Da Feminism Thread

[Subotan]

fem·i·nism - [fem-uh-niz-uhm]

noun 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

2.( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

So. A while back somebody on this here internet forum said that they not only do not consider themselves feminists, but consider it "BS" that contains "notions of racial and sexual superiority". This is pretty clearly wrong, and sadly it was offtopic in the thread it appeared, and it was tragically locked soon after. The sentiment stuck in my mind though, and given that recently discussions in the backroom have mainly been uber-manly debates about the power and strength of various long and hard gun barrels, I've decided to open this thread to balance out the tone of the threads here, and to let the backroom engage in its feminine side.

The motion:

The work of feminism and feminists in changing social attitudes, eroding gendered privilege as manifested by the Patriarchy and achieving equality between the genders is not complete.

Nice and broad, as we can see.

Some super cool links that you may wish to refer to before commenting:

Feminist FAQs

What is Privilege and how do I check it?

What about teh menz?!?!?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So. A while back somebody on this here internet forum said that they not only do not consider themselves feminists, but consider it "BS" that contains "notions of racial and sexual superiority". This is pretty clearly wrong, and sadly it was offtopic in the thread it appeared, and it was tragically locked soon after. The sentiment stuck in my mind though, and given that recently discussions in the backroom have mainly been uber-manly debates about the power and strength of various long and hard gun barrels, I've decided to open this thread to balance out the tone of the threads here, and to let the backroom engage in its feminine side.

The motion:

The work of feminism and feminists in changing social attitudes, eroding gendered privilege as manifested by the Patriarchy and achieving equality between the genders is not complete.

Nice and broad, as we can see.

Some super cool links that you may wish to refer to before commenting:

Feminist FAQs

What is Privilege and how do I check it?

What about teh menz?!?!?

I reject the concept of the "Patriarchy" as an imposition by men upon women. I reject the assertion that men and women are comparable in all fields. I also reject, out of hand, that women are of less value than men, or less inately deserving of respect.

Here's an example: Marriage

Imposed by the Patriarchy, right?

How stupid do you think this "Patriarchy" is?

Marriage is a social contract, it's not inately about love, or even about sex, it's a liscence to have children (historically), and what it actually does is find a man, who would be otherwise free to roam, to a woman and the children he sires upon her. Now, obviously there have been many periods throughout history where the political balance between the sexes has, in legal and procedural terms, favoured men but this does not make these societies simply unequal. Consider the story of Agamemnon, the king of Mycene, who defeated Priam and toppled Troy only to be murdered in his bath by his wife and her lover on his return home.

Equality of rights between the sexes is fine, but after that men will still be men and women will still be women, babies will still need their mothers and mother's milk for the first year of their life, their mother will still be laid up before and after the birth and it will still make sense for the father to become the main breadwinner, because he won't be encumbered by the pregnancy and it's aftermath, and it especially still makes sense for the woman to insist on marriage before the child is born, because otherwise the man can still slope off early and find someone else.

So, I reject the motion, there is no more useful work for feminism and feminists to do, in fact if you look at the increasing objectification of women (compare a rap video from 2000 to one in 2010) we can see that the feminist revolution has already produced a dark underswell by breaking down manners between the sexes and turning almost everything involving women in mass culture into a kind of meat market.

[Furunculus]

The motion:

The work of feminism and feminists in changing social attitudes, eroding gendered privilege as manifested by the Patriarchy and achieving equality between the genders is not complete.

agreed, insomuch as there is no perfect state that once attained needs no further calibration or corrective action.

however, this MUST always be seen through the lens of equality-of-opportunity rather than equality-of-outcome, unlike much of the junk foisted on the british population by Harriet Harmon.

yes, there is still a pay gap between men and women, particularly at higher levels, but how much of it is due to the choice of bearing children?

[Ironside]

So, I reject the motion, there is no more useful work for feminism and feminists to do, in fact if you look at the increasing objectification of women (compare a rap video from 2000 to one in 2010) we can see that the feminist revolution has already produced a dark underswell by breaking down manners between the sexes and turning almost everything involving women in mass culture into a kind of meat market.

And rap culture is coming from feminism and sexual liberation and is totally not related to a subculture that looks down on females and heavily pulling from the madonna and the whore idea. You know, that idea that was very blantant in sexually repressed Victorian England.

And about marriage, you have a point, but that tiny bit about bloodlines following the paternal line and not the maternal is quite notable.

[Beskar]

The problem with the Feminism movement is the extremists within in, what is termed, "Feminazi" popularised by Rush Limbaugh. There is also the whole "Male Apologist" sections of the feminist movement which is where the woman's husband is dragged along and has to atone for the flaws of his sex. This is due to the social constructions of such movements which appeal mostly to victims and those who feel persecuted, fostering an environment which can be more exclusive than opposed to its actual aim of being more inclusive.

This is why a great many people don't use the term "Feminism" but instead, Egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")
:All people should be treated with the same dignity or be regarded as possessing the same intrinsic qualities despite our societal diversity of race, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, socioeconomic status, (dis)ability or cultural heritage.

Because there is a wide number of social issues, and there are many groups for women, LBGT, Race, Disability and so on. But these individual groups tend to attract what they cater for, as i cited in the first paragraph.

The idea of being Egalitarian and self-identifying as such is stating "There are these issues, but let's work together, whether you are a woman, whether you are hetero/homo/bi/pan/a-sexual or have a different skin tone from the majority." and people do not feel "excluded" when they firmly believe in something but instead feel "included" of trying to achieve those same exact goals of these various movements.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And rap culture is coming from feminism and sexual liberation and is totally not related to a subculture that looks down on females and heavily pulling from the madonna and the whore idea. You know, that idea that was very blantant in sexually repressed Victorian England.

