want nothing to do with the movement in its current paradigm. Male rights have this ******** up logic that if women speak out against misogyny then they need to try and silence their complaints by using misogynistic hate campaigns. For example the case your brother used was that of Adria Richards and she received alot of heat from MRM because she had made this 'stand' against sexism, and they retaliated with rape and death threats in an personal online hate campaign against her. I mean, come on, if someone is going to be apart of a movement that claims society is matriarchal and misandric, why then promote misogyny against women- it's totally self defeating.
I am sympathetic towards the plight of men, but guys like your brother could probably learn a lot about gender roles and gender inequality by studying feminism, opposed to listening to the misogynistic rhetoric promoted by MRM that blames women for all men's ills.

((sorry, late reply, holidays and all.))

I don't think my brother has any hatred/misogynistic tendencies towards women and is actually one of the most loving and kind hearted people I know. However, I do recognize that society has pampered women, giving them rights... rights that violate the rights of men (child support, abortion etc). I do know that there are movements that starting around the 70's (Although I admit I haven't researched them much) in retaliation to women's rights movements-- they made ignorant statements such as "men are the dominant gender because they are stronger and smarter and more capable, yada yada blah blah blah"
But I don't think it's fair or right to label every man who is supports generic "men's rights" as being a misogynist.

In the end, fact is that women are women, men are men. There's nothing wrong with either and in this modern age is foolish to argue about women being better or men being better. Like I said in my original post, there's a time and place for angry feminism, but a lot of the time it's just irrelevant--- and so is men's rights as well in most cases. In a work environment? irrelevant. Unless you know you have been the victim of a hate crime because of your gender, it really doesn't matter either way. I think very few men in the world see women as being the cause of all man's ills (or vice versa). The people you're talking about are likely extremists and don't speak for everyone.

So I wanted to really address what you've said, but since there's a lot I'll (respectfully) break it down into segments. I'm replying more out of a curious standpoint than an argumentative one, just to be clear smile

Onolia

Most men in the male rights movement swear that they are not misogynistic or sexist. You have to understand that prejudice is a dirty word and people do not like to be called a bigot. However the reality is that when you strip away at the actual content of the movement, you'll find some very harrowing core beliefs which does not resonate with what is actually happening in the world. For example you speak about women being afforded more child support rights then men... but the reality is that child support laws are sex blind so the legislation cannot give gender preferential treatment as you infer. I am willing to argue that in the US child support laws can cause negative outcomes, however because it can happen to either gender as the non-custodial parent can be the mother or the father, it is not a gender issue as the male rights movement would have you believe.

You say that child support laws are gender neutral, but there are laws that, lets say, in the event of a divorce between a man and a women, why is it usually the man who takes on responsibilities such as mortgages, medical bills, ect, even after a divorce is finalized? Some might say this is due to women making lower wages then men, but then that's an issue to take up with the labor department-- er.. whoever

Onolia
Abortion laws are related to an individual's right to bodily integrity. Men cannot have abortions because they do not have wombs in which to conceive a foetus to abort. Once again that is not sexism as male rights movement would allude to that is biology[[.....]]
Plus you need to understand about rights. Feminism in western society is not really a rights movement as women have equal rights. Many of the male rights groups will tell you us women have more rights then men but realistically most rights are sex blind. The only time where rights are gendered are reproductive rights, where women's reproductive rights are extended past the point of conception because they have a womb. The general point of feminism is to address issues of social inequality facing women, however this can be expanded out to more abstract interpretations where feminism examines the experiences of women- but we don't need to go into that.


See this is one thing I can't get behind ya on. Yes, a women has a womb due to biology, and a man has sperm due to biology. (when a maaaaan lovess a wooomaaannn~*cough* sorry) I would not chalk this up to sexism either, but simply a flaw in the system...The way "the system" is, a woman can get an abortion without consent from the father. Yes, having a baby can damage the body, but what about the emotional damages abortion can have on a father? What if a man thought he could never have children due to low sperm count and then his girlfriend aborts what probably was his only chance to have a child of his own? (I realize that's a stretch but still, it happens) Some countries who recognize the paternal rights of fathers have laws that prevent abortion without the consent of the father. (Of course, this could be avoided by bringing a friend and just saying they're the father, but I guess it's the thought that counts lol)

Onolia

So you haven't done much research but you still want to have a pop at what feminists of that time said.... that's not exactly a great game plan, and I mean that kindly, I just think that you should probably do your own research before buying into anything someone is trying to sell you- especially when it comes to ideology. Feminism's roots go way back into the nineteenth century, but is usually defined by its three waves during the twentieth century staring with the first wave in the early twentieth century, then the second wave in the late sixties to early seventies and then the third wave in the late nineties. It's really ignorant to say that society 'pampered' women with rights, when actually women fought for their rights. It's like saying that society 'pampered' black Americans with rights, and pretending the civil rights movement never existed and the government one day just 'decided' to generously give people equality. Women had to fight for their equality and the right to have the same opportunities as men.


I'll tell you one thing, I really should have said this early on, but I'm not a men's rights activist...a Maninist? .... or a feminist. I'm a humanist. Anyways, what I meant by the whole "pampered" thing is not that women don't or have not fought for equality, but just that in today's society, especially when it comes to the court system, women have had an easier time and in some cases I believe preferential treatment, although I can't exactly prove that with reliable statistic data... it seems every site on the matter has some sort of biased agenda. Don't quite think "DadsDivorce.com" is going to give me fair and balanced info.

Onolia

So how does feminism fit into day? [[...]] Women are often exploited and marginalised in many aspects of society, and this is one of the reasons why governments will


Can you provide examples of this treatment? -- As a woman... I don't feel exploited or marginalized. surprised I know that whatever I want to do I can do it-- it may take a lot of work and I might have to kiss a few asses along the way, but I won't and in most cases no woman has been for a long time (at least in western culture--) told she couldn't do something because she is a women. (except for that obviously women can't do, like a prostate exam lol)

Onolia

have a department specialising in issues of gender equality and implementing action plans to reduce inequality. Two of the main areas of concern are violence against women and women in the labour market. Violence against women covers a lot including gential mutilation, arranged marriage ect, but one of the most prominent features is domestic violence. From reported crime statistics, domestic violence is a gendered issue meaning that it occurs at a disproportionate ratio where women are much more likely to be victims then men. Feminists explore the dynamics of male on female domestic violence and advises government and charities on how to counsel women and rehabilitate men. It should be noted that feminists do acknowledge male victims of domestic violence and emphasise the need for more male specialist services. However from a social policy point of view, often male services which have been set up in that past have been underused which contrasts sharply against female services which often have waiting lists.


Just a thought on this..... why is it that these two departments need to be segregated? I understand that there are different needs for men and different needs for women... but can't help be just that...Help? no matter your gender?

I'll also point out that think the awareness movement of domestic violence towards men likely started as just an awareness movement, nothing more. Like Diabetes, or protecting endangered species. But I do think that some have used it as an argument against feminist, saying "seeeee women can be just as violent" but that's just silly. (I mean, we can be just as violent as a man, but it doesn't work as a generalized statement...)

Onolia

In labour, women are often excluded from the labour market as they are sidelined into care giving roles. Or alternatively they have to fit in work around their care giving responsibilities. As a consequence women make up around 80% of low wage labour force in most western countries. Women with good qualifications will often take unskilled lower paid work in order to fit around child caring responsibilities. This can be a demotivating experience and a waste of potential for both the individual and the firm which employs them.


