Da Feminism Thread

[Andres]

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

I'm not sure if the meaning of the word "discursive" is the same as the Dutch "discursief" and I don't seem to be able to find a translation of it on the web, so if you could explain the meaning of it to this non native speaker, I'd be very much obliged

The government estimates that as many as 95% of rapes are never reported to the police at all.

If those rapes are not reported, then how do we even know they happened? I'm going to be very blunt here: rape is a terrible crime so it seems like a no-brainer to me that anyone who becomes victim of it, reports it. Those who claim that they have been raped, but never reported it, probably weren't raped at all. I simply have a very, very hard time believing that women who are being raped, just let it happen without reporting it. Seems to me like a made-up story to justify the existence of feminist movements and to raise funds for them.

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.

And what does that prove? Might as well interprete those figures as evidence that many men are falsely accused of rape. Allthough most of those men are found innocent at the end of the ride, they'll be stigmatised in the community they live in for the rest of their lives. Maybe they even lost their job and/or the right to see their children while the investigation was still ongoing. Maybe the outrage should be aimed more at those who ruin other peoples' lives by falsely accusing them...

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.

So, the figures above say that most people pressing charges of rape lose their cases. Ask 100 random people who just lost a case in a court of law. Most will be negative about the judge, those who handled their case, the experts, etc etc, because, well, most people are sour losers.

Also, the figures you mentioned above can also prove that most accusations of rape are false. How many of these false accusations were made with an agenda, let's say, while a divorce case was simultaneously running.

As a result, between half and two-thirds of rape cases did not proceed beyond the investigation stage.

Perhaps because most investigations show in an early stage already that there simply was no rape?

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".

Accusations of rape are very serious accusations. Look at your own figures. They may as well prove that most accusations of rape are false. I do think that all accusations should be taken very seriously, but can you really blame overworked policemen for being sceptical, given the fact that most accusations that make it into court, appear to have been false?

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.

OR, there is a disturbingly high number of false accusations. Why do you automatically assume that your conclusion is the only possible right one?

Your example proves nothing

[Fragony]

What feminists don't understand is that nobody likes ugly lesbians.

[Subotan]

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

The work Western feminists can do in providing help to feminists in developing countries is really quite limited, for all sorts of reasons.

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

There is a word used to describe the overall system of systems of oppression that overlap: kyriarchy. Being poor and white means you get all kinds of bad things, including lower life expectancy, worse education, less social mobility etc. but being, say, poor and black means you get all of those things and more. Social privilege is multi-faceted, and it is by means possible for you to be privileged in one area and very disadvantaged in another.

Sensationalism to keep the cause alive long after it has served its usefulness is not, and I believe most Americans who claim to be the victims ofwide-spread prejudice at this point are really just lazy good-for-nothings, regardless of race or gender

Some interesting statistics:

80% of white people in 1960 in America believed that racism was not a problem in their community
90% thought that white and black children got the same standard of education

Now, in hindsight, that's obviously wrong. But it's symptomatic of a much longer trend of white people, not necessarily intentionally or maliciously, completely misjudging just how rubbish it has always been to be non-white in the United States. In light of this, I would be very cautious about similar statements to the one I quoted.

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.

Sure, and I didn't want to imply that somehow some topics are reserved for men and others are for women. The comment was a facetious criticism of the current content of the backroom and the lack of discussion about feminist issues. Sorry if I messed up.

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:

Completely agree.

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.

As a man, it doesn't even occur to me that when I use the term "feminist" self-descriptively that it could mean anything to me but the equivalent of egalitarianism. That said, I refuse to describe myself as an egalitarian, as I feel that using a qualifier to describe myself to people who wouldn't describe themselves as feminists could cause them to think "Hey, if Subotan is an egalitarian feminist, does that mean that all the feminists who don't explicitly call themselves egalitarian are crazy?" By showing to other men that men can be feminists, despite being male and sane, is probably one of the few unique contributions men can contribute to feminism.

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.

Why does anyone care? Some women want to be stay at home moms, some don't. Some men want to be stay at home dads, believe it or not.

I don't really like using cartoons instead of actually writing, but this image presents my problems with that statement pretty succinctly.

And you say that it doesn't compare to the number of rapes, but how do you know? 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.

A black person in the scenario you described would likely end up dead. Most rapists aren't even charged, let alone convicted.

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.

That's nice in theory, but implementation of the law can be a huge challenge. It took years and multiple rulings by the Supreme Court and federal government intervention to desegregate schools in the aftermath of Brown vs. The Board.

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.

That seems rather backwards. Why does women standing up for their rights imply that women are not strong enough to demand their own rights?

This idiotic fuzzy line between consensual and non-consensual is directly working against that

How do you define rape if not by consent?

I'm not ever going to say that rape should go on, or be justified, but there are an awful lot of women out there that need to learn the difference between feeling guilty about a fling and being raped.

This is straying really close to victim blaming.

Accusations like that ruin careers, destroy families, and in some cases get you put on a list.

If a rapist rapes somebody, then he/she should face the consequences of their decision.

Allowing false accusations to go on only cheapens the ability to punish real rapists.

Nobody is "pro-false rape accusation", or wants them to continue. But the injustice caused by under-convictions of rapists is much greater than any caused by conviction of innocent men and women for rape.

If those rapes are not reported, then how do we even know they happened? I'm going to be very blunt here: rape is a terrible crime so it seems like a no-brainer to me that anyone who becomes victim of it, reports it. Those who claim that they have been raped, but never reported it, probably weren't raped at all. I simply have a very, very hard time believing that women who are being raped, just let it happen without reporting it.

If you talk to rape victims/survivors, most will tell you that a huge part of the trauma, if not the majority of it is from the reactions of people after the rape. For example, I met a survivor who was raped, and went and told her grandmother that she had been raped, and the first thing her grandmother asked was "What were you wearing?". Her grandmother later apologised, but it was still extremely hurtful. Of course, that's just anecdotal, but it's a good illustration of the way in which the aftermath of a rape can be pretty nasty, and it's not surprising that many survivors/victims want to get over the whole process as quickly as possible, especially if conviction rates are low.

What feminists don't understand is that nobody likes ugly lesbians.

[Fragony]

'That seems rather backwards. Why does women standing up for their rights imply that women are not strong enough to demand their own rights?

They have rights, the same as men. But do they ever want equality on the garbage-van or the assembly-line, of course not. Feminists want positive discrimination, they want executive positions on the merit of being born with a vagina. I'm a feminist at heart as women should have equal rights, but absolutely nothing more

[CountArach]

I'm not sure if the meaning of the word "discursive" is the same as the Dutch "discursief" and I don't seem to be able to find a translation of it on the web, so if you could explain the meaning of it to this non native speaker, I'd be very much obliged

Basically it is a term used in linguistics to describe the manner in which society talks, envisions and conceptualises any particular topic.

