Da Feminism Thread

[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]

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]

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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.