I'm all for raising minimum wage for everyone.... Not just women.

Onolia

These are only few, and if you go beyond the scope of social policy, there are issues like body image, eating disorders, recognition for unpaid work by caregivers, representation of women in the media, the division of domestic labour- the list is really long and the government usually only cares about the issues which costs it money. Many of those things on the list are actually being thwarted by feminist groups and charities to improve the opportunities of women.


Men also have eating disorders-- this is actually a lot more common than the domestic violence issue.

I'm all for making quality of life better, but I just don't see how women struggle more than men. I don't see why we need to specify "this is a women's charity" vs "this is a men's charity" or "This is a gay charity" or "this is a gnome charity" why can't giving and support just be like I said earlier, "help?"


Onolia

Social inequality exists and it creates all kinds of problems for all kinds of people. I'm sure you and your brother are well meaning people, but I don't think you understand the nature of the society we live- and many people don't. It's unfair and nasty, and that's why people get suckered into these hate groups. I can understand the appeal of the male rights movement to men who feel disenchanted with society, and it goes back to the grass is always greener on the otherside- or in this case, women in society are 'pampered' and while men are not. But you need to understand that both women and men can have a hard time, and will continue to have a hard time until the underlying issues which reproduce this gender inequality within society are abolished. And that is what feminism does, and that is why we need feminism- desperately.


I understand the nature of the society I live in... it's one where yes, there's some nastiness, there's hatred, there's war and there's ugliness. But for the most part I have never felt that society shames me for being a women, or anything of that nature.

I think feminism can be good, but there's a lot of bad in it too. I think that some people are threatened by feminism and see it almost the same as racism or sexism.... but I understand that it does have good qualities, and shouldn't be compared like that.

When we all understand that people are just people and stop seeing gender, skin tone, nationality, etc.... and just see a person, I think that is when society will become at least a bit more peaceful and happy.
I understand why men are so against feminism just look at the way feminists treat men (you can claim that is just radicals but if that is the only exposure men have you have to ask 1: are they really that small of a group and 2: why don't "non-radical" feminists reach out to more men show what feminism is.)

But my real question is why are so many women against feminism? I heard only 20% of women call themselves feminist. Many women are against feminism because they don't feel discriminated against and see feminism as man hating. Are these women wrong? Also why do so many feminist scholars leave feminism and start talking against it?

Also why are so many PoC and LGBT (minus the L of course) so against feminism? Feminists say they are fighting for the rights of PoC and LGBT, so why do we have things like #solidarityisforwhitewomen?
iMOOFINz

So I wanted to really address what you've said, but since there's a lot I'll (respectfully) break it down into segments. I'm replying more out of a curious standpoint than an argumentative one, just to be clear smile


That's fine biggrin

iMOOFINz
Onolia

Most men in the male rights movement swear that they are not misogynistic or sexist. You have to understand that prejudice is a dirty word and people do not like to be called a bigot. However the reality is that when you strip away at the actual content of the movement, you'll find some very harrowing core beliefs which does not resonate with what is actually happening in the world. For example you speak about women being afforded more child support rights then men... but the reality is that child support laws are sex blind so the legislation cannot give gender preferential treatment as you infer. I am willing to argue that in the US child support laws can cause negative outcomes, however because it can happen to either gender as the non-custodial parent can be the mother or the father, it is not a gender issue as the male rights movement would have you believe.

You say that child support laws are gender neutral, but there are laws that, lets say, in the event of a divorce between a man and a women, why is it usually the man who takes on responsibilities such as mortgages, medical bills, ect, even after a divorce is finalized? Some might say this is due to women making lower wages then men, but then that's an issue to take up with the labor department-- er.. whoever


There is some speculation that the actual court system itself is bias against men. So rather then legislation being gender bias, it is the actors involved in the justice process like lawyers, judges ect that give women preferential treatment. However you have to keep in mind that statistical most couples with dependent children that break up, will decide between themselves who has custody of the children. Courts will only decide who gets what if their is a custody dispute.
Another point is that the government and justice system will act in a way to cover their own backs, meaning that they will want an outcome which is best for the family and the government. The welfare state does not want to pick up the pieces of broken family, so will often place a certain amount of fiscal responsibility upon the non-custodial parent. I'm not saying its right, but I'm saying that it's not the fruit of feminism, but rather other political and economic forces at work.


iMOOFINz
Onolia
Abortion laws are related to an individual's right to bodily integrity. Men cannot have abortions because they do not have wombs in which to conceive a foetus to abort. Once again that is not sexism as male rights movement would allude to that is biology[[.....]]
Plus you need to understand about rights. Feminism in western society is not really a rights movement as women have equal rights. Many of the male rights groups will tell you us women have more rights then men but realistically most rights are sex blind. The only time where rights are gendered are reproductive rights, where women's reproductive rights are extended past the point of conception because they have a womb. The general point of feminism is to address issues of social inequality facing women, however this can be expanded out to more abstract interpretations where feminism examines the experiences of women- but we don't need to go into that.


See this is one thing I can't get behind ya on. Yes, a women has a womb due to biology, and a man has sperm due to biology. (when a maaaaan lovess a wooomaaannn~*cough* sorry) I would not chalk this up to sexism either, but simply a flaw in the system...The way "the system" is, a woman can get an abortion without consent from the father. Yes, having a baby can damage the body, but what about the emotional damages abortion can have on a father? What if a man thought he could never have children due to low sperm count and then his girlfriend aborts what probably was his only chance to have a child of his own? (I realize that's a stretch but still, it happens) Some countries who recognize the paternal rights of fathers have laws that prevent abortion without the consent of the father. (Of course, this could be avoided by bringing a friend and just saying they're the father, but I guess it's the thought that counts lol)


Again its down to bodily integrity. Everyone has the right to their own bodily autonomy in the eyes of the law (well in most western countries). There are cases where women going through medical treatment that could potentially affect their fertility, will freeze their eggs which has been inseminated with their partners sperm, so they can have children at a later date. However at the later date the couple has broken up, and the woman whose only hope of having children rests with those frozen eggs is told she cannot use those eggs because her ex refuses to give consent. So it's a grey area.
The problem with abortion is that people tend to over look its deeply unpleasant nature. It's kind of naive to think that there can be a win-win situation for all parties involved. Also from historical point of view where abortion has been banned and restricted, women have resorted to other means in order to get an abortion. For example in Ireland, girls will come to England to get an abortion there, or in the US when abortion was banned, there was the rise of the back street abortionist. It's not an easy situation to deal with, and I am genuinely sympathetic to men who have found themselves in this situation, however I still support pro-choice because I feel it is the lesser of two evils in light of the above.


iMOOFINz
Onolia

So you haven't done much research but you still want to have a pop at what feminists of that time said.... that's not exactly a great game plan, and I mean that kindly, I just think that you should probably do your own research before buying into anything someone is trying to sell you- especially when it comes to ideology. Feminism's roots go way back into the nineteenth century, but is usually defined by its three waves during the twentieth century staring with the first wave in the early twentieth century, then the second wave in the late sixties to early seventies and then the third wave in the late nineties. It's really ignorant to say that society 'pampered' women with rights, when actually women fought for their rights. It's like saying that society 'pampered' black Americans with rights, and pretending the civil rights movement never existed and the government one day just 'decided' to generously give people equality. Women had to fight for their equality and the right to have the same opportunities as men.


