Do you consider yourself a feminist?

[Mise]

I'm feminist in that I'm sensitive to the issues faced by women in modern society.

In Fifty-esque style, it's so "cool" and "hip" to be "anti-feminist".


... that's all I got. Guess I'm not that good at this

 

[Fronx]

That said, this is a thread about feminism. You're not doing it here, but changing the subject with "but what about this and this and this" type statments can be assholish and an effort to silence. Which is why it's so frustrating that, for example, practically every thread on the internet which talks about rape and sexual abuse ends up talking about false rape accusations and how men get hurt by them. It's not hard to see the power and privilege dynamics behind that constant shift. It's the OH GOD WHAT ABOUT THE MEN defence every feminist or pro-feminist man runs into, and kinda why most of them get annoyed when dudes do it... it's constant to the point of cliche.

Apologies if anyone got the feeling that my attempt was to silence or to threatjack. I merely was pointing out, that some issues stated above are originated from other origins, not purely from women hatred or discrimination of women.

I dont see why someone shouldn't bring some essential information to the discussion, even if it is "outside of the box". In my opinion doing othervice would sound like (as an example) in a company marketing would only discuss and try to solve a problem in a product in their own terms (hiding the flaw with marketing mumbo-jumbo, calling the problem a feature instead of a flaw, so on), without telling the production and design units that there is a problem in the product and that they should fix it in their units instead of marketing trying to bubblegum it away. Ah well, rough example, but I think it in some level describes what I mean...

Bringing outside notes and ideas that clearly relate to the issue isn't shutting someone down or trying to offset the discussion, but to bring (that the person thinks is) important info that could easen to fix the issue. (ofcourse this isn't something that we could just "fix" inside this forum discussion, and make world a better place, but one can always dream =)

 

[obliterate]

I would never sink so low as to consider myself a feminist.

 

[scy12]

So why do we continue to seek "tough" and "decisive" leaders and not leaders with more valuable womanly attributes?



This is somewhat true for some men, but the problem is that this gets overblown and held to be deterministic. You raise people thinking this, tell them it constantly, it becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling thing. I'd suggest you do a bit of reading about stereotype threat. - This study was a pretty interesting evaluation of it. Essentially, two groups of women are given maths tests. One group is told, beforehand, about how women are inferior at mathematics, don't have the brains for it, yatta yatta yatta. The other isn't, or was lied to and told women are actually better at maths than men (I forget which). The "gender-priming" made a difference in results.

Again, the problem isn't just objective and rational "natural" factors in a vacuum, it's the way they're interpreted, distributed and constructed in society.

I haven't seen any Girls suck at maths approach here. Infact girls make better students at maths than males where i come from.

Stereotyping is certainly not only a man issue while women also create stereotypes which may be influence peoples directions in life (both male and female). But i think you are aware of this.

It's the OH GOD WHAT ABOUT THE MEN defence every feminist or pro-feminist man runs into, and kinda why most of them get annoyed when dudes do it... it's constant to the point of cliche.

Well yes , it is important to show both sides of the coin , that is a positive thing.

It would be a negative only if in threads where one accuses certain female stereotypical actions people would not bring up about the actions of men in that field that are also worthy of criticism.

Well it is also negative if they are not inserted for the point of further discussion but for thread jacking .

 

[Arwon]

Apologies if anyone got the feeling that my attempt was to silence or to threatjack. I merely was pointing out, that some issues stated above are originated from other origins, not purely from women hatred or discrimination of women.

I dont see why someone shouldn't bring some essential information to the discussion, even if it is "outside of the box". In my opinion doing othervice would sound like (as an example) in a company marketing would only discuss and try to solve a problem in a product in their own terms (hiding the flaw with marketing mumbo-jumbo, calling the problem a feature instead of a flaw, so on), without telling the production and design units that there is a problem in the product and that they should fix it in their units instead of marketing trying to bubblegum it away. Ah well, rough example, but I think it in some level describes what I mean...