Did I say rap music was related to feminism? Take another swing, you might connect.

Rhianna is an atrocious ambassador for women, but her videos get played on Saturday morning shows. THAT tells you something about how permissive the sexualisation of women has become. As to the "Madonna, whore", you missed one "virgin". So great, women used to have three prejudicial states to be classified as now they have two, and "whore" isn't the one that got dropped.

And about marriage, you have a point, but that tiny bit about bloodlines following the paternal line and not the maternal is quite notable.

That makes more sense economically, because the self-sufficient man can be kicked out of the house and become autonomous, but in pre-modern societies women cannot be self sufficient and mothers, they need a man to provide for their children, so in a matriarchal society you will get bigger households, potentially. More significantly, you don't know what a man is worth until he's out from under his mother's skirts, and in that sense having single men on their own in the marriage market and single women in the familial household make it easier for the woman (and her family) to judge the worth of suiters.

Marriage is primarily an ecenomic equation, like most things.

[Kagemusha]

Did I say rap music was related to feminism? Take another swing, you might connect.

Rhianna is an atrocious ambassador for women, but her videos get played on Saturday morning shows. THAT tells you something about how permissive the sexualisation of women has become. As to the "Madonna, whore", you missed one "virgin". So great, women used to have three prejudicial states to be classified as now they have two, and "whore" isn't the one that got dropped.



That makes more sense economically, because the self-sufficient man can be kicked out of the house and become autonomous, but in pre-modern societies women cannot be self sufficient and mothers, they need a man to provide for their children, so in a matriarchal society you will get bigger households, potentially. More significantly, you don't know what a man is worth until he's out from under his mother's skirts, and in that sense having single men on their own in the marriage market and single women in the familial household make it easier for the woman (and her family) to judge the worth of suiters.

Marriage is primarily an ecenomic equation, like most things.

You forget that not all cultures have been patriarchal. Also what is so terrible about Rihanna? Does sexuality get scary when women bring it out actively rather then staying as passive targets of active male sexuality?

[Subotan]

I reject the concept of the "Patriarchy" as an imposition by men upon women. I reject the assertion that men and women are comparable in all fields. I also reject, out of hand, that women are of less value than men, or less inately deserving of respect.

Here's an example: Marriage

Imposed by the Patriarchy, right?

How stupid do you think this "Patriarchy" is?

The economics of marriage vary from country to country and I'm sure we could each find a counter-example to whatever point the other of us brings up. One example of how women continue to feel much more pressure than men to marry is that women who fail to marry are always derided as spinsters, whereas men are (often - not always, but certainly frequently enough for this to be a thing) considered bachelors if they never marry.

agreed, insomuch as there is no perfect state that once attained needs no further calibration or corrective action.

however, this MUST always be seen through the lens of equality-of-opportunity rather than equality-of-outcome, unlike much of the junk foisted on the british population by Harriet Harmon.

yes, there is still a pay gap between men and women, particularly at higher levels, but how much of it is due to the choice of bearing children?

The way you phrase this implies is that it is only women have to make a choice between having children and having a career - do you think it would be better if the choice was more often applicable to both genders i.e. that we had more stay-at-home and part-time dads?

The problem with the Feminism movement is the extremists within in, what is termed, "Feminazi" popularised by Rush Limbaugh.

You mean Radical Feminists? Eh, RadFems really aren't representative of the wider feminist movement, especially more recently. They were important back in the 1960s-70s for simply existing, and showing that it was possible for women to challenge the men/patriarchy in such a radical manner, but I lump them in with Trotskyites as slightly nutty idealists.

There is also the whole "Male Apologist" sections of the feminist movement which is where the woman's husband is dragged along and has to atone for the flaws of his sex.

..?

This is due to the social constructions of such movements which appeal mostly to victims and those who feel persecuted, fostering an environment which can be more exclusive than opposed to its actual aim of being more inclusive.

That depends how you define inclusivity really. Would you say that socialist or anarchist groups are social movements which appeal mostly to victims and those who feel persecuted, for not allowing anti-socialists and anti-anarchists into their ranks?

[Subotan]

You forget that not all cultures have been patriarchal.?

Pretty much all modern ones are.

Also what is so terrible about Rihanna? Does sexuality get scary when women bring it out actively rather then staying as passive targets of active male sexuality?

Even if we agree that more sexualisation of public life is a good thing, there's a degree of comodification with women's sexuality and women's bodies that simply isn't present with men. Furthermore, although it would be possible for her dancing to be empowering, she would need an empowered reputation to be able to do so credibly - e.g. by having empowering lyrics, making pro-women comments in the media, donating to women's movement organisations such as domestic abuse shelters etc. She doesn't do any of this, and the result is that both female sexuality and the strength of female empowerment are packaged and sold for corporate profits.

[Kagemusha]

Pretty much all modern ones are.

Never argued against that or did i?

Even if we agree that more sexualisation of public life is a good thing, there's a degree of comodification with women's sexuality and women's bodies that simply isn't present with men. Furthermore, although it would be possible for her dancing to be empowering, she would need an empowered reputation to be able to do so credibly - e.g. by having empowering lyrics, making pro-women comments in the media, donating to women's movement organisations such as domestic abuse shelters etc. She doesn't do any of this, and the result is that both female sexuality and the strength of female empowerment are packaged and sold for corporate profits.