If those rapes are not reported, then how do we even know they happened? I'm going to be very blunt here: rape is a terrible crime so it seems like a no-brainer to me that anyone who becomes victim of it, reports it. Those who claim that they have been raped, but never reported it, probably weren't raped at all. I simply have a very, very hard time believing that women who are being raped, just let it happen without reporting it. Seems to me like a made-up story to justify the existence of feminist movements and to raise funds for them.

Public surveys are much more accurate than crime statistics for things such as this, where there is a culture of silence for fear of having a stigma attached to them. This study from the British Home Office describes it in outline (I haven't got time to follow up on the references, thye relevant pages are pp. 13-16):

In fact, there has only been a single study designed solely to provide information on the extent of unreported rape (Painter, 1991). This survey involved 1,007 women in 11 cities and was primarily an attempt to quantify the extent of marital rape. The key findings include:

One in four women had experienced rape or attempted rape in their lifetime;
The most common perpetrators were current and ex-partners; and
The vast majority (91%) told no one at the time.

[...]
The Australian Women’s Safety Survey conducted by the Bureau of Statistics in 1996 (Easteal, 1998) involved a random sample 6,300 women aged 18 and over. It produced incidence finding of 1.9 per cent for sexual assault in the previous 12 months. Known men accounted for over two-thirds of assailants (68%), and current / ex-partners and dates comprised more than half of this group (an even higher proportion was found in the most recent US study, Tjaden and Thoennes, 1998). Over half of the assaulted women in the sample (59%) had told a friend, and 15 per cent reported to the police.

And what does that prove? Might as well interprete those figures as evidence that many men are falsely accused of rape. Allthough most of those men are found innocent at the end of the ride, they'll be stigmatised in the community they live in for the rest of their lives. Maybe they even lost their job and/or the right to see their children while the investigation was still ongoing. Maybe the outrage should be aimed more at those who ruin other peoples' lives by falsely accusing them...

What about the stigma attached to being raped? What about the effects on the emotional state of the victim, not to mention their lives?

The probe reveals that students deemed “responsible” for alleged sexual assaults on college campuses can face little or no consequence for their acts. Yet their victims’ lives are frequently turned upside down. For them, the trauma of assault can be compounded by a lack of institutional support, and even disciplinary action. Many times, victims drop out of school, while their alleged attackers graduate. Administrators believe the sanctions commonly issued in the college judicial system provide a thoughtful and effective way to hold culpable students accountable, but victims and advocates say the punishment rarely fits the crime.

As for the false conviction, only 8% of rape accusations are false (pg. 47 of the Home Office study linked above). That statistic alone deals with the rest of your post.

Why do you automatically assume that your conclusion is the only possible right one?

I don't. But the experts in the field seem to agree.

[Subotan]

They have rights, the same as men. But do they ever want equality on the garbage-van or the assembly-line, of course not. Feminists want positive discrimination, they want executive positions on the merit of being born with a vagina. I'm a feminist at heart as women should have equal rights, but absolutely nothing more

I've already addressed this.

All the more reason to help? Or is this one of those situations where making the most noise is more important than doing the most good?

If anything, it's the opposite. If you take somewhere like Egypt, where the Mubarak regime promoted a Potemkin version of feminism in order to secure support from Western democracies, the resulting fall of the regime has seen a backlash against feminism as a foreign idea which is associated with the dictatorship.

No one doubts that. Or at least, I should hope not. Perhaps you'd like to pull out the numbers on how many white people live under the poverty line compared to other races COMBINES? That'd be a good one. And yet it is still considered socially okay to bag on white people? Are you kidding me? We're the evil empire, when most of us are poor as hell? I can say with absolutely certainty that it sucks being a poor white guy, just like it sucks being a poor black guy. I didn't get some special "Oh, hey, I'm poor but its okay I'm white so they gave me to the key to the city."

I'm not ragging on white people, and that's a strawman argument.

The inequality that exists today is perpretrated by the rich against ALL the poor. If poor black guys get a slightly worse shaft, that doesn't mean its a black problem. Its still a Rich vs. Poor problem. We are freaking past this, and have moved on to something much more urgent and dangerous--made all the more so by the fact that people still argue about this!

Like I said earlier - why, given that white people have always considered racism to be a lesser problem than it actually is, is racism now suddenly not a problem? Surely based on this past experience of 100% failure we should be listening to people who do say "Uh yeah, we still get treated badly because we aren't white"? Likewise with sexism between the genders.

Racism is one of the biggest evils in society. As is Sexism, Classism, or any other form of Prejudice. A bigger one is ignorance--in this case showcased by people willing to continue throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a cause that has long since fulfilled its purpose. We should be promoting public awareness, enforcing the standard, and making sure everything is honkey-dory, but that wouldn't make nearly enough money for all the organizations that rely on this kind of manufactured outrage would it?

I would imagine that people who aren't privileged are in a better position to judge whether they are outraged or not.

That's offensive to any of the many married couples that took the time to plan ahead. A lost art in today's society. But no, some people are slow on the up-take, and can't take care of themselves and their families because they never think of the consequences of their actions.

What? No, it isn't. It's a comment on the way people planning ahead is shunted down particular paths due to economic circumstances outside of their control.

So what the hell do you want to do about that? Give them money for being idiots? Where do you draw the line? The law says men and women are equal. The law says race does not matter. The law says a property management company had better not even THINK about a customer's ethnicity or they'll be be in big trouble.

Ah, but didn't you just say that "Racism is one of the biggest evils in society. As is Sexism, Classism, or any other form of Prejudice." If the law legislates against it, and it's still a problem, then there is still work to be done in addressing it.

Ditto about every other prejudice you could possibly want enforcement against.

Two that immediately spring to mind - homophobia and transphobia.

I just don't see how anyone who has ever had a less-than-reasonable girlfriend could take those statistics at face value. Last time I checked, women were wired to have a more emotional response to events that a man might consider less than emotion-worthy, no? When I see a statistic like "1 in 4 women have been raped or had an attempted rape" I can only believe that many of those so-called Rapes were not rapes, and that many of those attempted rapes were not attempted rapes.

Please define how a rape differs from a "so-called rape" or a "not rape". I remind you that you still haven't addressed my question about how you would define rape if not by consent.

But hey, it doesn't even matter right? I think you're numbers are bogus, you think my logic is flawed, all is well. Even if I am right, it wouldn't stop the loud ones from being loud anyway--which is to nobody's benefit at this point.

Well no, no discussion on the backroom does matter. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen though.

[Fragony]

'I've already addressed this.'

Do it again as I don't see how

[Andres]

That study seems to be an interesting read. I don't know if I'll have the time to read it all, but I most certainly try.

