Welcome to Gaia! ::

I've run into both, though at my college there's more of the "Feminazi" type (though I really don't like that word). I think it's because of where I live... it has a reputation for being liberal, which self-reinforces, until you get the very extremes out here (the Communists come here to recruit, actually!)

Before I go on.. whoa, what a can of worms I have opened. There is nothing more controverisal- not even religion and politics- is as controversial as feminism is. o_o



Good thoughts on differentiating the concepts.

Some of my observations on the matter: if a white male makes a sexist comment or a racist joke, he is exerting his power over the people. But from what I've experienced, females and blacks (and other non-whites, but the black presence in America is rooted in deeper discrimination) tend to have "sexist" attitudes in reaction to, in anger. Or they may use it as a misguided "tool" of "empowerment" (I do not see it as empowerment. For example, Dave Chappelle telling racist jokes is not empowering for the black community because even if they feel good about themselves, the dominant race still laughs at the jokes and takes them literally. Plus, these acts cannot be representative of the entire community. Same with a woman.. if a woman is acting as raunchy as she can, this is not empowerment. She does not speak for even a lot of women. And when it all boils down to it.. males will continue to hold the same attitudes about women regardless of women thinking that it is empowering to act raunchy.

sad _) Another reason why a woman or a non-white might have these attitudes is because they have no real choice than to conform to the system in place in order to thrive. Or, maybe they are ashamed of the ascribed status that was forced upon them since birth, that they could not help, yet society (the Patriarchy) judges them for it. sad Say, a woman who enters a strip joint with a large group of guys, and pretends to like it a lot and harasses the stripper along with the other men.. she is participating in the patriarchy to blend in with the guys, and as a result she is hurting the stripper, her own "sister" in the process. It might be that the attitudes are an attempt to grasp any personal power for themselves whereas the default way is to be powerlessness in a white-male society.

I have not touched all grounds, but I've tried.


Oh and Blue Rose Tom:



(my personal observation: I've met lots of women who would readily say that they are not feminist, and felt ashamed to be one. Infact, I too, used to have feelings of shame about being a feminist because society makes the association that you must be a gross, manly, man-hating, hairy-legged lesbian who couldn't get acceptance from men, etc. I lived in Ottawa, ON and I was surprised to actually see so many pro-life, anti-feminist, pro-catholic, and pro-islam attitudes there since Canada is such a progressive, tolerant, liberal society. But I digress)

Equal rights and "trampeling over men's rights" is a paradox, unless men feel threatened and scared if women get rights, period. I know you didn't mean it that way, but because males get to lose some privilege when the rights of others can be secured, it can be perceived as a "female supremacy" issue.

I have yet to see any female that condones true female supremacy over males, though if there is any, they are probably doing it in reaction against the hate, shame, and guilt imposed on her living in this kind of society. Or, if there was a female-positive attitude and views coming from a female, this may be too threatening for society to accept it at face value and instead, choose to villify it.

Freedom fire, in response, You might like to read Ariel Levy's "Female Chauvinist Pigs".

People can interpret your view (and Ariel Levy's book, which discusses female raunchiness against other females) in two different ways.

Either women bully other women as a response to women having collectively more power nowadays (which means that "feminism" is finally achieved) OR

More privileged women (as defined by the males who accept her) participate in patriarchy in order to be/stay accepted.

I believe in the latter position. I do not deny female agency, but I see the Patriarchal system as so pervasive. Because with the former position, the few women in power are not very representative of the majority of women's lives, fates, attitudes, dreams, etc. They seem to be hand-picked by males and play by males games, males rules.

and Oki Chan, while I do not deny female agency in making choices and attitudes, as I said before, but the system of Patriarchy is very pervasive. The choice and attitudes looked in its proper context would provide ample clues to the real motivation for sexist and racist behavior. Ironically, these constructs exist in the patriarchal narrative. Many females lack power to alter other people's lives- and ESPECIALLY their own. At least what pro-choice wants to do is preserve and increase women's abilities to have more power over their fertility and destiny by keeping the fertility options open, assessable, inexpensive, and safe. Males who lose the privilege of controlling a woman's womb and future destiny (they are almost one in the same) might be threatened by that response of losing a little absolute power, but this is not female supremacy to get these rights. Many pro-choicers may not be completely open and unopinionated in every single matter, such as I have seen quite a few pro-choicers (including myself) moan over young teenagers who still wanted to keep their pregnancies. But most of us do not do it to be jerks... most of us know too well that a teenage girl's educational and occupational opportunities is compromised by giving birth at such a young age, for example. And the fact that her body is usually not prepared to give birth, the health of the child, financial resources, family support, yadda yadda.

I don't come across knowing all the answers >.< but I hope I clarified what I meant by how a woman and a black/non-white can't really be "sexist", in a loaded society. When I think of the need for protection for both groups, I don't mean that they are intrinsically helpless... but that the cultural status is a weakened one.

Grip, I understand what you're saying, and agree to a degree, though not all the way. I have never been a member of radical feminism, nor do I agree with everything that particular school of thought says. I don't see "Patriarchy" in the same way you do, though I do agree a degree of male privelege exists, I don't believe it's so pervasive it cannot be changed from working within the current system, to change the current system. I'm a history major, and while I see we have a long way to go, I can look back and see how far we've come.