I'll tell you one thing, I really should have said this early on, but I'm not a men's rights activist...a Maninist? .... or a feminist. I'm a humanist. Anyways, what I meant by the whole "pampered" thing is not that women don't or have not fought for equality, but just that in today's society, especially when it comes to the court system, women have had an easier time and in some cases I believe preferential treatment, although I can't exactly prove that with reliable statistic data... it seems every site on the matter has some sort of biased agenda. Don't quite think "DadsDivorce.com" is going to give me fair and balanced info.

The problem is that the voice that you tend to hear speculating about women's preferential treatment, are in fact disenchanted men who feel wronged by society and their baby's mama. So you are right to assume that sites like DadsDivorce.com will have an axe to grind. From a research point of view, the statistical evidence shows that around 90% of custody cases are resolved without legal intervention, and majority of those cases, approx 85%, sees women becoming the custodial parent. I think the US 2002 census showed out 12 million single parent families, 10 million of those were women. There is allsorts you can infer from this, but the reality is that the amount custody disputes that go through the courts is relatively low, so it is difficult to judge if women are given preferential treatment. And you also have to consider other socio-economic factors because in past studies of female crime, white women are often shown preferential treatment, while ethnic women are shown none or even less.

iMOOFINz
Onolia

So how does feminism fit into day? [[...]] Women are often exploited and marginalised in many aspects of society, and this is one of the reasons why governments will


Can you provide examples of this treatment? -- As a woman... I don't feel exploited or marginalized. surprised I know that whatever I want to do I can do it-- it may take a lot of work and I might have to kiss a few asses along the way, but I won't and in most cases no woman has been for a long time (at least in western culture--) told she couldn't do something because she is a women. (except for that obviously women can't do, like a prostate exam lol)


I gave examples in the text that followed i.e. labour, caregivers, media, division of labour ect. But the easiest way to see how women are marginalised is by looking at their representation in positions of power and authority- and you'll find that it is universally under-represented and monopolised by white rich old men D:

iMOOFINz
Onolia

have a department specialising in issues of gender equality and implementing action plans to reduce inequality. Two of the main areas of concern are violence against women and women in the labour market. Violence against women covers a lot including gential mutilation, arranged marriage ect, but one of the most prominent features is domestic violence. From reported crime statistics, domestic violence is a gendered issue meaning that it occurs at a disproportionate ratio where women are much more likely to be victims then men. Feminists explore the dynamics of male on female domestic violence and advises government and charities on how to counsel women and rehabilitate men. It should be noted that feminists do acknowledge male victims of domestic violence and emphasise the need for more male specialist services. However from a social policy point of view, often male services which have been set up in that past have been underused which contrasts sharply against female services which often have waiting lists.


Just a thought on this..... why is it that these two departments need to be segregated? I understand that there are different needs for men and different needs for women... but can't help be just that...Help? no matter your gender?


The type of help that men and women need is often very different. Statistically men who are victims of domestic violence often do not perceive themselves as victims and when they do they are to ashamed to ask for help. That is consequence of the hyper masculine society we live in, where emasculation can be extremely traumatising to men. So both men and women need different action plans to suit their needs.

Quote:
I'll also point out that think the awareness movement of domestic violence towards men likely started as just an awareness movement, nothing more. Like Diabetes, or protecting endangered species. But I do think that some have used it as an argument against feminist, saying "seeeee women can be just as violent" but that's just silly. (I mean, we can be just as violent as a man, but it doesn't work as a generalized statement...)


I'm sure the guys doing it are well meaning, but they are under this misconception that feminists are stealing resources from them which is stopping male services from being implemented- but the reality is that the goverment doesn't want to fund such projects... which again sucks.

iMOOFINz
Onolia

In labour, women are often excluded from the labour market as they are sidelined into care giving roles. Or alternatively they have to fit in work around their care giving responsibilities. As a consequence women make up around 80% of low wage labour force in most western countries. Women with good qualifications will often take unskilled lower paid work in order to fit around child caring responsibilities. This can be a demotivating experience and a waste of potential for both the individual and the firm which employs them.


I'm all for raising minimum wage for everyone.... Not just women.


The point is that women are facing labour barriers that prevent them from entering better jobs. So they end up taking low wage work because that is all they can do. Raising the minimum wage is likely to do nothing. These type of jobs are what we call in economics 'low road' meaning that the industry is based on price competitiveness opposed to innovation. Cheap labour is needed to survive and when the labour market can't provide that, it packs up and heads abroad to foreign labour market which can provide that... net result is people loose their jobs.



iMOOFINz
Onolia

These are only few, and if you go beyond the scope of social policy, there are issues like body image, eating disorders, recognition for unpaid work by caregivers, representation of women in the media, the division of domestic labour- the list is really long and the government usually only cares about the issues which costs it money. Many of those things on the list are actually being thwarted by feminist groups and charities to improve the opportunities of women.


Men also have eating disorders-- this is actually a lot more common than the domestic violence issue.


I am not denying men have eating disorders. You have to understand that when women are making up huge ratios, it indicates something is wrong on a social level. If eating disorders just occurred out the blue like flu, then we would expect to see hardly any gender imbalance. However when women are making up approx 90% of people with eating disorders, then we know something is wrong, and something has to be done.

iMOOFINz
I'm all for making quality of life better, but I just don't see how women struggle more than men. I don't see why we need to specify "this is a women's charity" vs "this is a men's charity" or "This is a gay charity" or "this is a gnome charity" why can't giving and support just be like I said earlier, "help?"


Generic help is not going to help- because people are not generic. We live in an unequal society, and in order to understand and help individuals you need to know the mechanisations of inequality which are troubling them. But these mechanisations are not the same for everyone. A child in poverty will need different help, to a girl with bulimia, or a suicidal man. Charities play a very powerful role as they will specialise in very specific areas and fund specific research that focuses on specific social aspects. We don't have one big help charity because society is to big for one individual to understand, so we have to break it down. Even in feminism, women will specialise in very specific fields, so for domestic violence some feminists will only focus on the rehabilitation of male perpetrators in a particular geographical area. Plus you have to realise that for most of us we have have to go to uni and train, and we are limited to what we can do, so I specialise in social policy and that's generally what I do. I can't have a pop at doing something that I am not qualified to do.

iMOOFINz
Onolia

Social inequality exists and it creates all kinds of problems for all kinds of people. I'm sure you and your brother are well meaning people, but I don't think you understand the nature of the society we live- and many people don't. It's unfair and nasty, and that's why people get suckered into these hate groups. I can understand the appeal of the male rights movement to men who feel disenchanted with society, and it goes back to the grass is always greener on the otherside- or in this case, women in society are 'pampered' and while men are not. But you need to understand that both women and men can have a hard time, and will continue to have a hard time until the underlying issues which reproduce this gender inequality within society are abolished. And that is what feminism does, and that is why we need feminism- desperately.


I understand the nature of the society I live in... it's one where yes, there's some nastiness, there's hatred, there's war and there's ugliness. But for the most part I have never felt that society shames me for being a women, or anything of that nature.

I think feminism can be good, but there's a lot of bad in it too. I think that some people are threatened by feminism and see it almost the same as racism or sexism.... but I understand that it does have good qualities, and shouldn't be compared like that.