Random points:

- complaints about the police: is that exclusively so for rape victims? I know many victims of various crimes are dissatisfied with how they are treated by the Justice department and complain about the criminals having more rights than victims;
- the thing about "alcohol administered to facilitate rape". Unless the beverages was forced through her throat using violence, it's a bit easy for a girl that had a drunken one night stand to say afterwards that the guy forced her by getting her drunk. It's you who's pouring the drinks down your throat and losing control; don't blame somebody else for something you regret;
- 1 out of 4 seems like an unbelievably high number. 1 out of 4. That's 25 %. And 91 % of those never tell anyone? 25,00 % of the women around you and me were raped? Do you honestly believe that number? Here, in the West, in this timeframe? Really? That's the kind of number you'd expect in some country torn by civil war. Did they ask the women they surveyed to define "rape" in their own words? Example: A husband says, after a few months of no sex with his wife for no apparent reason, that he has enough of it and that if his wife keeps refusing to have sex with him, he'll divorce her because he finds the current situation humiliating. If she then has sex with him, because she's afraid that after the divorce, she'll find herself in a very difficult financial situation; is that rape or not? After all, the husband threatens her with something from which he knows it'll have severe consequences for her. If she still loves him or she doesn't want to divorce because of the effects on the children and has sex with him for those reason, has she been forced or not? It's not rape at all in my book, but I'm sure a woman in that situation might have a different opinion.How many of such women would answer "yes" to the question "have you ever been forced to have sex against your will" in such a survey?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

Not for the individual couple. Yes, women should absolutely be allowed to return to their careers after taking 9 months maternity leave, but they will be nine months behind everyone else when they come back, that's all. On the other hand, I think women should be allowed to drop out of their careers in order to make sure their children are raised well by someone who loves them and not a paid nanny.

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.

This assumes there is automatically something to correct. Historically, yes that was true but today not so much. Also, you are making a huge, and I think erroneous, assumption about the interaction between social constructs and human nature. It is a simple fact that men became politically dominant in most cultures because men are the ones who go off and do the dying in war, and therefore they demanded the biggest stake in politics to decide when to do that dying. I don't think it's any accident that we have a more sexually equal society today as well as a more peaceful one.

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

I have met male feminists like that, they don't actually have good relationships with women.

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.

We're not talking about prudishness, we're talking about manners. Manners are a way of communicating on an open and mutually understood field, and of showing respect. Men an women don't talk the same way, don't quite think the same way. Manners create a "safe" space to interact in. Part of Manners was not openly objectifying women, another part was insisting on opening the door for her. Feminists rejected traditional manners as sexist (which I think is debatable if you've ever seen a petite woman put her shoulder to a fire door) and so they denigrated the whole edifice. That created the vacumn that sexual comodification seeped into. Also, there was a period where some feminists sought to confront men with female sexuality by, say, posing naked. That didn't actually help because no man is actually impressed by a woman taking her clothes off, it just encourages objectification.

As to female sexuality being treated "as seriously", they have achieved that - because it is now as trivialised as male sexuality, as a result female sexual activity is also trivialised - which is bad because it encourages young women to engage in casual sex which can have serious reprocussions. I get the point about repression of female sexuality, but it's not a constant even in a "Patriachal" society, it varies quite a lot.

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

I don't, the point is about how women encourage men to behave.

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.

I agree, but a feminist would ask, "why do I need protecting?" which misses the point.

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

because women are less likely to let them.

lolwut this is completely wrong.

No, it isn't. Read a lad's mag to see the start of the problem. Men have to compete, with other men and not women, deny them that and they become frustrated and act out. In some cases they become ardant football supporters (there are recorded cases of sexual dysfunction if a man's team is on a losing streak), they join gangs or become hooligans, in extreme cases they rape women in order to exercise power. Rape is all about power and subjugation. If you stop casting the ideal man as the White Knight then the average man is more likely to exhibit tendancies of the Black Knight.

[Andres]

Yes, women should absolutely be allowed to return to their careers after taking 9 months maternity leave, but they will be nine months behind everyone else when they come back, that's all.

9 months? What workers' paradise do you live in? Here it's 3 months. Agree with the rest.

Side note: I wouldn't be too surprised if employers refused childless women aged +/- 30 in a relationship for a job (unless they are extremely well qualified) if there are other suitable candidates, because it's likely she'll start to procreate which means 1 or 2 times 3 months of maternal leave. That's a form of discrimination that exists, unfortunately. Don't know if movements or laws can change that, since an employer can invent 1.000 of reasons to refuse an applicant or hire another one who is "better". Movements won't change a thing about that. Then again, one can argue if it's truly discrimination. Her male counterpart simply cannot get pregnant and doesn't have the right to have 3 months maternal leave, so their situations are not the same. A solution would be to give the father also 3 months and make it mandatory for both parents to take those three months. In that scenario, you create equal job opportunities for both sexes, since both will be absent for work during 3 months if they have a child.

On the other hand, I think women should be allowed to drop out of their careers in order to make sure their children are raised well by someone who loves them and not a paid nanny.

Why would you only allow that to women and not to man? In Belgium, both mothers and fathers have the right to take a (far too short) break in their career for their children.

[Subotan]

'I've already addressed this.'

Do it again as I don't see how

I'm not here to educate you. Find it yourself.

This assumes there is automatically something to correct. Historically, yes that was true but today not so much. Also, you are making a huge, and I think erroneous, assumption about the interaction between social constructs and human nature. It is a simple fact that men became politically dominant in most cultures because men are the ones who go off and do the dying in war, and therefore they demanded the biggest stake in politics to decide when to do that dying. I don't think it's any accident that we have a more sexually equal society today as well as a more peaceful one.

Does "not so much" mean just that, or not at all?

We're not talking about prudishness, we're talking about manners. Manners are a way of communicating on an open and mutually understood field, and of showing respect. Men an women don't talk the same way, don't quite think the same way. Manners create a "safe" space to interact in. Part of Manners was not openly objectifying women, another part was insisting on opening the door for her. Feminists rejected traditional manners as sexist (which I think is debatable if you've ever seen a petite woman put her shoulder to a fire door) and so they denigrated the whole edifice. That created the vacumn that sexual comodification seeped into. Also, there was a period where some feminists sought to confront men with female sexuality by, say, posing naked. That didn't actually help because no man is actually impressed by a woman taking her clothes off, it just encourages objectification.

Eh, the use of the word "manners" looks like a smokescreen to me to justify treating women who acted as non-sexual beings as china dolls.

As to female sexuality being treated "as seriously", they have achieved that - because it is now as trivialised as male sexuality, as a result female sexual activity is also trivialised - which is bad because it encourages young women to engage in casual sex which can have serious reprocussions. I get the point about repression of female sexuality, but it's not a constant even in a "Patriachal" society, it varies quite a lot.

Why does young women having casual (by which I mean, safe, consensual etc.) sex potentially have serious repercussions? Does the same apply to men?

I don't, the point is about how women encourage men to behave.

I would hope that everybody would encourage everyone else to intervene if they saw a rape taking place.

I agree, but a feminist would ask, "why do I need protecting?" which misses the point.

A criticism like that is very circumstantial.

because women are less likely to let them.

