Da Feminism Thread

[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 ^^.