Bringing outside notes and ideas that clearly relate to the issue isn't shutting someone down or trying to offset the discussion, but to bring (that the person thinks is) important info that could easen to fix the issue. (ofcourse this isn't something that we could just "fix" inside this forum discussion, and make world a better place, but one can always dream =)

Don't worry, I ain't accusing you of anything. Just pointing out how, when nearly every thread, or conversation, or blog post gets steered in the same direction or hijacked by a certain type of dude, in the same way, it starts to get tedious and even feel like a bit of a conspiracy. "What about false rape accusations!" isn't outside the box, it's, as I said, so common it's cliche.

 

[aneeshm]

I consider the assumption of equality to be completely baseless and a harmful cultural artefact - an undesirable mass-affecting by-product, if you will, of the classically conservative concept of equality before the state, which cannot be reasonably taken to be anything more, such as equality as a statement of fact - and therefore cannot be part of any movements which claim equality between groups without any evidence either for or against the position, just based on ideology.

I'm doing a degree in computer engineering, and I try to take an active part in some organisations which promote and encourage more women to take part in technology, more specifically in my area of interest (computers and Free Software) and have tried to help as many as I can, both personally and by contributing my time (NOT money) towards organisations such as the local chapter of LinuxChix. As an assumption of equality is not required to be a member, I can support them with all my heart.

You could believe, for instance, as I do, that women are not statistically as interested in technology as men are, due to characteristics which are predominantly inborn, but that the situation is still a bit tilted - the wider culture stereotypes the subculture of the "computer types" too much for women to be comfortable with it, even though the culture of the "computer types" themselves is completely race/sex/caste/language blind. (I can vouch for that egalitarianism, because I've seen it first-hand.) I can try to stop that great waste natural of talent that occurs because women outside the field have a very skewed view of how it is from the inside, and therefore do not take an interest or are put off.

 

[Ecofarm]

I believe that any difference between the minds of men and women results entirely from social engineering.

 

[Elrohir]

Problem: everyone has a different working definition of feminism.

By my definition of (warning: nutshell) empower women as best we can but not at anyone's expense, damn right I'm a feminist, and just about everyone worth any respect is also a feminist.

By the fake red-herring definition of OMG ENSLAVE TEH MENS AND WE WILL RULE TEH PLANET WOOO, nobody worth any respect is a feminist.

Anyone that says they're not a feminist either has a crappy definition or is a crappy person. (Some people that say they are also have crappy definitions or are crappy people.)

If you want someone to blame for the view of feminism as little more than misandry wrapped in political correctness, blame feminism. Yep. Because the ones that aren't actually man-hating harpies have stood by and let their movement get hijacked by such creatures. (Yes, I like the monster image. I'm keeping it.) How something started out or what it should be are different from what they currently are, or at least appear to be. So while I agree in principle with the idea that men and women should be legally and socially equal (Although not equatable - that's a crucial point) I can't in good conscience say I'm a feminist, because I disagree with a lot of where feminism has gone and what it has become in the last couple of decades.

Even if we accept that false binarism, you've gotta ask yourself, why is it that all the "female" qualities are disdained and considered inferior to male ones in society? Why "female" occupations are lower status, why we want "male" qualities in our leaders, and so forth. Could it be because of.... tah dah... gender based discrimination!

What female qualities are disdained and considered inferior? When I think of "female qualities" it sounds like you're talking about compassion, care, selflessness, beauty, and the like. In what society are those considered bat things?

The point isn't that there's no differences, that's as much of a red herring as OMG WOMEN WANT TO RULE and such. The point is the way those differences are manifested and distributed throughout society, and the way slight biological differences are held up to be massive, inescapable dichotmous differences which are used to organise and justify an unequal social order. Sex differences shouldn't be used as an organising principle as much as they are... gender should be much less important than it is.

Then maybe feminists should emphasize it less. Or at least, maybe you could explain to me how making it a point to hire women because they're women deemphasizes sex.

Sex differences are innate and biological, but gender differences are largely constructed. Even if we accept that there are, on average, significant biological differences in capability in some specialised brain functions such as spatial awareness or language skills*, that in no way justifies the level of inequality and discrimination that exists in society. This is the total non sequitor at the heart of the essentialist and binarist arguments... I mean, what, cos women can't read maps or used to gather berries instead of hunting mammoths, they can't be chosen for prestigious executive jobs or control their own uteruses? Because female athletes cover the 100 metres a second slower they can't get paid maternity leave or see justice carried out in 90% of rapes?