It's definitely patronising to always assume that women are in need of protection. Couldn't the reason for the decline in the need for men to protect people come about from the decline in violence you mentioned earlier?

No, it isn't. Read a lad's mag to see the start of the problem. Men have to compete, with other men and not women, deny them that and they become frustrated and act out. In some cases they become ardant football supporters (there are recorded cases of sexual dysfunction if a man's team is on a losing streak), they join gangs or become hooligans, in extreme cases they rape women in order to exercise power. Rape is all about power and subjugation. If you stop casting the ideal man as the White Knight then the average man is more likely to exhibit tendancies of the Black Knight.

I definitely agree that rape is about power and subjugation, but I don't think that conclusion can be reached from your premise i.e. that the breakdown of gender roles is causing rapists to rape.

EDIT:

A solution would be to give the father also 3 months and make it mandatory for both parents to take those three months. In that scenario, you create equal job opportunities for both sexes, since both will be absent for work during 3 months if they have a child.

Or, make materinity/paternity leave equal for both parents and use-it-or-lose-it for each individual.

[Andres]

Or, make materinity/paternity leave equal for both parents and use-it-or-lose-it for each individual.

I'd make it mandatory to use it, in the interest of the child, but that's just a personal opinion. Also, if it's not mandatory, the old-fashioned employer (who still exists) won't hire the female because of the by old fashionedness inspired idea that the woman will use it and the man not.

If it's mandatory, you'll also avoid situations where a childish employer will abuse his power by putting his employees under pressure not to take it, but that's a different topic.

[Fragony]

'I'm not here to educate you. Find it yourself.'

I checked, and I must admit that I don't have a vagina. But I please you (or demand in case you are something minoriteish) to do it again, My world is so hostile without it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

Feminism is basically sexist, it only focuses on one issue, gender, and only from one point of view. Egalitarianism is, well, more egalitarian. I don't believe the two are interchangable because they come from different starting point. Egalitarianism says all people should equal, or equitable, feminism says women have been historically oppressed and this should change. Feminism was important when most men thought it was ok for women to be disenfranchised, now I consider it worse that useless because it skews the argument about gender relations and I consider that harmful to the health of society and individual relationships.

I honeslty believe that the feminist deabte has done more to oppress women than liberate them, it has made women's bodies more objectifiable by rejecting traditional gender roles that valued the more intangible elements of femininity and it has removed the impetutus for men to treat women with respect by casting the traditional man and simply sexist. I won't deny that traditional steryotypes are somewhat sexist, or that they weren't used to oppress women, but they also served to constrain that oppression. They required modification, not rejection.

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.

What I have never seen feminism address is the conplicity of the Matriarchy and the benefit women recieved from a male-dominated political system in a violent and uncertain world.

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.

In some sense it is true that women were at a disadvantage, but to describe it as "Patriarchy" implies a (possibly concious) development of a social construct over a more egalitarian primitive state. I don't think that holds water, for the basic reason that division of certain tasks between men and women is economically efficient. Also, society no longer puts women at a structural disadvantage, the remaining disadvantage is, I think, a result of the basic gender difference, which is down to hormones and childbirth. I know in the UK there are a number of female MPs in Parliament who take testosterone in orde to compete. It's also worth noting that men and women both compete within their gender, and clearly need to for reproductive and psychological reasons, but in different ways.

I think men, in particular, need a place to compete free of women, because if women compete with men it ceases to be a valid ranking exercise.

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.

Pet peave, can we not talk about "Abrahamic" religions, or "Judeo-Christianity" either? Now, you are correct about Paul, which is the only place in the New Testemant where women are prohibited as you describe, and about the teaching and formal organisation of religions in the Classical and pre-modern world. However, and this is very important, women had the power of prophecy, and prophecy is extremely influencial in shaping the decisions with religious Councils make. It's also important to recognise that religious organisation reflects the society the religion inhabits. The core religious doctrine can be largely a-sexual, but if the society is dominated politically by men then the religious organisation is likely to reflect that.

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?

Do you know, one medieval cure for impotence was to invite all the goodwives to the bed of the aflicted man and have them laugh at his flacid penis? Religion has been used to oppress women at certain period s throughout history, but while it often enshrines gender roles it does not consistantly enshrine oppression. For example, Paul says that when a man and a women marry they should not deny each other sexual relations because they own each other, both equally. Also, to see the man as "ruler of the household" is to miss that the women runs the household.

As to the arrival of women's sufferage, I would say that it arrived when it did because such a large number of men went to war and as a result women demostrate a competence that gave credence to their demand for sufferage. This brings us back to eagilitarianism, because you narrative ignores that, historically, voting rights had far more to do with wealth and social class than gender. In most medieval governmental systems high class women had more political power or influence, provided they held wealth or title, than low class men.

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.

Blaming religion for the oppression of women is like blaming it for war, it makes religion (as a social system) into some autonomous force distinguishable from society at large, rather than an expression of society. To put it another way, an egalitarian society will produce an egalitarian religion, a violent one will produce a violent religion (see Vikings).

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.

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.

While you're right about women being unjustly excluded, we're talking about the top percentage there - in straitened economic circumstances a couple doesn't have the luxury of following their ideal dream career, they have to make the most of what they have in order to raise their children.

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.

I would say egalitarianism includes all the goals of feminism, but the reverse is not also true.

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.

As the first son going back many generations, in the direct line, I have more issues with it. Care to provide an answer?

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?

No, because I was talking about the law of unintended consequences, some feminists thought it would be provocative to take their clothes, but the core issue is the wrecking ball of feminism going through male sexual mores, rather than female ones.

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.

that works, but it's still not best use of resources for the couple, two interupted careers instead of one.

[Montmorency]

A relevant piece of scholarship:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Abstract

Female labor force participation can be influenced by persistent dif-
ferences in cultural norms about the perception of women in society.
We empirically examine where these dierences come from. Central
to our explanation are historic dierences in agricultural technologies,
which generated historical dierences in the organization of market
versus household work along gender lines. We show that, consistent
with the existing anthropological evidence, in societies with a tradi-
tional use of animal plough agriculture the division of labor is split
along gender lines, with men working outside of the home in agricul-
ture and industry, and women working within the home. We then
document the persistence of these cultures over time by examining
the relationship between historic plough use and contemporary fe-
male labor force participation, female participation in politics, and
individuals' attitudes about the role of women. We present estimates
at the ethnicity, sub-national region, and country levels. We identify
the causal eect of plough technology on attitudes about women by
instrumenting for the historic use of the plough with the society's en-
dowment of geography suitable for growing crops that require plough
cultivation with those that do not.

Precis:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

-----------------------

One feasible method for achieving gender equality is to create men and women that are, in all respects - particularly reproductive and neurophysiological - anatomically identical. That is: unisex posthumans.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Right!? During my brief attempt at marriage, the plan was for my wife to re-enlist in the Army, while I got out and persued an education. If we'd have had kids, I'd have been a stay at home dad. Is there anything wrong with that? No, not at all. The roles are as interchangeable as we want them to be, and every sane person knows that. We're past this whole thing! Honestly.