Never claimed Rihanna as feminist either.Was just asking about if active promotion of female sexuality would be an intimidating issue.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You forget that not all cultures have been patriarchal. Also what is so terrible about Rihanna? Does sexuality get scary when women bring it out actively rather then staying as passive targets of active male sexuality?

I don't consider it appropriate for her to be clad only in silver bodypaint on T4 at 10 am in the morning. More to the point, she basically just sells sex - her songs and her outfits are titilating, but they aren't much more than that. Umbrella was an exception, which is part of why it put a rocket on her popularity, but the video doesn't fit the baledic message of the song at all, it's just a scantily clad woman being scantily clad. Frankly, burlesque can be more demure.

So we have a young artist who sells herself on her sex appeal, and young women copy her, when she actually appears capable of producing a meaningful record.

The economics of marriage vary from country to country and I'm sure we could each find a counter-example to whatever point the other of us brings up. One example of how women continue to feel much more pressure than men to marry is that women who fail to marry are always derided as spinsters, whereas men are (often - not always, but certainly frequently enough for this to be a thing) considered bachelors if they never marry.

An interesting point, "bachelor" is not exactly a good state to be in at fifty though, a point in favour of paternal lineage actually - die a bachelor and your name dies with you. Personally, I think any man should find that thought disgraceful, especially if he is an only son like me.

The way you phrase this implies is that it is only women have to make a choice between having children and having a career - do you think it would be better if the choice was more often applicable to both genders i.e. that we had more stay-at-home and part-time dads?

Practically speaking, only women do have to make that choice. Men can choose to be stay-home dads, but all things being equal it doesn't really make economic sense. Two interupted careers mean even more lost income than one, more lost opertunities for advancement, etc. This is even more true of a woman who returns to work, and then has more children - a friend of mine took a year off before her baby was born, her employer had to replace her and when that replacement's contract comes up they will have to make an effort to find them a job too. From a hardheaded business perspective women who have children are an inconvenience if not an actual liability.

At the end of the day, the traditional home/work gender division makes the best use of limited resources.

[Viking]

The problem with feminism, as with any ideology, is that it causes its followers to view the world through a pair of goggles. Feminism happens also to be a very narrow ideology, such that the vision becomes very narrow. The hole world and all its moments centre on your gender.

Instead of focusing on the real issue, which is the conditions for individuality, feminism tries to reinvent the world in which there exists some sort of vicious conspiracy that aims to humiliate and control some sort of 'womankind'. It's a conspiracy theory light that asks its brave knights to charge against an invisible and non-existant enemy entity ('patriarchy', or whatever; put a name on the dragon).

Feminism is self-defeating because it battles individualism by splitting the humans into two camps, femmes and hommes (an inevitable consequense of a monotonous focus on gender). This while the very core of the problem is that females (as males) may be judged by gender rather than individual capacities.

[Papewaio]

Having the same root word does not make the derived words equivalent otherwise female would be male.

Feminism =/= feminine on a 1:1 relationship. Plenty of butch feminists.

Also the feminists of the 1960s and 70s are not the first. They are well and truly standing on the shoulders of the women workers of WW II who are predated by victorian suffragettes.

=][=

I believe in equal opportunity for all. I don't believe that all will get equal pay as there is often trade offs for work packages that aren't given a dollar sign. However equal quality and output should warran equal pay per unit of time

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pretty much all modern ones are.

Only by Feminist definitions, those terrible mysoginistic northern miners (steryotype) give all their pay at the end of the week to their wives.

The fact is, if you actually look at very "Patriarchal" cultures, historically, men did a good job of dominating the public sphere but they did an exceedingly poor job of dominating their private relationships with women. Empress Matilda might never have been crowned queen of England but she made life jolly difficult for Stephen and her son did take the throne.

Even if we agree that more sexualisation of public life is a good thing, there's a degree of comodification with women's sexuality and women's bodies that simply isn't present with men. Furthermore, although it would be possible for her dancing to be empowering, she would need an empowered reputation to be able to do so credibly - e.g. by having empowering lyrics, making pro-women comments in the media, donating to women's movement organisations such as domestic abuse shelters etc. She doesn't do any of this, and the result is that both female sexuality and the strength of female empowerment are packaged and sold for corporate profits.

More sexualisation of public life is not a good thing. Sex is a commodity, it is bought and sold. Allowing the sexualisation of public life gives wealth, and therefore power, to the sexy. As absurd a statement as that is, Rhianna has made a fortune out of her measurements, not her voice. Her popularity is based on the fact that most young men want her, and that makes young women want to be her.

[Ironside]

Did I say rap music was related to feminism? Take another swing, you might connect.

Rhianna is an atrocious ambassador for women, but her videos get played on Saturday morning shows. THAT tells you something about how permissive the sexualisation of women has become. As to the "Madonna, whore", you missed one "virgin". So great, women used to have three prejudicial states to be classified as now they have two, and "whore" isn't the one that got dropped.

Let see now, you reject that feminists has anything more to do nowadays and I'm going to guess that the rap music video connection is about the sexual liberation for woman. You don't supose a modern feminist might be interested in working against that rap culture? Equality is about more than more sex you know.

Missed with the majuscules. I was talking about the Madonna, you know virgin Mary? It's only two states. And even the Madonna is also problematic for equality viewpoint, since it's assumes that the woman is the lesser gender that you need to protect. Compare to children. Caring for them? Sure. Seeing as equals? No.

And about the Patriarchy. You consider female sexual liberation to be a problem, due to increased objectification. You are noticing the still ongoing strong link of woman value related to sex correct? Both from you and those you oppose (on the objectification matter, I understand that you greatly oppose it). Ergo that old thing are still alive and kicking.