When we all understand that people are just people and stop seeing gender, skin tone, nationality, etc.... and just see a person, I think that is when society will become at least a bit more peaceful and happy.


Inequality is insidious, and the most of the time you are not going to recognise it unless you study it or it happens to you personally. I sincerely hope that it never does happen to you but it does exist, research show that, and it's not just women.
People have a fear of ideology, and like Marxism, Feminism has got a bad press even though most people don't know what it is. Feminism is very transparent, and it's not bad at all. Keep in mind that all the bad things you listed about feminism, turned out to have nothing to do with feminism like child custody disputes. Contemporary feminism is highly academic and as such there activities and research are regulated by ethics boards and everything is peer reviewed in academic journals. All this hype about feminism being bad, or having this good/bad divide is highly sensationalised by people who frankly don't know anything about feminism.
And finally things like gender, ethnicity, nationality form a huge part of identity. People are not collective hive minds like the borg, and as such we have to understand and appreciate the importance of a person's social background. If gender didn't matter then men who were getting beat up by their wives wouldn't feel emasculated.
Interestingly there is one branch of feminism that would agree with your proposed ideal society where social factors like gender, ethnicity, ect no longer matters- and that is radical feminism, which is often coined the most 'extreme' form of feminism... but its not really, its just the choice of words.
Tiny Roar's avatar

Seeker

8,250 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Popular Thread 100
Onolia
iMOOFINz
Onolia

Social inequality exists and it creates all kinds of problems for all kinds of people. I'm sure you and your brother are well meaning people, but I don't think you understand the nature of the society we live- and many people don't. It's unfair and nasty, and that's why people get suckered into these hate groups. I can understand the appeal of the male rights movement to men who feel disenchanted with society, and it goes back to the grass is always greener on the otherside- or in this case, women in society are 'pampered' and while men are not. But you need to understand that both women and men can have a hard time, and will continue to have a hard time until the underlying issues which reproduce this gender inequality within society are abolished. And that is what feminism does, and that is why we need feminism- desperately.


I understand the nature of the society I live in... it's one where yes, there's some nastiness, there's hatred, there's war and there's ugliness. But for the most part I have never felt that society shames me for being a women, or anything of that nature.

I think feminism can be good, but there's a lot of bad in it too. I think that some people are threatened by feminism and see it almost the same as racism or sexism.... but I understand that it does have good qualities, and shouldn't be compared like that.

When we all understand that people are just people and stop seeing gender, skin tone, nationality, etc.... and just see a person, I think that is when society will become at least a bit more peaceful and happy.


Inequality is insidious, and the most of the time you are not going to recognise it unless you study it or it happens to you personally. I sincerely hope that it never does happen to you but it does exist, research show that, and it's not just women.
People have a fear of ideology, and like Marxism, Feminism has got a bad press even though most people don't know what it is. Feminism is very transparent, and it's not bad at all. Keep in mind that all the bad things you listed about feminism, turned out to have nothing to do with feminism like child custody disputes. Contemporary feminism is highly academic and as such there activities and research are regulated by ethics boards and everything is peer reviewed in academic journals. All this hype about feminism being bad, or having this good/bad divide is highly sensationalised by people who frankly don't know anything about feminism.
And finally things like gender, ethnicity, nationality form a huge part of identity. People are not collective hive minds like the borg, and as such we have to understand and appreciate the importance of a person's social background. If gender didn't matter then men who were getting beat up by their wives wouldn't feel emasculated.
Interestingly there is one branch of feminism that would agree with your proposed ideal society where social factors like gender, ethnicity, ect no longer matters- and that is radical feminism, which is often coined the most 'extreme' form of feminism... but its not really, its just the choice of words.


So I read all that you said, and we can refer back to it later if you'd like, but I think this here is the main point of the subject... ^_^
Well, you said that, "...most of the time you are not going to recognise it unless you study it or it happens to you"
Yes, but that doesn't mean I believe in ghosts. What I'm getting at is that... I feel that feminism suggests that I'm not getting what I need from society. Or that I'm being repressed in some way. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
I just don't feel like what you said, "labour, caregivers, media, division of labour ect. But the easiest way to see how women are marginalised is by looking at their representation in positions of power and authority- and you'll find that it is universally under-represented and monopolised by white rich old men" to be a current issue. I think that I can get any job I want to (realistically speaking) of course, I would need to be the right person for the job.

"The point is that women are facing labour barriers that prevent them from entering better jobs."

I am a Dental student, working towards becoming a dentist. Some day I plan on having my own clinic. How is it that I have been presented with barriers? I think any road blocks I've had are simply of my own design or lack of personal skills. Also what barriers are specific to women? I know men who have failed to get that job they wanted because they don't have the skills required for the job. I'll go back to the "monopolised by white rich old men" comment, because I see a point there. Honestly-- I'm not joking--- I think that old rich white men hold those positions of power because they are inherently not interesting to women. Men have a higher interest usually in positions of authority because... idk they're male bravado shines the shiniest behind a podium? I don't know but whatever the case I think it's just a position that is currently geared towards men-- that doesn't mean you can't pursue those positions though, and it doesn't make those rich white men fallacious for holding them, either.

I'm sorry if it seems I'm cherry picking your points. I suppose I'm trying to dig through the negative stereo type of feminists (feminazis?) and actually have clear understanding of the purpose of it, and as a women I think it's probably a good thing to be well aware of. If I can't experience it until I experience it, and since I can't prove a negative... :]

I think we can have charities without feminism, and I think that it has for the most part served it's purpose in society. I guess I just don't see the point anymore... at least not in (I hesitate to say) English speaking areas of the world? Western seems vague because I know cultural differences could vary drastically from one place to another within only a few miles of each other..
glanced through first three pages of this thread and i was a little horrified at the populace of gaia...but then i clicked to the last page and my faith in intelligence and understanding has been restored. :]
i like seeing people with conflicting ideas having good conversations about the subject.

i am a feminist who believes that both men and women are affected with gender inequality. getting too caught up in name-calling and maliciousness never gets anything anywhere..if anything it just drives two sides apart. understanding each others perspectives is key!
iMOOFINz
Onolia
iMOOFINz
Onolia

Social inequality exists and it creates all kinds of problems for all kinds of people. I'm sure you and your brother are well meaning people, but I don't think you understand the nature of the society we live- and many people don't. It's unfair and nasty, and that's why people get suckered into these hate groups. I can understand the appeal of the male rights movement to men who feel disenchanted with society, and it goes back to the grass is always greener on the otherside- or in this case, women in society are 'pampered' and while men are not. But you need to understand that both women and men can have a hard time, and will continue to have a hard time until the underlying issues which reproduce this gender inequality within society are abolished. And that is what feminism does, and that is why we need feminism- desperately.


I understand the nature of the society I live in... it's one where yes, there's some nastiness, there's hatred, there's war and there's ugliness. But for the most part I have never felt that society shames me for being a women, or anything of that nature.

I think feminism can be good, but there's a lot of bad in it too. I think that some people are threatened by feminism and see it almost the same as racism or sexism.... but I understand that it does have good qualities, and shouldn't be compared like that.

When we all understand that people are just people and stop seeing gender, skin tone, nationality, etc.... and just see a person, I think that is when society will become at least a bit more peaceful and happy.