Take, for example, the most competent woman I have a personal aquaintance with, and the changes from when she was first married (about 25 years ago) and now:

Back not too long after she was first married, my friend's mother and her husband got a job at the same place, though my friend's mother had higher qualifications. Despite this, her pay was set about a dollar below her husband's to, and I quote "avoid trouble in the home". She complained, and her pay was made commiserate with her skills.

Now, she's head of IT of a government-affiliated company, as well as teaching engineers accounting at the local technical college. She never was raunchy, she never put down men, and she continued to be the person who she was. For example, she was a Girl Scout leader the entire time her children (twin girls, now 21) were in school, as well as making jewelery, painting, and doing oil pastels. Oh, and stained glass... and the person who was handiest with the hardware of the often home remodeling projects her family did. She did this all without putting down other females, or acting sexist towards either gender.


Women of today, if we work twice as hard as the men... we can make it so our daughters only have to work equally as hard as the men... which is where it should be. Society isn't equal, but it's damn well closer than it was 25 years ago, or 100 years ago.

In the beginning of the women's rights movement in the 1860's (the first sufferagettes in the states were also abolitionists who worked with the male abolitionists who then abandoned the sufferagettes after the Civil War), women couldn't wear pants, own property if married, and if not divorced or widowed, do basically anything without the consent of her father or husband. The freest woman in society was the widow. It took about 60 years to get the vote. 40-50 years after that to break out of the pink collar ceiling, to where women COULD get jobs in things that weren't pink collar. We are only about 40-50 years after that, at most, I'd say 30 since women were allowed into the science field. Social change takes time. The first generation of non-pink collar workers is just reaching management age, really. It'll be another 10 years before we see women who had something close to an equal chance reach management age (and by equal chance, I mean the possibility that their high school didn't discourage them from learning math or science). It'll be our generation reaching 40 or 50 before there's going to be anything like real equality in the hard science, because even engineering is becoming equal faster... but, the key is, change is happening. We have a viable woman candidate for president. We have a viable black candidate for president.

In some areas of the country, things are actually looking okay. Not there yet, but close.

And, to actually address your post, instead of why I disagree with you often in general (which is because of a difference in outlook. I understand why you feel how you feel. I just happen to disagree).

I agree that women degrading other women is not empowering, which is why I used the story I did of an empowered woman. You and I are working with a different definition of racism, I think. You're more concerned with the results of the attitudes, mine is the attitudes themselves. And, however angry someone is, putting down the side they're angry at (whether it's women putting down males, or blacks putting down whites) in a way that is racist or sexist, by painting all parties with the same brush, is doing more to hurt than help their cause. Feminists who degrade ALL men cause their views to be ignored as extreme, or biased, or "just crazy". Not only do I think sexism is wrong from either side... all anti-man sexist feminists do is hurt their own cause, IMO.

I hope that made sense... that's as close to my feminist philosophy as I can get on a Saturday morning after the first week of a term of college.

Maybe I'll remind her of this next time I see her arguing. I feel bad, though, singling out one pro-lifer, which is why I don't include names in this thread, no matter how badly I think they deserve a good talking-to. (I only mentioned Macai because I was linking to his thread anyway, and it wasn't exactly abortion-related.) It does frustrate me, though, when I see someone make an argument, especially one that requires infringing upon the rights of others, and then acts like they don't have to defend or justify it because it's "just their opinion." I like how you countered that attitude here:





Are they really like that? Because a lot of people assume that you are when you drop "the f word" on them. Feminists, at least, those who really fit the definition of the word and fit into the description of movement, wouldn't trample men's rights or argue that women are superior.

(Actually, just read Grip's reply to this.)


*nods* It's not so much a conversation between everyone on the thread as it is many conversations between the OP and some random one-poster.

Oh, I agree that there is a lot of work to be done, but I know some feminists see the entire system as needing to be dismantled, while I look and see how much has changed from changing the system rather than tearing it down and rebuilding it from the ground up. I believe we can continue the change by continuing to change the system. And actually, de jure, everything is equal, or pretty close. Some work needs to be done (such as with pharmacies and birth control, but that isn't needed everywhere... I live where it really isn't needed), but it's not where the most has to be. What needs to change now is the de facto situation, with the attitudes present that are causing women to end up in situations of inequality because of attitudes... not law.

And you're right. Rush coined the term "feminazi", which is why I said I don't like it, even to describe women who go beyond feminism into female supremacy.

I posted above about a woman who was assertive without loosing who she was. Of course, she (and I, actually) have one advantage- we had paired off before even graduating high school, so once things really mattered, we didn't have to worry about trying to attract the opposite sex.

I happen to be a moderately feminine woman by preference (and it is preference, my fiance couldn't care less what I wear or anything like that, or if I stopped loving to cook), and also a fairly unassertive person by nature. Yet, I need to learn how to be assertive. So far, I haven't needed the skill (liberal college, good profs, or at least ones that assertiveness wouldn't do a damn thing for, a job with an awesome boss), except with the kids at the childcare I work at. I'll probably need this skill in the future, but as of yet, I haven't been forced to gain it, and it IS against my nature (or training... my father wasn't fond of assertiveness in anything BUT politics in me or my brother... could explain why I can stand up for my politics, but not myself).

LOL.
xD
"I'm right, you're wrong, lalalalala! I'm not listening!"


wtf?
xD

Was 20 Shades of Crazy high when she typed that?

I heard weed makes people giggly.

ok ok.. bad joke, I'm sorry ya'll! xd

I knew you were talking about the pro-life 'ejiot. heart It's all good.