Practically speaking, only women do have to make that choice. Men can choose to be stay-home dads, but all things being equal it doesn't really make economic sense. Two interupted careers mean even more lost income than one, more lost opertunities for advancement, etc. This is even more true of a woman who returns to work, and then has more children - a friend of mine took a year off before her baby was born, her employer had to replace her and when that replacement's contract comes up they will have to make an effort to find them a job too. From a hardheaded business perspective women who have children are an inconvenience if not an actual liability.

At the end of the day, the traditional home/work gender division makes the best use of limited resources.

But in most countries, it's still biased a lot towards the man still working while the female stays home. By the legal system.

I don't remember if this was approved or not, but it's interesting to notice that the compulsary mother only 6 weeks are an improvement from the former EU laws in general. Gender equality indeed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This Proposal aims at improving the protection and rights of pregnant women, women who have recently given birth or who are breastfeeding, in order to better protect the interests of mothers and their children.

Maternity leave is extended from 14 to 18 weeks. This corresponds to 12 non-compulsory weeks that women can choose to take before or after confinement and six compulsory weeks after confinement. If the actual date of confinement differs from the presumed date, the period of leave before the birth could be extended without having an effect on the post-natal period. Moreover, additional leave may be granted in the event of premature childbirth, children hospitalised at birth, the birth of children with disabilities and multiple births.

The Proposal should also improve protection for working women and incite them to return to work after giving birth. Thus, during their maternity leave, they should receive a payment that is equal to their full salary. Member States may also however cap the allowance at the same level as for sick leave. In addition, women will have more leeway to choose the time at which they take the non-compulsory part of their leave (before or after birth). They will no longer be obliged to take a specific part of their leave before the birth, which is currently the case in some Member States

The problem with feminism, as with any ideology, is that it causes its followers to view the world through a pair of goggles. Feminism happens also to be a very narrow ideology, such that the vision becomes very narrow. The hole world and all its moments centre on your gender.

Instead of focusing on the real issue, which is the conditions for individuality, feminism tries to reinvent the world in which there exists some sort of vicious conspiracy that aims to humiliate and control some sort of 'womankind'. It's a conspiracy theory light that asks its brave knights to charge against an invisible and non-existant enemy entity ('patriarchy', or whatever; put a name on the dragon).

Feminism is self-defeating because it battles individualism by splitting the humans into two camps, femmes and hommes (an inevitable consequense of a monotonous focus on gender). This while the very core of the problem is that females (as males) may be judged by gender rather than individual capacities.

The problem with going for individualism is focus. It's like peace in the world.

Sure,they are related, but to simply say that all should reach equality and then do nothing because the matter is too large is ineffective.

About patriachry and gender issue. Sure, at some points it becomes silly since it's a blurry concept, but sometimes it's even obvious for a 4 year old.

TBH, the endgame for a race/gender/etc issue, is exactly that it should only give a meh I don't care when it's coming up. Problem is getting there, instead of giving up halfway because you're aren't that much on the recieving end of it, so you don't notice it unless you think about it.

Only by Feminist definitions, those terrible mysoginistic northern miners (steryotype) give all their pay at the end of the week to their wives.

The fact is, if you actually look at very "Patriarchal" cultures, historically, men did a good job of dominating the public sphere but they did an exceedingly poor job of dominating their private relationships with women. Empress Matilda might never have been crowned queen of England but she made life jolly difficult for Stephen and her son did take the throne.

Those bloody Jewish bankers and lawyers. It's obvious that they are the masterminds.

Or more on the point instead of vague references. If it's almost impossible to have domination in the public sphere, some massive channeling on the private sphere occurs amoung ambitious people.
Edit: The evil mother-in-law comes from this powerstruggle btw.

[Beskar]

..?

I suspose you haven't come across that stereotype construct. I have seen a couple of them, it makes you want to facepalm. There is equal rights then there is being completely whipped by your partner. They are basically males who only attend because their partner forces them, usually looking sulky or upset, clearly not "for the cause" but simply sprouting what their wife/girlfriend says in their ear.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Let see now, you reject that feminists has anything more to do nowadays and I'm going to guess that the rap music video connection is about the sexual liberation for woman. You don't supose a modern feminist might be interested in working against that rap culture? Equality is about more than more sex you know.

Feminists threw out the social baby with the bath water, and now they reap the sexual whirlwind. I am extremely sceptical of the proposition that the cure is more feminism, I would suggest something different, and not regression either.

Missed with the majuscules. I was talking about the Madonna, you know virgin Mary? It's only two states. And even the Madonna is also problematic for equality viewpoint, since it's assumes that the woman is the lesser gender that you need to protect. Compare to children. Caring for them? Sure. Seeing as equals? No.

Oh, yes, I see. Sorry. Although I do stand by my point that men *tend* to relate to women in three ways, you might say "mother, sister, concubine" if you were being delicate. As regards the Classical virgin, women do need protection, from men. I'm sorry, but the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman, and I doubt any women will demand equality while a man is trying to rape her, she'll be grateful for the other man that dragged him off and beat him half to death. That's not to say that women should be reliant on men for protection, quite the opposite, women should encourage men to think protecting women as "manly" because this means assaulting them is "unmanly"

One of the big issues with feminism is that it has failed to recognise the psychological damage that rejecting traditional gender roles has on men. If a man can't provide, can't protect "his" woman, what is he? For some men the answer to this frustrating question is to become and angry rapist. The really worrying thing is this has seeped into mainstream culture, the Guardian did a thing last year where it compared the statements about women from lad's mags and convicted rapists. Guess what?