Inequality is insidious, and the most of the time you are not going to recognise it unless you study it or it happens to you personally. I sincerely hope that it never does happen to you but it does exist, research show that, and it's not just women.
People have a fear of ideology, and like Marxism, Feminism has got a bad press even though most people don't know what it is. Feminism is very transparent, and it's not bad at all. Keep in mind that all the bad things you listed about feminism, turned out to have nothing to do with feminism like child custody disputes. Contemporary feminism is highly academic and as such there activities and research are regulated by ethics boards and everything is peer reviewed in academic journals. All this hype about feminism being bad, or having this good/bad divide is highly sensationalised by people who frankly don't know anything about feminism.
And finally things like gender, ethnicity, nationality form a huge part of identity. People are not collective hive minds like the borg, and as such we have to understand and appreciate the importance of a person's social background. If gender didn't matter then men who were getting beat up by their wives wouldn't feel emasculated.
Interestingly there is one branch of feminism that would agree with your proposed ideal society where social factors like gender, ethnicity, ect no longer matters- and that is radical feminism, which is often coined the most 'extreme' form of feminism... but its not really, its just the choice of words.


So I read all that you said, and we can refer back to it later if you'd like, but I think this here is the main point of the subject... ^_^
Well, you said that, "...most of the time you are not going to recognise it unless you study it or it happens to you"
Yes, but that doesn't mean I believe in ghosts. What I'm getting at is that... I feel that feminism suggests that I'm not getting what I need from society. Or that I'm being repressed in some way. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
I just don't feel like what you said, "labour, caregivers, media, division of labour ect. But the easiest way to see how women are marginalised is by looking at their representation in positions of power and authority- and you'll find that it is universally under-represented and monopolised by white rich old men" to be a current issue. I think that I can get any job I want to (realistically speaking) of course, I would need to be the right person for the job.

"The point is that women are facing labour barriers that prevent them from entering better jobs."

I am a Dental student, working towards becoming a dentist. Some day I plan on having my own clinic. How is it that I have been presented with barriers? I think any road blocks I've had are simply of my own design or lack of personal skills. Also what barriers are specific to women? I know men who have failed to get that job they wanted because they don't have the skills required for the job. I'll go back to the "monopolised by white rich old men" comment, because I see a point there. Honestly-- I'm not joking--- I think that old rich white men hold those positions of power because they are inherently not interesting to women. Men have a higher interest usually in positions of authority because... idk they're male bravado shines the shiniest behind a podium? I don't know but whatever the case I think it's just a position that is currently geared towards men-- that doesn't mean you can't pursue those positions though, and it doesn't make those rich white men fallacious for holding them, either.

I'm sorry if it seems I'm cherry picking your points. I suppose I'm trying to dig through the negative stereo type of feminists (feminazis?) and actually have clear understanding of the purpose of it, and as a women I think it's probably a good thing to be well aware of. If I can't experience it until I experience it, and since I can't prove a negative... :]

I think we can have charities without feminism, and I think that it has for the most part served it's purpose in society. I guess I just don't see the point anymore... at least not in (I hesitate to say) English speaking areas of the world? Western seems vague because I know cultural differences could vary drastically from one place to another within only a few miles of each other..


The problem is that you are looking at the situation from your own personal experience which is not going to be representative of society. You may have never been a victim of domestic violence, but that doesn't mean that victims of domestic violence do not exist. Both quantitative and qualitative data exist on these matters so I'm not exactly asking you to believe in ghosts. These are issues that are tangible in nature which can investigated and measured. So it's kind of cop out to say- well it doesn't happen to me so it must not happen to other women. If feminism was making this s**t up then governmental departments like this would not exist. There is a massive body of knowledge and literature on these issues- and yes those issues I listed are contemporary issues for example:

-care giver (more recent report from 2009).
-2012 labour report, under representation of women in higher wage jobs
-Division of domestic labour
- media (this is an example of a charity funding research)

There are more recent articles and research on these areas, however to access them you have to pay, so I have chosen sources which you can access for free and are fairly easy to read as some academic articles are intelligible without a background knowledge of the subject.

Okay, so labour specific barriers...this is where sociology and economics merge and it is quite a heavy concept to explain. First of all you have to understand that the US has a liberal market economy which is driven by competitiveness. So in order for your business to survive you will need to provide services at a competitive price, or services that are competitively innovative. So Apple for example has to be innovative with their products in order to make people want to buy them, and there will be in competition with other companies like Microsoft and Samsung who are also trying to come up with innovative technology to sell. This type of business strategy is known as the 'high road' because it demand higher skill, higher technology and higher quality ect. It's in these industries where people make the most money because these companies want the best people to work for them.
In contrast products, goods, and services which are not innovative like making buckets, or providing a cleaning service are sold through price competitiveness. The lower the price the better, however in order to do this companies take a low road approach where jobs are unskilled, workers are poorly paid and working in poor working conditions. People in these low road businesses have very little prospects of career advancement, or having special fringe benefits attached to their job role. However quite often low road work is flexible which is appealing to women, as they are more likely to be care givers so they can fit work around their caring responsibilities. This kind of flexibility is not afforded to women in high road jobs, and subsequently we see fewer women working in these areas. Plus in some companies women can be held back from career advancement because of fears that a woman would be less committed to their job then a man because they may decide to have children and go on maternity leave ect.
Again we know that barriers exist because it is reflected in the statistical evidence where there are disproportionate gender ratios. So when we look at the percentage of women in part-time employment and contrast it against the percentage of women in care giving roles then we see a pattern...which is later proven by separate research sampling women in part time work.

Okay, so can anyone just climb to the top of the career ladder? Well the chances are if you are an uneducated unskilled single mother, then no that is not going to happen. In fact if you are just uneducated and unskilled then that is not going to happen. People like to reminisce about the old days where people had a dollar to their name and somehow worked their way out of the mire, but the economic reality of today is that jobs tend to polarised by either high skill and high wage jobs, or low skill and low wage job. This kind of notion of hierarchical advancement up the career ladder no longer exists in the majority of industries. So their is this stagnant immobile labour market, and if you read books like the Spirit Level, it explains how societies like the UK and US who have large low wage labour forces combined with a liberal market economy will have very poor social mobility, you can get some of the statistical tables here *.

So can we have charities without feminism... well charities fund research, and any research to do with women is done by feminists because that's what feminist researchers specialise in- the study of gender. In fact most researchers will adopt a feminist framework when studying women because academically it makes sense as there is no alternative. This right here is a non-issue, its only people like yourself who have this negative connotation of feminism that think we need to separate feminism from charities and research and whatever.... but the reality is that feminists have been studying gender social patterns for decades and to us and the charities/governments that employ us it doesn't really matter. Most research is not ideologically driven anyway so yeah, it's not a major issue.

Okay and finally we use Western societies opposed to English speaking societies, because it denotes countries whose culture, politics, ect are based on Western European culture. English speaking countries would be redundant because there are plenty of countries like Germany, France ect that are non-english speaking but share the culture. Plus there are ex-colonial countries like South Africa which have adopted English as its national language... so that's why we use the term Western in academia.

((that was a long post and if I missed anything out, then just let me know))
Ellyn
glanced through first three pages of this thread and i was a little horrified at the populace of gaia...but then i clicked to the last page and my faith in intelligence and understanding has been restored. :]
i like seeing people with conflicting ideas having good conversations about the subject.

i am a feminist who believes that both men and women are affected with gender inequality. getting too caught up in name-calling and maliciousness never gets anything anywhere..if anything it just drives two sides apart. understanding each others perspectives is key!