What total discrimination are you talking about? There are a variety of reasons that there aren't as many female executives as male, and yes, I think one of those is innate differences. (That should not be a reason to deny such a job, but it is valid to explain why there aren't as many) Maternity leave has nothing to do with running speed, or rape. (And is there any crime with a 90% conviction rate?) I think you're being more than a little ridiculous here.

*That "women talk more" is a hoary old chestnut and not actually true. What actually happens in linguistic or psychological study after study is that when women and men talk the same amount of time in a conversation, women are percieved to have been talking more.

Not the studies I've seen. Not with the people I see in my life.

 

[Neomega]

Even if we accept that false binarism, you've gotta ask yourself, why is it that all the "female" qualities are disdained and considered inferior to male ones in society?

WTH are you talking about?

*That "women talk more" is a hoary old chestnut and not actually true. What actually happens in linguistic or psychological study after study is that when women and men talk the same amount of time in a conversation, women are percieved to have been talking more.

More percieved victimization Who says women talk more?

Interent forums are male dominated.

WTH ever.

And btw Neomega why would you want a relationship with someone who exhibited such narrow mindedness and dogmatism - unless your hormones were driving you to it?

Honestly, because she cared about things.. which, IN MY EXPERIENCE (i am not saying women don't care about politics and such) but in my experience, most women I meet don't care at all about politics.

 

[Neomega]

Problem: everyone has a different working definition of feminism.

By my definition of (warning: nutshell) empower women as best we can but not at anyone's expense, damn right I'm a feminist, and just about everyone worth any respect is also a feminist.

By the fake red-herring definition of OMG ENSLAVE TEH MENS AND WE WILL RULE TEH PLANET WOOO, nobody worth any respect is a feminist.

Anyone that says they're not a feminist either has a crappy definition or is a crappy person. (Some people that say they are also have crappy definitions or are crappy people.)

this was her take too. People that aren't feminists are the enemy.

With that attitude, the cause is surely lost. You start bey telling people they are enemies, and then try to recruit them. Good luck.

And with that attitude, it shows what feminists that think that way are really about, and its not equality, its fighting and war and revenge. No thank you. I'll have no part of it.

 

[LucyDuke]

If you want someone to blame for the view of feminism as little more than misandry wrapped in political correctness, blame feminism. Yep. Because the ones that aren't actually man-hating harpies have stood by and let their movement get hijacked by such creatures. (Yes, I like the monster image. I'm keeping it.) How something started out or what it should be are different from what they currently are, or at least appear to be. So while I agree in principle with the idea that men and women should be legally and socially equal (Although not equatable - that's a crucial point) I can't in good conscience say I'm a feminist, because I disagree with a lot of where feminism has gone and what it has become in the last couple of decades.

Do you say the same thing about Islam?

this was her take too. People that aren't feminists are the enemy.

With that attitude, the cause is surely lost. You start bey telling people they are enemies, and then try to recruit them. Good luck.

And with that attitude, it shows what feminists that think that way are really about, and its not equality, its fighting and war and revenge. No thank you. I'll have no part of it.

I don't think you read what I wrote.

 

[Elrohir]

Do you say the same thing about Islam?

Absolutely! I don't think Islam is inherently terroristic, and I don't think feminism is inherently anti-male. Only I would say that Islam isn't quite as far along the 'path' as feminism is. There are over a billion Muslims, and the vast majority have nothing to do with terrorism. And while not all feminists are misandrous, that undercurrent is almost everywhere you look today, even in supposedly mainstream feminist writer's work. (Maureen Dowd, maybe?)

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
Well I wanted to say that I am not a feminist and you guys force me to this ...

Well yes , it is important to show both sides of the coin , that is a positive thing.

Important fact to remember is the institutional angle. I am extremely, Extremely, iffy with concept of patriarchy- social construct promoting position of men. Discrimination of women in the context of feminism is not is not a personal abnormality, it is an accepted social norm.