Most people had trouble telling them apart.

And about the Patriarchy. You consider female sexual liberation to be a problem, due to increased objectification. You are noticing the still ongoing strong link of woman value related to sex correct? Both from you and those you oppose (on the objectification matter, I understand that you greatly oppose it). Ergo that old thing are still alive and kicking.

Sex is probably cheaper now than at most periods throughout history, the sexual revolution has allowed the sexually astute to dominate everything from sex itself to the media. Yes, the meat market is a historical blight, not a new invention. The point is - things are getting worse, not better, and Feminism needs to carry some of the responsibility. News flash girls, giving a man an erection does not empower you in any way, and taking your clothes off does not make you sexier. The sexiest women I know, who is also a feminist, is sexy because of what she doesn't show, do, or say - not what she does. She's also sexy because she's smart, witty and self confident.

But in most countries, it's still biased a lot towards the man still working while the female stays home. By the legal system.

That's not something you can fix - you shouldn't get a free pass if you take time off work, be it to have children or go hiking in Borneo. It's not your employer's responsibility to look after you, beyond the conditions you work in.

I can't remember what maternity leave is here, I think it's more generous than that.

Those bloody Jewish bankers and lawyers. It's obvious that they are the masterminds.

Or more on the point instead of vague references. If it's almost impossible to have domination in the public sphere, some massive channeling on the private sphere occurs amoung ambitious people.
Edit: The evil mother-in-law comes from this powerstruggle btw.

the point is, their wives let them - and often still do. Most men with big ambitions need someone to share them with in order to grab ahold of them.

[ajaxfetish]

Having the same root word does not make the derived words equivalent otherwise female would be male.

I agree with the point being made (that the same root can wind up in words with significantly different meanings), but have to take issue with the example. Female and male do not share a root. In fact, female comes from French femelle (used to indicate female animals and ultimately derived from Latin femina). It was only after it ended up used in opposition to male that the pronunciation and spelling changed, with the notion that their semantic relationship must imply an etymological one as well.

/language nerd

I definitely support egalitarianism and I'm not afraid of the label feminist, though I find militant feminism distasteful and off-putting (as do most folks, I suspect). I think the pay gap is the most significant challenge to be overcome at the moment. The same labor should receive the same compensation, and gender alone is not enough to justify lesser pay.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I definitely support egalitarianism and I'm not afraid of the label feminist, though I find militant feminism distasteful and off-putting (as do most folks, I suspect). I think the pay gap is the most significant challenge to be overcome at the moment. The same labor should receive the same compensation, and gender alone is not enough to justify lesser pay.

Ajax

In most case, it does. If you go for a job, it's highly unlikely that the will offer you a different salary based on your gender. What more often seems to happen is that men negotiate for higher pay, while women negotiate for better terms. The assumption that pay between women should be equal at the end of the day is falacious, because they are usually starting from the same point. It's a case of one size not fitting all.

[Papewaio]

I agree with the point being made (that the same root can wind up in words with significantly different meanings), but have to take issue with the example. Female and male do not share a root. In fact, female comes from French femelle (used to indicate female animals and ultimately derived from Latin femina). It was only after it ended up used in opposition to male that the pronunciation and spelling changed, with the notion that their semantic relationship must imply an etymological one as well.

/language nerd

Learn something new everyday! Cheers

BTW root has a double meaning :)

[Subotan]

Practically speaking, only women do have to make that choice. Men can choose to be stay-home dads, but all things being equal it doesn't really make economic sense. Two interupted careers mean even more lost income than one, more lost opertunities for advancement, etc. This is even more true of a woman who returns to work, and then has more children - a friend of mine took a year off before her baby was born, her employer had to replace her and when that replacement's contract comes up they will have to make an effort to find them a job too. From a hardheaded business perspective women who have children are an inconvenience if not an actual liability.

At the end of the day, the traditional home/work gender division makes the best use of limited resources.

Is that really the case? Surely it's preferable and more economically efficient to create a work environment where women don't feel as if they will have to drop out of their careers halfway through to raise kids at the get-go?

Feminism is self-defeating because it battles individualism by splitting the humans into two camps, femmes and hommes (an inevitable consequense of a monotonous focus on gender). This while the very core of the problem is that females (as males) may be judged by gender rather than individual capacities.

This isn't true - if it were, then the gender binary wouldn't exist were it not for feminism. Feminists recognise the differences society places upon each gender and seeks to correct them.

I suspose you haven't come across that stereotype construct. I have seen a couple of them, it makes you want to facepalm. There is equal rights then there is being completely whipped by your partner. They are basically males who only attend because their partner forces them, usually looking sulky or upset, clearly not "for the cause" but simply sprouting what their wife/girlfriend says in their ear.

Do you think that that's representative of all male feminists?

Feminists threw out the social baby with the bath water, and now they reap the sexual whirlwind. I am extremely sceptical of the proposition that the cure is more feminism, I would suggest something different, and not regression either.

Feminism does not advocate the comodification of female sexuality, nor the dismantling of "social prudishness", for lack of a better word. Feminism only seeks to see female sexuality treated as seriously as male sexuality.

Oh, yes, I see. Sorry. Although I do stand by my point that men *tend* to relate to women in three ways, you might say "mother, sister, concubine" if you were being delicate. As regards the Classical virgin, women do need protection, from men. I'm sorry, but the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman, and I doubt any women will demand equality while a man is trying to rape her, she'll be grateful for the other man that dragged him off and beat him half to death.

Why do you assume that it has to be a man who saves the rape survivor from her rapist?