QFT heart
Thread like these never dies. In every forum community doesn't it?
Tiny Roar's avatar

Seeker

8,250 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Popular Thread 100
Onolia
iMOOFINz
Onolia
iMOOFINz
Onolia

Social inequality exists and it creates all kinds of problems for all kinds of people. I'm sure you and your brother are well meaning people, but I don't think you understand the nature of the society we live- and many people don't. It's unfair and nasty, and that's why people get suckered into these hate groups. I can understand the appeal of the male rights movement to men who feel disenchanted with society, and it goes back to the grass is always greener on the otherside- or in this case, women in society are 'pampered' and while men are not. But you need to understand that both women and men can have a hard time, and will continue to have a hard time until the underlying issues which reproduce this gender inequality within society are abolished. And that is what feminism does, and that is why we need feminism- desperately.


I understand the nature of the society I live in... it's one where yes, there's some nastiness, there's hatred, there's war and there's ugliness. But for the most part I have never felt that society shames me for being a women, or anything of that nature.

I think feminism can be good, but there's a lot of bad in it too. I think that some people are threatened by feminism and see it almost the same as racism or sexism.... but I understand that it does have good qualities, and shouldn't be compared like that.

When we all understand that people are just people and stop seeing gender, skin tone, nationality, etc.... and just see a person, I think that is when society will become at least a bit more peaceful and happy.


Inequality is insidious, and the most of the time you are not going to recognise it unless you study it or it happens to you personally. I sincerely hope that it never does happen to you but it does exist, research show that, and it's not just women.
People have a fear of ideology, and like Marxism, Feminism has got a bad press even though most people don't know what it is. Feminism is very transparent, and it's not bad at all. Keep in mind that all the bad things you listed about feminism, turned out to have nothing to do with feminism like child custody disputes. Contemporary feminism is highly academic and as such there activities and research are regulated by ethics boards and everything is peer reviewed in academic journals. All this hype about feminism being bad, or having this good/bad divide is highly sensationalised by people who frankly don't know anything about feminism.
And finally things like gender, ethnicity, nationality form a huge part of identity. People are not collective hive minds like the borg, and as such we have to understand and appreciate the importance of a person's social background. If gender didn't matter then men who were getting beat up by their wives wouldn't feel emasculated.
Interestingly there is one branch of feminism that would agree with your proposed ideal society where social factors like gender, ethnicity, ect no longer matters- and that is radical feminism, which is often coined the most 'extreme' form of feminism... but its not really, its just the choice of words.


So I read all that you said, and we can refer back to it later if you'd like, but I think this here is the main point of the subject... ^_^
Well, you said that, "...most of the time you are not going to recognise it unless you study it or it happens to you"
Yes, but that doesn't mean I believe in ghosts. What I'm getting at is that... I feel that feminism suggests that I'm not getting what I need from society. Or that I'm being repressed in some way. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
I just don't feel like what you said, "labour, caregivers, media, division of labour ect. But the easiest way to see how women are marginalised is by looking at their representation in positions of power and authority- and you'll find that it is universally under-represented and monopolised by white rich old men" to be a current issue. I think that I can get any job I want to (realistically speaking) of course, I would need to be the right person for the job.

"The point is that women are facing labour barriers that prevent them from entering better jobs."

I am a Dental student, working towards becoming a dentist. Some day I plan on having my own clinic. How is it that I have been presented with barriers? I think any road blocks I've had are simply of my own design or lack of personal skills. Also what barriers are specific to women? I know men who have failed to get that job they wanted because they don't have the skills required for the job. I'll go back to the "monopolised by white rich old men" comment, because I see a point there. Honestly-- I'm not joking--- I think that old rich white men hold those positions of power because they are inherently not interesting to women. Men have a higher interest usually in positions of authority because... idk they're male bravado shines the shiniest behind a podium? I don't know but whatever the case I think it's just a position that is currently geared towards men-- that doesn't mean you can't pursue those positions though, and it doesn't make those rich white men fallacious for holding them, either.

I'm sorry if it seems I'm cherry picking your points. I suppose I'm trying to dig through the negative stereo type of feminists (feminazis?) and actually have clear understanding of the purpose of it, and as a women I think it's probably a good thing to be well aware of. If I can't experience it until I experience it, and since I can't prove a negative... :]

I think we can have charities without feminism, and I think that it has for the most part served it's purpose in society. I guess I just don't see the point anymore... at least not in (I hesitate to say) English speaking areas of the world? Western seems vague because I know cultural differences could vary drastically from one place to another within only a few miles of each other..


The problem is that you are looking at the situation from your own personal experience which is not going to be representative of society. You may have never been a victim of domestic violence, but that doesn't mean that victims of domestic violence do not exist. Both quantitative and qualitative data exist on these matters so I'm not exactly asking you to believe in ghosts. These are issues that are tangible in nature which can investigated and measured. So it's kind of cop out to say- well it doesn't happen to me so it must not happen to other women. If feminism was making this s**t up then governmental departments like this would not exist. There is a massive body of knowledge and literature on these issues- and yes those issues I listed are contemporary issues for example:

-care giver (more recent report from 2009).
-2012 labour report, under representation of women in higher wage jobs
-Division of domestic labour
- media (this is an example of a charity funding research)

There are more recent articles and research on these areas, however to access them you have to pay, so I have chosen sources which you can access for free and are fairly easy to read as some academic articles are intelligible without a background knowledge of the subject.

Okay, so labour specific barriers...this is where sociology and economics merge and it is quite a heavy concept to explain. First of all you have to understand that the US has a liberal market economy which is driven by competitiveness. So in order for your business to survive you will need to provide services at a competitive price, or services that are competitively innovative. So Apple for example has to be innovative with their products in order to make people want to buy them, and there will be in competition with other companies like Microsoft and Samsung who are also trying to come up with innovative technology to sell. This type of business strategy is known as the 'high road' because it demand higher skill, higher technology and higher quality ect. It's in these industries where people make the most money because these companies want the best people to work for them.
In contrast products, goods, and services which are not innovative like making buckets, or providing a cleaning service are sold through price competitiveness. The lower the price the better, however in order to do this companies take a low road approach where jobs are unskilled, workers are poorly paid and working in poor working conditions. People in these low road businesses have very little prospects of career advancement, or having special fringe benefits attached to their job role. However quite often low road work is flexible which is appealing to women, as they are more likely to be care givers so they can fit work around their caring responsibilities. This kind of flexibility is not afforded to women in high road jobs, and subsequently we see fewer women working in these areas. Plus in some companies women can be held back from career advancement because of fears that a woman would be less committed to their job then a man because they may decide to have children and go on maternity leave ect.
Again we know that barriers exist because it is reflected in the statistical evidence where there are disproportionate gender ratios. So when we look at the percentage of women in part-time employment and contrast it against the percentage of women in care giving roles then we see a pattern...which is later proven by separate research sampling women in part time work.

Okay, so can anyone just climb to the top of the career ladder? Well the chances are if you are an uneducated unskilled single mother, then no that is not going to happen. In fact if you are just uneducated and unskilled then that is not going to happen. People like to reminisce about the old days where people had a dollar to their name and somehow worked their way out of the mire, but the economic reality of today is that jobs tend to polarised by either high skill and high wage jobs, or low skill and low wage job. This kind of notion of hierarchical advancement up the career ladder no longer exists in the majority of industries. So their is this stagnant immobile labour market, and if you read books like the Spirit Level, it explains how societies like the UK and US who have large low wage labour forces combined with a liberal market economy will have very poor social mobility, you can get some of the statistical tables here *.