9 months? What workers' paradise do you live in? Here it's 3 months. Agree with the rest.

Side note: I wouldn't be too surprised if employers refused childless women aged +/- 30 in a relationship for a job (unless they are extremely well qualified) if there are other suitable candidates, because it's likely she'll start to procreate which means 1 or 2 times 3 months of maternal leave. That's a form of discrimination that exists, unfortunately. Don't know if movements or laws can change that, since an employer can invent 1.000 of reasons to refuse an applicant or hire another one who is "better". Movements won't change a thing about that. Then again, one can argue if it's truly discrimination. Her male counterpart simply cannot get pregnant and doesn't have the right to have 3 months maternal leave, so their situations are not the same. A solution would be to give the father also 3 months and make it mandatory for both parents to take those three months. In that scenario, you create equal job opportunities for both sexes, since both will be absent for work during 3 months if they have a child.

England, currently ruled by a Queen, with her bastard cousin as Prime Minister.

Why would you only allow that to women and not to man? In Belgium, both mothers and fathers have the right to take a (far too short) break in their career for their children.

I'd allow it for men as well, but that wasn't my point. My point is that women today are expected to be active mothers AND workers - and that's a pretty oppressive idea because men aren't under as much pressure. I'm away that was not entirely clear.

[tibilicus]

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_969439.html

In a wider context though the difference in equality is insane. Women own just 1% of the worlds wealth. It makes sense too, the corporate world for example is a mans world. In a wider context what status do women have in Africa, Middle East, Asia? Exactly. The bigger picture is distasteful and to put it down to purely cultural practice is both dismissive and unhelpful to addressing the problem.

[Viking]

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 gi.

What I am trying to say is that there is no more of a conspiracy against women than there is a conspiracy against, say, peace.

Let's say you want to fight poverty in the world. While it is useful for your purpose to sometimes view the world at large, all its history and content, in terms of material wealth; you wouldn't want to turn your reflection into an all-encompassing theory/ideology that can explain everything in this world in terms of wealth/poverty. This is pretty much where feminism is at; it's not just for a few arenas, but rather for the whole existence. You bet [some] feminists would be eager to explain poverty in terms of feministic concepts.

While such theories and ideologies can be useful tools to get insight, their limited scope will prevent full and (sometimes) useful insight.

So if there is an issue with gender balance, you name it an 'issue of gender balance' and see if you can solve it, but you don't centre an all-encompassing grand theory/ideology on it (which is not to say that you should not launch campaigns or start organisations). That is completetly out of proportions - not because of the problem's reach or size, but because most things in this world only touch this topic indirectly.

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.

The physical gender is inevitable, the cultural gender less so. Feminism needs a cultural gender - a womankind - in order to be effective. If only 10% of the women were victims of discrimination due to their female gender, feminism would have no stand. The percentage must be must higher, preferably close to one hundred, because there needs to be a collective victim conscience, something almost every female can relate to; and preferably they all feel equally strongly victimised.

In this, there is little room for individuality. If you are woman, you are so strongly a victim that you should care.

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

The more accurate an ideological label is, the more the ideology is on the person's mind. If you think a certain Jesus or Muhammad said a few wise things, you're still not a Christian or a Muslim. If you think Karl Marx wrote a lot of smart stuff, you're still not a communist.

I have not that much of an idea what the average person means when they say that they are a feminist, but I highly suspect most of them just have gender equality in mind. Feminist theory goes far beyond this point. Some might say that feminism is not quite the same as feminist theory, but the two are used synonymously the vast majority of the time (just look to the OP and the links provided there).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does "not so much" mean just that, or not at all?

No, but it does mean that I think there is no legal barrier to a woman being successful, nor are their any insurmountable practical ones. There may be room for inprovement, but it's almost entirely (in the West) about inproving individual attitudes, and only time will really do that.

Eh, the use of the word "manners" looks like a smokescreen to me to justify treating women who acted as non-sexual beings as china dolls.

That's because you're viewing it through a feminist lens, and that's skewing your perspective. You're not wrong, but at least women used to be judged by slightly more suble standards than how they looked in a pair of booty shorts. Whatever else they might be, china dolls are valuable.

Why does young women having casual (by which I mean, safe, consensual etc.) sex potentially have serious repercussions? Does the same apply to men?

Yes, physically, emotionally and economically. While we're here, lets drop the notion of "safe" sex; you might be relatively "safe" in terms of pregnancy but even then there's great potentially to catch something from the other person - if you're doing it right.

I would hope that everybody would encourage everyone else to intervene if they saw a rape taking place.

So would I, but as men do most of the raping instilling a proactively "anti-rape" mindest in young men and tying it directly to their masculinity is probably more frutiful than tying rape to masculinity in "non means no" campaigns. Yes, no does mean no, but that's a negative message, it can encourage a negative view of male sexuality. Much better to teach men, "if you hear a woman scream, it IS your business". Hand in hand with this, we need to recognise that some men are no better than animals and women need to take this into account in how they dress and whether they let a man they know (and can trust) walk them home at the end of the night.

Would that we could make this a perfect world, but we can't.

A criticism like that is very circumstantial.

I've heard it before, I consider it a relevent generalisation.

It's definitely patronising to always assume that women are in need of protection. Couldn't the reason for the decline in the need for men to protect people come about from the decline in violence you mentioned earlier?

Every year at Exeter University at least one first year girl is sexually assaulted, this year she was actually raped. The reason is always basically the same, she was walking home on her own in the early hour of the morning, possibly drunk, down a dark streat because she assumed my little city was safe. A couple of times pairs of girls have been attacked, I have never heard of a girl and a boy being sexually attacked. I am utterly convinced that the reason for this is that rapists are predators and a man and a woman together present a more difficult proposition than either a single woman or a small group. This is because generally speaking you can expect the man to move to protect the woman and by the time he is eliminated she will have run off and (hopefully) got help. We're talking about preventing a situation, not aiming to fight an attacker off.

I definitely agree that rape is about power and subjugation, but I don't think that conclusion can be reached from your premise i.e. that the breakdown of gender roles is causing rapists to rape.

Oh, I'm not saying it's making rapists rape, but rape should be happening less and less, yet we have a figure of 1 in 4 which (excluding marital rape) seems high even by historical standards. I mean, hell, it's not like we're living through the 30 Years War here. What is clear is that there's more than just violent power-rape going on, there's also date rape, which probably accounts for a lot of the unreported rapes, and that has to do with not respecting boundaries between men and women. You can point to rape by the upper classes, and even domestic abuse, but the fact is historically those weren't any more acceptable then than now, but it seems that despite supposed advances in women's rights men are still getting away with it , but without the protection of power or privilage.

[PanzerJaeger]

One feasible method for achieving gender equality is to create men and women that are, in all respects - particularly reproductive and neurophysiological - anatomically identical. That is: unisex posthumans.