That's not to say that women should be reliant on men for protection, quite the opposite, women should encourage men to think protecting women as "manly" because this means assaulting them is "unmanly"

Of course it is. I think there's something very innate to being a man in the act of protecting somebody close to you from harm.

One of the big issues with feminism is that it has failed to recognise the psychological damage that rejecting traditional gender roles has on men. If a man can't provide, can't protect "his" woman, what is he?

Define "protection". Why are men less able to do it today than before feminism?

For some men the answer to this frustrating question is to become and angry rapist.

lolwut this is completely wrong.

I definitely support egalitarianism and I'm not afraid of the label feminist, though I find militant feminism distasteful and off-putting (as do most folks, I suspect). I think the pay gap is the most significant challenge to be overcome at the moment. The same labor should receive the same compensation, and gender alone is not enough to justify lesser pay.

Ajax

Sure, militant feminism is essentially radical feminism. It's something I find counterproductive more than anything.

BTW root has a double meaning :)

You Australians :P

[CountArach]

The sentiment stuck in my mind though, and given that recently discussions in the backroom have mainly been uber-manly debates about the power and strength of various long and hard gun barrels, I've decided to open this thread to balance out the tone of the threads here, and to let the backroom engage in its feminine side.

As an ardent feminist this is a sentence that I have a real trouble with. The mere fact that we can easily categorise some topics of debate as male and some as female is at the discursive base of the problem. Until all pressure to be 'feminine' or 'masculine' or to define things as such is removed from language through a natural process of linguistic evolution then I believe the prospects for true gender equality are bleak.

In the USA, at least, the real prejudicial divisions are Rich vs. Poor and not Men vs. Women or Whites vs. Blacks vs. Whatever.

This is another problem with the discourse surrounding feminism (and indeed race, sexuality, etc). The fact that so many people consider it to be men against women. That does not play into it at all. Rather, feminism is about a group of people who have a greater deal of linguistic pressure placed upon them to fit into engendered stereotypes attempting to break free of this pressure and to thus have a true equality of opportunity and will.

As for the argument that feminism in the West is pointless now, there are still huge areas in which feminists have a lot of work still to do. One such example is marital rape:

While all 50 U.S. states have laws against marital rape, 33 of the states consider marital rape a lesser crime than other types of rape–typically they charge the attacker with spousal abuse or battery instead of rape.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In the USA, at least, the real prejudicial divisions are Rich vs. Poor

[Syl]

I consider myself a feminist. I think some people get a bit caught up on the sound of the terminology, that feminism is somehow emasculating or anti-men, when it's not. Tiaexz defined the term Egalitarianism, as it encompasses feminist issues among others. I consider myself an egalitarian as well, but as most of the principles and spirit of the two are the same I use them interchangeably, and don't particularly stress out on the distinction.

Where feminism addresses patriarchy is in regards to a system of society and not on men itself. If someone is declaring all men evil and on and on, then it's not feminism. Subotan already addressed the issue about extremists, and as in any group, are off base with the majority of the group or its principles.

I reject the concept of the "Patriarchy" as an imposition by men upon women.

I think some men hear about the term patriarchy and feel that it's being portrayed as some conscious malicious force that men are actively enforcing to keep women down out of some inherent hatred, and they don't see that connection in themselves or the other good men around them, so it doesn't resonate. Again, the focus on feminism on patriarchy isn't on men as a generic archetype or directly at an individual level, but the way that society has evolved that structurally puts women at a disadvantage contrasted to men.

After saying all that however, the system was, and in many places still is, actively imposed by men on women. One quick but prominent example: the Abrahamic religions all have doctrine that establishes the place of women beneath men. The New Testament in Christianity forbids women from teaching or holding any authority over a man. Women are prohibited in scripture from speaking in church, and had to ask their husband any questions they had privately. In most ancient societies the church was a place of significant political power, so having no voice there was more limiting then that might let on. Those are some examples of major things that impacts a womans life when they're imposed.

This isn't a thread on religion so I'll cut that off there, but my point with that is it's one tangent that has shaped a great deal of the world in terms of the rights of women. Things are very different in much of the world today, but a lot of its notions have lingered much longer, like that a man is the ruler of the house hold, and that a woman's place is in the home, the stigma on a woman's display of sexuality, etc. Here in the United States women weren't allowed by constitutional amendment to vote until 1919. If much of the worlds society impacted by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam were based around a much more egalitarian code, how much sooner might that day have arrived?

I'm not saying that religion alone is to blame however, but there has been a very real act of the suppression of womens rights that continues to be active in much of the world today and still has much of its influence. Those things were enforced, and by men.

Consider the story of Agamemnon, the king of Mycene, who defeated Priam and toppled Troy only to be murdered in his bath by his wife and her lover on his return home.

I don't really see this as much of an argument in regards to equality here. Impact on history? Absolutely. But murder tends to have a big effect on changing its course, and people tend to be more susceptible when it's from someone they trust.

At the end of the day, the traditional home/work gender division makes the best use of limited resources. .

Biologically, maybe, but we live in a world where intellectual contribution is just as important. Limiting women to purely domestic issues cuts the talent pool of 50% of our population in an area where it may not be best suited. There are many brilliant women in medicine and science for example whose skill set and talents lend them to that field and have greatly contributed to society. You don't have to go far back in history to a point where that was almost universally scoffed at.

The problem with feminism, as with any ideology, is that it causes its followers to view the world through a pair of goggles. Feminism happens also to be a very narrow ideology, such that the vision becomes very narrow. The hole world and all its moments centre on your gender.