So can we have charities without feminism... well charities fund research, and any research to do with women is done by feminists because that's what feminist researchers specialise in- the study of gender. In fact most researchers will adopt a feminist framework when studying women because academically it makes sense as there is no alternative. This right here is a non-issue, its only people like yourself who have this negative connotation of feminism that think we need to separate feminism from charities and research and whatever.... but the reality is that feminists have been studying gender social patterns for decades and to us and the charities/governments that employ us it doesn't really matter. Most research is not ideologically driven anyway so yeah, it's not a major issue.

Okay and finally we use Western societies opposed to English speaking societies, because it denotes countries whose culture, politics, ect are based on Western European culture. English speaking countries would be redundant because there are plenty of countries like Germany, France ect that are non-english speaking but share the culture. Plus there are ex-colonial countries like South Africa which have adopted English as its national language... so that's why we use the term Western in academia.

((that was a long post and if I missed anything out, then just let me know))



I did a tad bit of research, and I think I've summed up our conversation to the following discussion points -- and I believe they address your points above (as well as some of my own)

- Why and Where is feminism still needed in society?
- Are there issues/kinks with the feminist frame of mind that need to be addressed?
- The issue men have with feminism
- What are the long term goals of feminism as a whole?
- Choice Vs. Coercion
- Workplace ethics

1. Why and where is feminism still needed in society?
In our society, many would say that there isn't a need for aggressive/progressive feminism, as there isn't a "war to fight" so to speak. I would agree with this, however I wouldn't flat out say "abolish feminism" as that's pointless and defeats the purpose of freedom of speech and women being able to speak up in the first place. So, Why is feminism needed? After some light reading I've discovered three common arguments for the preservation of feminism
A) All people deserve equality
B) Legislation of the female body
C) Positive enforcement of the past for future generations, and to prevent repetition of mistakes.

Those three things... I am 100% behind. And in those three (somewhat vague) things I can say feminism strongly holds my support.
However, there are other common hypocritical arguments for feminism, that I believe hold the negative connotations that society sees more often. These arguments are where my issue lies, and while I know feminism as a whole cannot be blamed, it's still an issue. Which brings us to my next point.
Next topics, B and C, I'll discuss together.
Are there issues/kinks with the feminist frame of mind that need to be addressed? and The issue men have with feminism
When I see videos like this I see a divided people, women (and some men) who are barking up a tree that doesn't even exist. There's no need for this kind of hate speech ("You're F**cking scum" because he was standing in a line?) and is essentially the biggest problem I see with feminism, this idea that men are evil, trash of the earth, and everything they do is malicious and misogynistic, even something like being a police officer and doing their job is bashed as being a "men's rights activist/supporter" when they are like I said only doing their job. So, is this a frame of mind that needs to be addressed? Or do we just chalk this up to being "Just the wackos/extremists" ?
Now, I think men have a tendency to think of feminism as a threat, and from my perspective I think it's because some feminists, like the ones in the video I linked, essentially state that men are pigs simply because they're men. Isn't that the same kind of stereo typing that feminists are fighting to stop, against women? Also, I think those men out there who are super angry like Joe Rogan need to chill out and realize that no magical feminism fairy is going to come along and take their porn away. It's just not going to happen.

What are the long term goals of feminism as a whole?
I suppose I mean this as a question, but I do understand that you don't represent the whole of feminism, but from your perspective, what are some clearly definable goals of feminism? Wouldn't the 'end' of feminism, if in a positive light, mean that the "battle has been won" ? wouldn't that be a good thing?

Choice Vs. Coercion
I had mentioned in my last post that " I feel that feminism suggests that I'm not getting what I need from society. Or that I'm being repressed in some way." I think that view is somewhat validated when I am given statistics of "women in care giving roles" or "gender roles in modern society"... because no one in the government is coercing women into those roles. It's not the government's responsibility to make sure women are fulfilling gender roles, and it's not their responsibility to provide extra intensives for women to work hard for to reach their goals. Out of two genders, it's likely that one would have less opportunities due to a variety of different factors. (location, family's finances, medical issues for women and even just a 50-50 chance.)
If we look at social issues vs. political issues, they shouldn't be dumped together. There's something to be said about, let's say, the entertainment industry's portrait of women, like what Anita Sarkeesian talks about in her Tropes vs. Women videos. But I do not see or hear of any woman being silenced, or maliciously forced into a gender role, or being told they cannot have a job because she is a women.

Whiiiiich brings us to the last topic: Workplace ethics
I think it's rare that a woman would be actually told "You did not qualify for this job because you might go and full up that womb of yours" But even if she was, and even though that would be extremely rude, that's up to the business owner. If they don't want to hire a women because she may or may not be absent for 9 months or more, that's their prerogative. Now, you said

"However quite often low road work is flexible which is appealing to women, as they are more likely to be care givers so they can fit work around their caring responsibilities. This kind of flexibility is not afforded to women in high road jobs, and subsequently we see fewer women working in these areas"

This goes back to my choice vs coercion point, no one is forcing child baring or 'caring responsibilities' on women. they have the choice to pursue a career, and they have the choice to pursue child rearing or caring responsibilities. Or they can do both. Just because there are lower wage flexible jobs and there are higher paying, less flexible jobs, does not suggest that women are being told they cannot get these higher paying jobs.

biggrin emotion_bigheart emotion_brofist
iMOOFINz



I did a tad bit of research, and I think I've summed up our conversation to the following discussion points -- and I believe they address your points above (as well as some of my own)

- Why and Where is feminism still needed in society?
- Are there issues/kinks with the feminist frame of mind that need to be addressed?
- The issue men have with feminism
- What are the long term goals of feminism as a whole?
- Choice Vs. Coercion
- Workplace ethics

1. Why and where is feminism still needed in society?
In our society, many would say that there isn't a need for aggressive/progressive feminism, as there isn't a "war to fight" so to speak. I would agree with this, however I wouldn't flat out say "abolish feminism" as that's pointless and defeats the purpose of freedom of speech and women being able to speak up in the first place. So, Why is feminism needed? After some light reading I've discovered three common arguments for the preservation of feminism
A) All people deserve equality
B) Legislation of the female body
C) Positive enforcement of the past for future generations, and to prevent repetition of mistakes.

Those three things... I am 100% behind. And in those three (somewhat vague) things I can say feminism strongly holds my support.
However, there are other common hypocritical arguments for feminism, that I believe hold the negative connotations that society sees more often. These arguments are where my issue lies, and while I know feminism as a whole cannot be blamed, it's still an issue. Which brings us to my next point.