This is actually pretty spot on, apart from the reproductive element. From infancy, people are forced in to pretty narrow boxes based on all sorts of factors during socialization, gender being one of the biggest. Children should not be separated by gender in the way they are socialized, and should instead be allowed and encouraged to pursue their own identity. If a girl shows interest in pink, Barbie dolls, and a future in home making, that is great, but it should not be foisted upon her.

And prohibitive socialization does not just impact women. Gender roles are increasingly forcing men into lower paying, less influential jobs as they are considered more masculine.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And prohibitive socialization does not just impact women. Gender roles are increasingly forcing men into lower paying, less influential jobs as they are considered more masculine.

I for one actually don't mind this one. If the abrasive “masculine” types all decide to go logging or truck driving in Canada, I say that is to be encouraged. It frees up many positions for more pleasant company. The berks get to be all cool (literally) and masculine (in their mind) and the rest of us get a more enjoyable workplace as a result.

[Papewaio]

Sorry but as someone who has worked in mining, banks, contact centers and IT:
Most aggressive where generally the least masculine... They have to prove something with their red tape.
Women at minesites had a preference for the more feral drilling men who are pretty much the closest to cave man movie physique you will find. Just like a lot of them will prefer men in uniform ie military and fireman but not nurses.

So what is driving evolution there? Sexual selection and who are women choosing?

Masculine =/= sexist, sex =/= gender.
Masculine = body confidence.

If you are confident and capable you don't have to be arrogant and conniving. The first is outdoors men the second is stockbrokers and some of pro sportsmen.

[ajaxfetish]

BTW root has a double meaning :)

I concede the point. Male and Female do often share the same root after all.

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.

I think having a kid may prove a rude awakening for you.

Ajax

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Papewaio: I was being sarcastic. Me I don't quite buy the idea of people being pressured into gender-affirming jobs or something, we simply don't have such luxury; but if it did happen Canada seems like a convenient long-way-away type of destination for the sort of person who genuinely feels he “has to prove his masculinity” to me.

If you are confident and capable you don't have to be arrogant and conniving.

I'd write “bullish and conniving” but otherwise very much agreed. (Confidence tends to lead to a certain careless arrogance, after all.)

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

No, men have always been an interest group. It was the male interest group that didn't want women to gain the right to vote in the first place. I don't see what you are saying. You say woman's issues as if that is an artificial construct. But the fact that women have a uterus and men don't automatically make the subject of abortion more or less a woman's issue, because in all honesty men can't fully understand what it is like to have a uterus. Just like women don't really understand what the feeling of getting kicked in the balls is like.

Women are expected to care about one thing (abortion as example) because of their characteristic of being a woman because the issue itself revolves around their identity. Gender is part of our identity. When an issue targets a specific gender, it targets the individual, so of course they are expected to care about it. Is a woman going to go, "I don't care much about abortion, it's only about the freedom of my body vs the life of the kid that will grow inside me." Like wut?

I think having a kid may prove a rude awakening for you.

Ajax

Perhaps, I know roughly how tough young kids are. I am pretty sure I won't have that much time to myself for the first 6 years or so. But when they get to school, I think I can get on top of everything and have enough free time. In all honesty, math, science, history etc... up through high school is simple stuff and if my kids need help in that regard it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I was tutoring fellow students about chemistry when I was taking my high school chem class. Hell linear algebra wasn't too hard for me and yet a lot of people had trouble with it for some reason.

[Papewaio]

I'm painting with broad brush strokes but generally arrogance is more external and confidence internal. Confidence to me is being comfortable in ones own skin, arrogance is wanting a spotlight and an inability to view others abilities outside of a competitive win or lose paradigm.

[Subotan]

The physical gender is inevitable, the cultural gender less so.

You mean, the difference between sex and gender, right?

Feminism needs a cultural gender - a womankind - in order to be effective. If only 10% of the women were victims of discrimination due to their female gender, feminism would have no stand. The percentage must be must higher, preferably close to one hundred, because there needs to be a collective victim conscience, something almost every female can relate to; and preferably they all feel equally strongly victimised.

The percentage of women in the world who are treated badly because of their gender is much, much higher than 10%, and it's disingenuous of you to imply as such.

Let's say you want to fight poverty in the world. While it is useful for your purpose to sometimes view the world at large, all its history and content, in terms of material wealth; you wouldn't want to turn your reflection into an all-encompassing theory/ideology that can explain everything in this world in terms of wealth/poverty. This is pretty much where feminism is at; it's not just for a few arenas, but rather for the whole existence. You bet [some] feminists would be eager to explain poverty in terms of feministic concepts.

Pretty much everything is an ideology, and it's a poor argument to say that something is bad because it's an ideology. Geertz neatly summed up these arguments as falling into the familiar paradigm "I have a social philosophy; you have political opinions; he has an ideology."

No, but it does mean that I think there is no legal barrier to a woman being successful, nor are their any insurmountable practical ones. There may be room for inprovement, but it's almost entirely (in the West) about inproving individual attitudes, and only time will really do that.

As well as the women's movement, you forgot to add.

Yes, physically, emotionally and economically. While we're here, lets drop the notion of "safe" sex; you might be relatively "safe" in terms of pregnancy but even then there's great potentially to catch something from the other person - if you're doing it right.

Hmm. This is something we will likely have to agree to disagree on - with proper sex education, he choice to have casual sex is a tradeoff between a good time and informed risks. Also, safe referred to both diseases as well as getting preggers.

So would I, but as men do most of the raping instilling a proactively "anti-rape" mindest in young men and tying it directly to their masculinity is probably more frutiful than tying rape to masculinity in "non means no" campaigns. Yes, no does mean no, but that's a negative message, it can encourage a negative view of male sexuality. Much better to teach men, "if you hear a woman scream, it IS your business". Hand in hand with this, we need to recognise that some men are no better than animals and women need to take this into account in how they dress and whether they let a man they know (and can trust) walk them home at the end of the night.

That reinforces the idea that the only kind of rape is the jumping out of the bushes variety, when actually the majority of rapes are date rapes. Perfect Rape Victims who can have somebody save them are very, very rare occurrences.

I've heard it before, I consider it a relevent generalisation.

Oh, I was referring to the feminist's critique, not your comment.

Every year at Exeter University at least one first year girl is sexually assaulted, this year she was actually raped. The reason is always basically the same, she was walking home on her own in the early hour of the morning, possibly drunk, down a dark streat because she assumed my little city was safe. A couple of times pairs of girls have been attacked, I have never heard of a girl and a boy being sexually attacked. I am utterly convinced that the reason for this is that rapists are predators and a man and a woman together present a more difficult proposition than either a single woman or a small group. This is because generally speaking you can expect the man to move to protect the woman and by the time he is eliminated she will have run off and (hopefully) got help. We're talking about preventing a situation, not aiming to fight an attacker off.

This has definitely strayed into victim blaming.