That depends on the ideology itself. I'd argue that feminism expands your horizons far more than it could ever close them. Also, most people who are feminists aren't JUST feminists. They have other beliefs and convictions, usually step for step with egalitarianism
.

One of the big issues with feminism is that it has failed to recognise the psychological damage that rejecting traditional gender roles has on men. If a man can't provide, can't protect "his" woman, what is he?.

I have so many issues with this that it's going to have to wait for tomorrow. I also haven't had time to read everything in the thread yet, so I apologize. I know there have been follow up comments on issues but I'll have to catch up when I've actually had some sleep.

[Furunculus]

The way you phrase this implies is that it is only women have to make a choice between having children and having a career - do you think it would be better if the choice was more often applicable to both genders i.e. that we had more stay-at-home and part-time dads?

I am fine with the idea of stay-at-home dads, it is a valid choice they are free to make, but i imagine it would have an impact on their careers just as it does with mothers.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Does discrimination still happen? You bet. Is it rampant? Uh, not any more than anything else. The Law says that it is fair and things are equal. What the hell more do you want? More public service announcements? A women's rights campaign billboard every hundred feet? Affirmative Action? Monetary Compensation? And what would the result of all that be, compared to the money it would cost and the attention it would divert?

Honestly, it just makes me mad. This is a dead horse in America, but people just don't know when to move on.

Pretty much spot on. I don't understand where the systematic oppression of women still comes into play in modern (past 25 years) Western, increasingly secular (and increasingly anti-religious) societies. America as a more conservative nation overall, still has Democrats and Republicans not thinking twice about putting women in positions of power, like Hillary or Palin. In California, Meg Whitman was the Republican contender for Governor and was a very strong candidate until she performed badly in the debates. Hillary herself made some sort of statement in her concession speech to Obama, something like, if we haven't broken the glass ceiling yet, we sure put over 1 million cracks in it.

Now I am not one to pull out the ole' "we have better things to talk about." because that tired argument leads to stupid things like defunding NASA (we got so many problems down here, blah, blah, blah). But nevertheless it is undeniable that the roles of women and minorities have greatly improved in the past 35 years and continue to improve as we see more and more representation from them in major positions of power in our society. Hell we had a woman as a top contender for the national GOP candidacy race (representing the evangelicals no less) until she quit yesterday.

EDIT: Didn't want to quote all of GC's stuff.

[Ironside]

Feminists threw out the social baby with the bath water, and now they reap the sexual whirlwind. I am extremely sceptical of the proposition that the cure is more feminism, I would suggest something different, and not regression either.

You are aware that the feminist movement have a lot of different issues? Feminists =/= female sexual liberation.

Oh, yes, I see. Sorry. Although I do stand by my point that men *tend* to relate to women in three ways, you might say "mother, sister, concubine" if you were being delicate. As regards the Classical virgin, women do need protection, from men. I'm sorry, but the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman, and I doubt any women will demand equality while a man is trying to rape her, she'll be grateful for the other man that dragged him off and beat him half to death. That's not to say that women should be reliant on men for protection, quite the opposite, women should encourage men to think protecting women as "manly" because this means assaulting them is "unmanly".

The madonna, whore dichotomy is more about the virtious woman (to put on a pedistal) and the slut (who has fallen due to sex).

Or maybe it should just be cruel to assult people, in particular those who are weaker than yourself. You know stop linking gender roles into how to treat the other gender and instead treating them more like another person. As in being cruel is unmanly, instead of being cruel to women is unmanly.

One of the big issues with feminism is that it has failed to recognise the psychological damage that rejecting traditional gender roles has on men. If a man can't provide, can't protect "his" woman, what is he? For some men the answer to this frustrating question is to become and angry rapist. The really worrying thing is this has seeped into mainstream culture, the Guardian did a thing last year where it compared the statements about women from lad's mags and convicted rapists. Guess what?

Most people had trouble telling them apart.

That's only about a 200 year old problem. And if anything, removing the traditional gender roles means that the man is not a failure even if he got no woman (the biological imperative will always be there, but the soceital judgement should disappear).
And the frustrated guy who becomes a rapist? In older times, he was married. Solved the rape issue nicely, since you couldn't rape your wife. They were never good men.

Sex is probably cheaper now than at most periods throughout history, the sexual revolution has allowed the sexually astute to dominate everything from sex itself to the media. Yes, the meat market is a historical blight, not a new invention. The point is - things are getting worse, not better, and Feminism needs to carry some of the responsibility. News flash girls, giving a man an erection does not empower you in any way, and taking your clothes off does not make you sexier. The sexiest women I know, who is also a feminist, is sexy because of what she doesn't show, do, or say - not what she does. She's also sexy because she's smart, witty and self confident.

So your feminist friend is contradicting your own opinion on what feminists do? And are you telling that feminists should take their responsibillity by disbanding?

That's not something you can fix - you shouldn't get a free pass if you take time off work, be it to have children or go hiking in Borneo. It's not your employer's responsibility to look after you, beyond the conditions you work in.

I can't remember what maternity leave is here, I think it's more generous than that.

You can adapt for it though. Being pregnant is something quite natural and wanted also from a societal viewpoint after all. The dad can get 87,5% (same as the mother) of the parental leave here.

the point is, their wives let them - and often still do. Most men with big ambitions need someone to share them with in order to grab ahold of them.

The difference today is that it's their choise instead of forced upon them. That's quite a difference.

Feminist activism is important in places where women actually ARE being mistreated.