If you want someone to blame for the view of feminism as little more than misandry wrapped in political correctness, blame feminism. Yep. Because the ones that aren't actually man-hating harpies have stood by and let their movement get hijacked by such creatures. (Yes, I like the monster image. I'm keeping it.) How something started out or what it should be are different from what they currently are, or at least appear to be. So while I agree in principle with the idea that men and women should be legally and socially equal (Although not equatable - that's a crucial point) I can't in good conscience say I'm a feminist, because I disagree with a lot of where feminism has gone and what it has become in the last couple of decades.

I would really like not to strawmen You. But I really have to ask. What do you think the "good" feminists should do with the "bad" feminists? I do not doubt that You cannot hear them, unless you stray into "feminist places"- You do not really hear about feminsit discourse in the general space- though I do not doubt that most feminists would love to get a column in your weekly magazine.

What female qualities are disdained and considered inferior? When I think of "female qualities" it sounds like you're talking about compassion, care, selflessness, beauty, and the like. In what society are those considered bat things?

And what forms do these qualities take? And why should men not have them?
Compassion- is a great thing, it allows humans to function as society. But a woman may always hear, how she has to feel with everybody without a hint of malice. Why should not women compete? Dislike? Punish?
Care- what do you by care? It can be word to hide things with. Ugly things for me. I know Aneeshm thinks that every European meal takes ten minutes to prepare while blindfolded, but there is more to care then woman servng a man.
Selflessness- why not be selfish every once in a while?
Beauty- while I do not that much object to beauty as ideal (though I actually rolled my eyes IRL after reading Your coment), it can lead to existance at expense of another person. Person that needs outside assurances of her beauty.

The problem are not "feminine qualities" The problem is education in agressivity, competition handling, assertivnes, goal assesment and self-assurence. A person needs to be a person-skills too, not just mother-skills.

 

[Fifty]

This is the best article on feminism I've ever read It is by Martha Nussbaum, and the context of the article is a discussion on Judith Butlers works. Nussbaum is a brilliant philosopher at the University of Chicago. Judith Butler is one of the most famous feminist thinkers, and she also completely sucks. The article explains why Butler sucks. Predictably, Butler comes out of the movement of fashionable French trash philosophy that people in lit crit departments (and people in disciplines that end in the word "studies") are so enamored with.

The closing paragraphs, though you really ought to read the whole thing:

The great tragedy in the new feminist theory in America is the loss of a sense of public commitment. In this sense, Butler's self-involved feminism is extremely American, and it is not surprising that it has caught on here, where successful middle-class people prefer to focus on cultivating the self rather than thinking in a way that helps the material condition of others. Even in America, however, it is possible for theorists to be dedicated to the public good and to achieve something through that effort.

Many feminists in America are still theorizing in a way that supports material change and responds to the situation of the most oppressed. Increasingly, however, the academic and cultural trend is toward the pessimistic flirtatiousness represented by the theorizing of Butler and her followers. Butlerian feminism is in many ways easier than the old feminism. It tells scores of talented young women that they need not work on changing the law, or feeding the hungry, or assailing power through theory harnessed to material politics. They can do politics in safety of their campuses, remaining on the symbolic level, making subversive gestures at power through speech and gesture. This, the theory says, is pretty much all that is available to us anyway, by way of political action, and isn't it exciting and sexy? In its small way, of course, this is a hopeful politics. It instructs people that they can, right now, without compromising their security, do something bold. But the boldness is entirely gestural, and insofar as Butler's ideal suggests that these symbolic gestures really are political change, it offers only a false hope. Hungry women are not fed by this, battered women are not sheltered by it, raped women do not find justice in it, gays and lesbians do not achieve legal protections through it.

Finally there is despair at the heart of the cheerful Butlerian enterprise. The big hope, the hope for a world of real justice, where laws and institutions protect the equality and the dignity of all citizens, has been banished, even perhaps mocked as sexually tedious. Judith Butler's hip quietism is a comprehensible response to the difficulty of realizing justice in America. But it is a bad response. It collaborates with evil. Feminism demands more and women deserve better.

 

[Neomega]

I believe that any difference between the minds of men and women results entirely from social engineering.

many parents that have believed this have been very disappointed when their boys chose to use their Legos to build bombers and battleships instead of tea houses. At least that was how my aunt felt, until she had 4 boys.