Oh, I'm not saying it's making rapists rape, but rape should be happening less and less, yet we have a figure of 1 in 4 which (excluding marital rape) seems high even by historical standards. I mean, hell, it's not like we're living through the 30 Years War here. What is clear is that there's more than just violent power-rape going on, there's also date rape, which probably accounts for a lot of the unreported rapes, and that has to do with not respecting boundaries between men and women. You can point to rape by the upper classes, and even domestic abuse, but the fact is historically those weren't any more acceptable then than now, but it seems that despite supposed advances in women's rights men are still getting away with it , but without the protection of power or privilage.

Some historical data on rape would be interesting. I might have a look tomorrow.

This is actually pretty spot on, apart from the reproductive element. From infancy, people are forced in to pretty narrow boxes based on all sorts of factors during socialization, gender being one of the biggest. Children should not be separated by gender in the way they are socialized, and should instead be allowed and encouraged to pursue their own identity. If a girl shows interest in pink, Barbie dolls, and a future in home making, that is great, but it should not be foisted upon her.

And prohibitive socialization does not just impact women. Gender roles are increasingly forcing men into lower paying, less influential jobs as they are considered more masculine.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As well as the women's movement, you forgot to add.

No more than basic egalitarianism. Picking up on Syl point about religion, egalitarian Christians as early as 1400 were arguing for women to be allowed to preach, as the logical extension of a "universal" priesthood.

Hmm. This is something we will likely have to agree to disagree on - with proper sex education, he choice to have casual sex is a tradeoff between a good time and informed risks. Also, safe referred to both diseases as well as getting preggers.

So long as you accept there's a trade off, I'm happy to call it "safe", but sex is still a fairly serious undertaking.

That reinforces the idea that the only kind of rape is the jumping out of the bushes variety, when actually the majority of rapes are date rapes. Perfect Rape Victims who can have somebody save them are very, very rare occurrences.

You are correct, but you miss my point. It's all about making chivalry manly, a lot of "date rapes" look decidedly ambiguous, which is why cases tended to fall apart. While the woman in question probably was coerced, the extent to which she had drinks forced down her throat, or was actually spiked, is often unclear. Not only will a chivilrous man slay the evil rapist, not only will he NOT spike her drink, he will also not take advantge of her when she is insensible. It's about creating a mindset, creating taboos, and generating revulsion and the associated sense of shame. Shame is very undervalued.

Oh, I was referring to the feminist's critique, not your comment.

OK

This has definitely strayed into victim blaming.

Seven years now I have seen this pattern, you get a bit jaded when you have a box of rape alarms on your desk to give to 18 year old girls, but only 24 hours later. I am certainly not blaming the victims but the fact that it always happens to first years, in the first term, in basically the same place, tells me the unfortunate girls are in the wrong place at the wrong time, without taking adaquate precautions. It has never happened to a girl who was escorted, as long as I have been here.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Everything feels so surreal these days, just a couple of days ago I read a thread on another site where there was a consensus that it was sinful of women to disobey their husbands when they told them who to vote for, I know some people IRL who would say the same.

In the past I would have agreed almost instinctively with the sentiments in this thread, but I feel like I have been pulled out of that world, and away from the accompanying mindset. Which is not to say that I now agree with what the people on that other site said. I don't know what I think, everyone else seems rooted in their own socio-cultural norms, but I feel like I'm torn between different worlds, like I'm just an observer watching on...

I am dismayed about a lot of things these days, and have concluded that the whole modern world is a monstrosity. Whether you believe it is by evolution or deliberate design, people were made to live a certain way, and this just isn't it. We have a need to see the work of our own hands when we make a living, to feel like we are working towards something... not serve like drones in part of a system. We need to have security in our lives, to feel rooted and have a solid job... not fleet around doing 6 months here 6 months there just to get a job, only to have to reapply for it every year. We are meant to be a part of a community, to feel like we have something in common with our neighbours... instead we are trained through the school systems to feel guilty if we don't embrace 'diversity'. When we are physically and psychologically ready, we are meant to go and get married and have kids... instead we get forced into this bizarre, surreal state somewhere between that of a child and an adult, as life gets put on the backburner in the hope that we might get to pursue a career, which is itself a big enough doubt in today's environment.

And to bring this back to the thread subject. There has been a lot in this thread about the 'stuctural' factors that have supposedly generated artificial concepts of masculinity and femeninity that the male and female sexes are expected to adhere to respectively, whether they be in the form of institutional discrimination or societal expectations/conditioning. Indeed, the woes of the world and all its inequalities are often blamed on these largely abstract, 'structural' factors, whether the problem is poverty, racism, or sexism. This blinkered mindset is riduculous, it pre-supposes that without these 'structural' factors, the natural state of mankind would be a perfectly idylic, egalitarian one.

Well, guess what, it works both ways. Far from undermining an an oppressive mesh of structural factors that maintains an artificial divide between the sexes and returning them to a more natural state of equality, I think feminism does the opposite. What is does is create its own artificial ideal of what a woman should be, and what she should do, and how she should live her life. In fact it attempts to make women into a copy of what is essentially the classic male rolemodel.

I mean, feminists complain at how society pressures women into a certain lifestyle. How, until at least very recently, women might be expected to be housekeepers, and many probably will still be encouraged in that direction by their parents or spouses or whoever. Well, the feminist system has created its own pressures. The successful, modern woman is now expected to have her own career and successes independent of her husband, to work her own 9-5 job and maintain herself even when married. And for things like having kids to be put off until her 40's... I've heard a lot about how feminism seeks to deconstruct artificial societal norms and return to a more natural and fairer state... well what on earth is natural about putting off having kids until the absolute maximum end of your fertile years (creating health risks for parent and child), just so that you can life the idealised life of a man in the 1950's?!

No, feminism is not just a redundant ideology like some in this thread have suggested. It is in fact a very malicious force that creates a whole articial system in order to attempt to enforce a form of equality that doesn't lend itself to either nature or practicality.

Away with it!

[Syl]

Some day, maybe hundreds of years from now, a more enlightened people will look back on some of these "activist" movements as having done far more harm than good.

I'd be interested in what other groups you'd lump into that. Also, what's your marker for when they transition from a useful movement into something destructive? My impression of your opinion is that, at least in the United States and the modern world, that since the legislature is caught up in many issues, it's not longer an issue.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that we don't have an amazing system and progress here in the United States. We're incredibly lucky to have what we have. However, Feminism is more than just about law, it's also about attitudes and discrimination. Issues like domestic violence and sexual assault are still a pretty big issue here, among others. Enough that it's worth talking about.

Feminism is also a global subject. Obvious issues aside like countries that don't respect women, there's issues like sex trafficking, female genital mutilation, etc. As this is a global forum, it's not just about Feminism in the west exclusively.

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 each other, who might otherwise work together on bigger and more important issues.