In the USA, however, we need to get past sensationalist stories of prejudice because its just not true at this point. Isolated examples exist, but that's just part of being human. I've been treated with contempt for being white and for being male, but only once or twice--you don't see me starting a white power movement or a male power movement do you? It's silly and overdone. We are past this. Its just destructive and a cause for distraction.

The US is reeking of benevolent sexism (the madonna on a pedistal). While much friendlier than it's cousin hostile sexism (the slut, bitch), they come in pair.

Sure the rich vs poor is a larger issue, but sexism is still a problem that has consequences.

And yet there has been little no work at all done on the front of false accusations? We'll never know the real numbers, but who honestly doesn't believe that a significant number of men wind up screwed for life because of women who don't mind telling a convincing lie?

Rape is awful. Marital rape is also awful. Sending innocent men to jail is awful too, and the more steam feminists pick up the more they try to demonize men that really are just trying not to offend anybody.

Compared to the total number of rapes? Very small.

Edit:
The stay at home mothers? Oh dear. Sure it's fine if that's what they want, but it's an idea that needs the idea of the perfect husband (no divorse) that supports the mother.
To gender reverse it. A male that stays home taking care of the children and gets supported by his wife, are what on an ideal family scale?
Also compare to self sufficient individualism, that no one should need to be dependant on another.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Man, I would love to be a stay at home dad if my wife was making the big bucks. I could read books and play video games while my young kids slept and work on developing a podcast when they got old enough to go to school.

[Andres]

Man, I would love to be a stay at home dad if my wife was making the big bucks.

Me too.

I'd love to be at home everyday to take care of my son. As he grows older, he'll get smarter and I'll be able to play games on the PC or a console with him all day long. And when he's at school, I can do the groceries on a week day, relaxed, instead of on a hectic Saturday afternoon. Cleaning only needs to be done once a week and the house is not that big. I like cooking, so having to cook every day would simply mean more opportunity and time for one of my hobbies. Laundry is done by machines and ironing can be done in front of the TV or while listening to music, so that's not too bad either.

Mind you though, being at home with a kid is more work and much more tiring then you might expect, but still, I think it would be great. Much more freedom to plan and organise your life.


More on topic: I agree with the sentiments some other posters expressed above: the legal framework is there. Here in the west, to the law, men and women are already equal (perhaps there are some left overs here and there in some forgotten legislation that still have to be removed, but that probably has a less than marginal impact on the day to day life). If there's discrimination against you because of your sex, you can go to a court of law and have your rights enforced.

There's no more need for a movement. If women are discriminated against, then they don't need to start a movement, they need to use the tool that is already at their disposal: the law.

Throwing a stone in the water: the existence of feminist movements in modern Western societies is an insult to women, as it implies that women are not strong enough to come up for themselves; as if women are too weak to demand for their rights to be respected.

[CountArach]

Like someone said above, Feminism is one of the worst activist causes when it comes to getting people over-riled. In America (and I suspect most of Europe) this is not a god-damned problem. It detracts from the very real issues at hand (like, oh, I dunno--the imminent collapse of the global economy, and the likely very short window of time we have left to do anything about it?) by polarizing people against eachother, who might otherwise work together on bigger and more important issues.

Point me to one polarising statement from a feminist in this thread and I will point you to several from those who oppose it. Further, why can't we discuss multiple things at once? Surely we as a society are at the point where we can hold several conversations?

Pretty much spot on. I don't understand where the systematic oppression of women still comes into play in modern (past 25 years) Western, increasingly secular (and increasingly anti-religious) societies. America as a more conservative nation overall, still has Democrats and Republicans not thinking twice about putting women in positions of power, like Hillary or Palin. In California, Meg Whitman was the Republican contender for Governor and was a very strong candidate until she performed badly in the debates. Hillary herself made some sort of statement in her concession speech to Obama, something like, if we haven't broken the glass ceiling yet, we sure put over 1 million cracks in it.

A greater presence of women in public situations is great, yes. However, that is only one aspect of the entire discussion. The majority of the time they only discuss "women's" issues, whilst there is an entire female consituency that is considered somehow different to the rest of society and can be pandered to as an "interest group". And yet men aren't? That strikes me as a thoroughly gendered society where people are expected to care about one thing or another because of a characteristic that they possess at birth.

There's no more need for a movement. If women are discriminated against, then they don't need to start a movement, they need to use the tool that is already at their disposal: the law.

What about discursive situations that can't be solved by law?

Being a male accused of sexual harrassment or sexual assault is like being a 1940s Black Man in front of an all-white Alabama jury--anything but fair.

Far from it:

The government estimates that as many as 95% of rapes are never reported to the police at all. Of the rapes that were reported from 2007 to 2008, only 6.5% resulted in a conviction on the charge of rape. The majority of convictions for rape resulted from an admission of guilt by the defendant, whereas less than one quarter of all those charged with rape were convicted following a successful trial.
[...]
Victims were found to experience delays, "unpleasant environments", inappropriate behaviour by professionals, insensitive questioning during interviews and "judgmental or disbelieving attitudes" when coming forward with complaints of rape.

As a result, between half and two-thirds of rape cases did not proceed beyond the investigation stage. The majority of victims decide to withdraw their complaints, while high levels of rape complaints are essentially ignored, with reports pointing to scepticism on the part of the police and "the view that the victim lacks credibility".

The highlighted section is what I'm talking about in terms of the discursive need for feminism - there is just a general unwillingness to believe victims of rape.

Rape is awful. Marital rape is also awful. Sending innocent men to jail is awful too, and the more steam feminists pick up the more they try to demonize men that really are just trying not to offend anybody.

The same argument can be used for literally any crime.