I think there is an inherent fascination with war, competition, and violence amongst boys, and no amount of social upbringing could change that.

 

[Syterion]

That was really stupid of you. Get with her, and then explain things to her.

I have a sweatshirt that says "Men's Rights" on it. When certain girls get offended by it, I know that they are illogical feminists. I am fine with feminist thought (men and women deserve equal rights), but I don't like the name, it sounds biased towards females. The sweatshirt counteracts that somewhat, so I like it a lot.

 

[Elrohir]

I would really like not to strawmen You. But I really have to ask. What do you think the "good" feminists should do with the "bad" feminists? I do not doubt that You cannot hear them, unless you stray into "feminist places"- You do not really hear about feminsit discourse in the general space- though I do not doubt that most feminists would love to get a column in your weekly magazine.

How about starting by telling the "bad" feminists to stop being sexist creeps.

And what forms do these qualities take? And why should men not have them?
Compassion- is a great thing, it allows humans to function as society. But a woman may always hear, how she has to feel with everybody without a hint of malice. Why should not women compete? Dislike? Punish?
Care- what do you by care? It can be word to hide things with. Ugly things for me. I know Aneeshm thinks that every European meal takes ten minutes to prepare while blindfolded, but there is more to care then woman servng a man.
Selflessness- why not be selfish every once in a while?
Beauty- while I do not that much object to beauty as ideal (though I actually rolled my eyes IRL after reading Your coment), it can lead to existance at expense of another person. Person that needs outside assurances of her beauty.

The problem are not "feminine qualities" The problem is education in agressivity, competition handling, assertivnes, goal assesment and self-assurence. A person needs to be a person-skills too, not just mother-skills.

I didn't say that men shouldn't have these characteristics. I think they should, just as I think women should have those characteristics that I would have listed as "masculine." I wasn't making an exhaustive list of exclusive virtues - I was listing socially common ideas of "feminine" virtues, and asking Arwon where they are seen as bad, as he said that they were.

 

[Sims2789]

I support legal and social equality between the sexes so I voted yes. I don't fret about technicalities, even though feminist sounds more like "pro-female" than "pro-equality." I also don't think feminist means "sexist, male-hating woman" like it had been framed to mean for a while. Also, to put it lightly, women tend to be the recipients of sexism more than men, so it's not unreasonable to see opposition to inequality between the sexes as more of a pro-female than pro-male stance.

 

[Gladi]

many parents that have believed this have been very disappointed when their boys chose to use their Legos to build bombers and battleships instead of tea houses. At least that was how my aunt felt, until she had 4 boys.

I think there is an inherent fascination with war, competition, and violence amongst boys, and no amount of social upbringing could change that.

I also made war using Lego (though I prefered medieval knights). And I played Civilization using Leg and I played Sims too using Lego (quite a feat considering it was back around 1995).
/shrug

How about starting by telling the "bad" feminists to stop being sexist creeps.

Who says they have not? How can yo know?

I didn't say that men shouldn't have these characteristics. I think they should, just as I think women should have those characteristics that I would have listed as "masculine." I wasn't making an exhaustive list of exclusive virtues - I was listing socially common ideas of "feminine" virtues, and asking Arwon where they are seen as bad, as he said that they were.

I have never been speaking about men. I was speaking about women and why the qualities you listed should be seen as bad when taken as only ideal on raising a child .

 

[Arwon]

What female qualities are disdained and considered inferior? When I think of "female qualities" it sounds like you're talking about compassion, care, selflessness, beauty, and the like. In what society are those considered bat things?

Well firstly I think values of beauty can be quite oppressive and cause a lot of suffering, but as for the others.... we're more than happy to praise them and give them a little pat on the head, but we don't exactly appoint people president for having those qualities, do we? And the jobs that emphasise these qualities aren't the sought-after and highly-paid ones, are they? The old example of homemaking and child-care being devalued to the point of being unpaid and frequently considered "not work" is quite illustrative. If it's "womens work" resting on those sorts of qualities, chances are it's low-paid and low-prestige.