I agree that there are other important issues going on and other forms of blatant discrimination here in the United States and the world, such as homophobia and trans-phobia, as well as wealth disparity like you've mentioned. However, the phrase walking and chewing bubblegum comes to mind. Can we not be aware of these issues while we solve other problems? Does taking the time to think about it really shut down everything else?

Also, a lot of feminist theory involves classism, issues on racial discrimination, and gay rights. For men and women, as it's about equality for both sexes in a variety of areas in life, not just exclusively the escalation of women's rights.

-------------

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.

Feminism involves men and women uniting through political activity and the law to make that change as well as a social movement. We vote and speak out on issues. If that's insulting to women, then democracy is inherently insulting to those who participate in it.

-------------

Feminists want positive discrimination, they want executive positions on the merit of being born with a vagina. I'm a feminist at heart as women should have equal rights, but absolutely nothing more

I had to double check that those two sentences were really back to back. Feminists at heart do believe women should have equal rights and not something more. People who misconstrue what feminism is go with your first statement.

-------------

A bigger one is ignorance--in this case showcased by people willing to continue throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a cause that has long since fulfilled its purpose. We should be promoting public awareness, enforcing the standard, and making sure everything is honkey-dory, but that wouldn't make nearly enough money for all the organizations that rely on this kind of manufactured outrage would it?

I don't see anyone here asking you to put your money into anything, or divert funding. "We should be promoting public awareness, enforcing the standard, and making sure everything is honkey-dory." We're talking about this issue here in a public space about bringing public awareness to feminist issues. You're frustrated that we're just beating a dead horse.

-------------

Feminism is basically sexist, it only focuses on one issue, gender, and only from one point of view.

Feminist theory goes into much more than simply the issue of gender from the angle of a woman. It also includes issues relating to men's rights, racial issues, classism, and GLBT rights.

What I have never seen feminism address is the conplicity of the Matriarchy and the benefit women recieved from a male-dominated political system in a violent and uncertain world.

In regards to Matriarchy, proportionately the balance of Matrifocal societies is so rare against the more common Patriarchal system that I'm not sure how relevant it is. Women of the Iroquois had significant political power. I have trouble thinking of much more than that, compared to the thousands of years of our history where it's the opposite.

As for the benefits women receive from a male dominated system, I'd argue that it's a matter of your interpretation. In say, polygamy, if more women are able to be supported by fewer rich men, you could argue it'd be easier for her to find some level of stability in the world than otherwise. You could also argue it reduces women into being more of a commodity. The man can marry multiple women as suits his fancy, but the woman is restricted to that one marriage and under the power of that man. I'm not an expert on any of that so that may be a weak example, but, what I'm trying to argue is that certain benefits as a result of a system does not mean that that system is treating both groups equally or equivalently. In a male dominated society, whatever benefits you perceive to women under it, when the power structure is focused on men, men are more powerful.

I know in the UK there are a number of female MPs in Parliament who take testosterone in orde to compete.

I'm not familiar with that, but I'll naturally take your word for it :p. However, are they taking testosterone for an innate advantage from it, or because in a male dominated parliament they feel that they need the impact of its traits to compete in that demographic?

Women do produce testosterone, (and men do produce estrogen). Obviously it's at different levels, and the method of synthesis is different, but there is balance of those chemicals in men and women that affect certain aspects of behavior. Those levels are also not the same from woman to woman and man to man. Testosterone is largely linked to higher aggression (some argue status-seeking behavior), but that drive exists with in men and women at different levels not just apart from sex but as an individual. So my question is if she is taking testosterone, is she feeling that she needs to be more aggressive than she innately is? I'd say that's her action stems from the pressure presented by a male dominated political system that seems to focus on aggression, and not an innate advantage.

Paul says that when a man and a women marry they should not deny each other sexual relations because they own each other, both equally.

Well, the problem is the bible is full of contradictory statements, and it's up to which one you focus on in terms of how you can make your arguement. It also says the opposite.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Corinthians 11:9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Blaming religion for the oppression of women is like blaming it for war, it makes religion (as a social system) into some autonomous force distinguishable from society at large, rather than an expression of society. To put it another way, an egalitarian society will produce an egalitarian religion, a violent one will produce a violent religion (see Vikings).

I agree here that I certainly can't lump everything into it, and I don't mean to ^^. That was just a branch example that came to me to make a point. There are many secular reasons for the way people treat each other unfairly throughout history, so I don't mean to present my argument exclusively like that.

I honeslty believe that the feminist deabte has done more to oppress women than liberate them, it has made women's bodies more objectifiable by rejecting traditional gender roles that valued the more intangible elements of femininity and it has removed the impetutus for men to treat women with respect by casting the traditional man and simply sexist.

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.

As the first son going back many generations, in the direct line, I have more issues with it. Care to provide an answer?

These sort of tie together so I'll try and address them the same. This will probably come down to just a matter of disagreement between us, but here is my view. As individuals we are all a unique expression of a variety of traits, such as how self-confident we are or aren't, nurturing, passive, aggressive, sensitive, assertive, etc.

However, these traits are largely drawn down an artificial gender line. To be feminine is to be more sensitive, caring, compassionate, passive, etc. To be masculine is to be more aggressive, determined, brave, etc.

While we are our own unique blend of various traits, we are conditioned by society to conform mainly to the aspects of ourselves that match what people perceive our gender role to be. Gender is different than sex, sex being biological, and gender being the expectations that societies have for men and women, which have variation throughout history.

I am male, but I definitely have what you'd consider more of a feminine personality. I'm not very aggressive or dominant at all, I'm rather shy, often anxious, and the traits I tend to find the most important in people is their kindness and compassion to one another and their ability to try and cooperate. I don't like conflict, and while I enjoy discussions like this, confrontation makes me uncomfortable, although I try and speak up for what I believe in. A lot of people consider those to be feminine traits.

I know you know next to nothing about me, but, if all you knew was that profile of me, I doubt you would approve of me (at least in terms of how a man should be in society). I however like how I am and feel I have unique strengths and perspective from that. It's not always an advantage, but it's not always a disadvantage either.

If a boy cries, he's told to not show it, because it demeans him. If a man is sensitive, it can be seen as a positive trait, but if he is overly sensitive with other similar traits, society (and other men) pressure him to harden up.

We used to live in a world where both sexes were held more rigorously to this dichotomy. However, due in large part to the liberation of women, women have more freedom to blend the lines more today. For example, a woman who is confident, assertive, and independent is considered a much more acceptable thing that it was. She can couple that with traditionally feminine traits and society does not mind as much.

However, men are still held much more rigorously to just one end of the spectrum. Whatever your natural disposition is, society typically tries to shape you into the mold of what it expects of you as a man or woman. You hide traits that society does not approve of until they're either suppressed or gone.

I see that as ridiculous and stifling who we are as individuals as well as our natural strengths. I don't think feminine characteristics in a male make him weak, and a lot of people blur the boundary with androgynous behavior.

I'll try and steer this mega post to an end , thank you for your points Philipvs, and I'd be interested in your responding opinion if you have the time ^^.