So we don't need feminism because the 'majority' think we don't need it? Firstly, there is no way you can accurately assess what the majority on the internet believes in. Secondly hypothetically if you did know what the majority believed in that still would make it right. It would be like saying, whichever religion has the most followers must be right about God. That right there is believing in ghosts because someone said they are real.
My argument has always been look at society and look at the research evidence for inequality within society- and there is plenty of it. I mean realistically if this was fairy dust then why would research based organisations take an interest in gender inequality. Governments, NGOs, supranationalism organisations and agencies would not waste their time and in some cases tax payers money if this wasn't a real problem.
So it kind of boils down to this, do you want to believe in the research informed experts, or people with tin foil hats on their head?

iMOOFINz
Next topics, B and C, I'll discuss together.
Are there issues/kinks with the feminist frame of mind that need to be addressed? and The issue men have with feminism
When I see videos like this I see a divided people, women (and some men) who are barking up a tree that doesn't even exist. There's no need for this kind of hate speech ("You're F**cking scum" because he was standing in a line?) and is essentially the biggest problem I see with feminism, this idea that men are evil, trash of the earth, and everything they do is malicious and misogynistic, even something like being a police officer and doing their job is bashed as being a "men's rights activist/supporter" when they are like I said only doing their job. So, is this a frame of mind that needs to be addressed? Or do we just chalk this up to being "Just the wackos/extremists" ?
Now, I think men have a tendency to think of feminism as a threat, and from my perspective I think it's because some feminists, like the ones in the video I linked, essentially state that men are pigs simply because they're men. Isn't that the same kind of stereo typing that feminists are fighting to stop, against women? Also, I think those men out there who are super angry like Joe Rogan need to chill out and realize that no magical feminism fairy is going to come along and take their porn away. It's just not going to happen.


In the nicest possible way- please review your sources critically. Anybody who titles a video 'come chill with the femnazis' is going to have an axe to grind about feminism. They will make you want to believe that these women are randomly shouting at men for no reason...but rationally that doesn't make. In fact that video was shot by male rights activists who were videoing feminists protesting one of the speakers at a male rights event. The men you see in the video are actually people from the student union who have come to support the feminist protest because they believe that this speaker should not be given a platform in a university to make 'hate speeches', here are some articles by the press and the student body about what happened:
The Men's Rights Movement, CAFE and the University of Toronto
The Varsity- UTSU suspects member of U of T community connected with online attacks on multiple students
WE WENT TO A MEN'S RIGHTS LECTURE IN TORONTO

iMOOFINz
What are the long term goals of feminism as a whole?
I suppose I mean this as a question, but I do understand that you don't represent the whole of feminism, but from your perspective, what are some clearly definable goals of feminism? Wouldn't the 'end' of feminism, if in a positive light, mean that the "battle has been won" ? wouldn't that be a good thing?


Inequality will always exist, the dynamic nature of society ensures this. The economy will always be changing, the media will always be changing, pretty much everything changes. So feminism is reflexive and changes along with society to address the needs of women. This can be characterised simply by the three waves of feminism. The first wave was the right to vote, second wave was equal opportunities through legislation and liberalisation of women through things like the right to contraception (which ties in with sexual revolution), and third wave was examining female inequality in a society where women have equal rights, and examining the female experience- which is kind of abstract.
Feminism is what you make it. You can apply it how you like. In religion for example the Roman Catholic campaign for women priests is heavily influenced by feminist discourse. Equally in anthropology there are influential feminist writers like Ortner who discusses the gender divide of nature/culture. Judith Butler's queer theory is another prominent piece of work that challenges traditional notions of gender and sexuality which is of particualr interest in LGBT movements. The list goes on. But what I'm trying to steer you away from is the idea that feminism is one monolithic movement heading towards one goal. Yes feminism is about equality, but it's also about understanding gender in different contexts. Unfortunately there is no straight forward answer here.

iMOOFINz
Choice Vs. Coercion
I had mentioned in my last post that " I feel that feminism suggests that I'm not getting what I need from society. Or that I'm being repressed in some way." I think that view is somewhat validated when I am given statistics of "women in care giving roles" or "gender roles in modern society"... because no one in the government is coercing women into those roles. It's not the government's responsibility to make sure women are fulfilling gender roles, and it's not their responsibility to provide extra intensives for women to work hard for to reach their goals. Out of two genders, it's likely that one would have less opportunities due to a variety of different factors. (location, family's finances, medical issues for women and even just a 50-50 chance.)
If we look at social issues vs. political issues, they shouldn't be dumped together. There's something to be said about, let's say, the entertainment industry's portrait of women, like what Anita Sarkeesian talks about in her Tropes vs. Women videos. But I do not see or hear of any woman being silenced, or maliciously forced into a gender role, or being told they cannot have a job because she is a women.


The government acts in its own interests. It does not do something that will yield no return, especially in the US where anything remotely socialist is treated with the utmost suspicion and contempt. Neoliberal anti-keynesianism economists are not going to give two hoots about the social merits of gender equality because they believe that a self regulating economy will solve that for them. So the government answer to social inequality is to get women back in to work, hence why things like women out work care giving is a political and economic problem. Women with dependent children are vulnerable to fall into poverty, and as Marcus Aurelias famous said poverty is the mother of all crime- which also costs the government money. So social issues are political issues- it's why we have social policy.
Like I said before you may not experience gender inequality first hand, but that doesn't mean it does not exists, or that you will never experience it- which I hope you won't. Feminism generally looks at women as a social demography and looks at the prevalence of certain phenomena. So for example 1 out 6 women in the US have been the victims of rape or attempted rape, and when you orientate yourself in this fact, you find yourself in the 5/6 women who are not raped. So part of feminism is weighing up the probability of something happening to you simply because of your sex... it's not always as dramatic as rape, it can be poverty or something else.
Gender roles are products of socialisation, not government regulation. Which indicates women are being side lined into caring positions or not pursuing high wage job because they are being socialised not too. This falls into the realm of social psychology and is a little hard to explain, but this video kinds of get the point across without going into heavy theory.



iMOOFINz
Whiiiiich brings us to the last topic: Workplace ethics
I think it's rare that a woman would be actually told "You did not qualify for this job because you might go and full up that womb of yours" But even if she was, and even though that would be extremely rude, that's up to the business owner. If they don't want to hire a women because she may or may not be absent for 9 months or more, that's their prerogative. Now, you said

"However quite often low road work is flexible which is appealing to women, as they are more likely to be care givers so they can fit work around their caring responsibilities. This kind of flexibility is not afforded to women in high road jobs, and subsequently we see fewer women working in these areas"

This goes back to my choice vs coercion point, no one is forcing child baring or 'caring responsibilities' on women. they have the choice to pursue a career, and they have the choice to pursue child rearing or caring responsibilities. Or they can do both. Just because there are lower wage flexible jobs and there are higher paying, less flexible jobs, does not suggest that women are being told they cannot get these higher paying jobs.

biggrin emotion_bigheart emotion_brofist


If it's rare then why is there a massively disproportionate gender ratio when it comes to representation of women in high earning positions? Sure people are not going to do sexism overtly as that can lead to all sorts of legal implications, but that doesn't stop people from doing it overtly. This phenomena of exclusion is known as the Glass Ceiling Effect, and there are plenty of reports and research like this one about it. This is why women are found in lower paying jobs then higher earning jobs.

So is this simply an issue about coercion or choice? The interesting thing here is that you make an argument that women have two choices either a family or a decent career- but they can't have both without some kind of compromise i.e. taking up low paid work part time work. The double standard here is that for most men they do not have to make this choice, they can choose to have a family and pursue a full time career without compromise. And part of the reason for this, is that society has this expectation that women are going to to give up their careers to sit and watch the kids while he does what he wants or what society expects. This is not normal, men and women should be able to engage in dialogue without feeling restricted by their societal gender roles. So if dad wants to stay at home he should be able to do so without prejudice and if a woman wants to pursue a career while having kids then she too should be able to without prejudice.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games