Feminism Redux

[Guest Raidne]

What makes you say that? I don't know a ton about this lady other than having read a few of her columns and reading about her a bit. From my limited exposure she seems arrogant as shit.

Did I say something positive about her? I've never in my life agreed with anything I've ever read of hers.

Raidne, did you mean anything in particular when you referred to second wave feminism as second wave feminism and third wave feminism as 'so-called' third wave feminism? That stuck out at me for some reason.

Oh, just that most feminists wouldn't term lifestyle feminists feminists at all. A lot of women who agree with the sentiment they're expressing wouldn't call themselves feminists either. And also that the usage of the term for this meaning isn't exactly written in stone, so I'm noting that this is Wolf's usage.

[Zoë Sumra]

But there are so many distinct things that define the sexes. Men are just a lot stronger physically. Women give birth to the young. These things are just not going away.

Another thing failing to go away is generalisations.

The strongest man is stronger than the strongest woman. The average man is stronger than the average woman. The strongest woman is considerably stronger than the average man, and would likely be extremely amused by any suggestion that she is supposed to be weak. Physical strength in a world containing modern conveniences such as forklift trucks and guns is increasingly capable of being circumvented.

Sure, women give birth, if they can and want to. But before the establishment in the 18th or 19th century of the persistent modern "cult-like" approach to motherhood, when it became expected for mothers to dote fatuously upon their children, a father's role in children's upbringing was seen as equally important to or more important than that of the mother.

It's like saying women aren't adrenaline junkies; not.true. As long as we're talking about third-wave feminism, one of the aspects of which is "permitting" women to define their own brand of feminism, it's possibly best to stop making assumptions.

[Lord O' Bones]

I am not very competitive in personal relationships but I know a lot of men are. If I meet a man and I'm interested in him, I would not want to risk turning him off by beating him.

<snip>

I would never 'throw' the game deliberately but I just wouldn't try very hard/the effort I put into it would be in proportion to his skill level. If he was clearly, unquestionably kicking my ass I would try my best but if I was in any danger of winning I would relax into a more cavalier attitude.

Write this down boys and girls, LoB is possibly noticing sexist behaviour from Litechick. ;) emphasis mine

I don't see this as selling out or being fake. I simply don't care who wins so just in case he does care, I would rather he walk away pleased than petulant. Competitiveness is a common and usually harmless flaw for a man to have.

again; me

I wouldn't want to throw away a perfectly good man on something as trivial as him needing to win in simple, casual ways. Once I get to know him better I can decide whether he has a bona fide problem with competitiveness and whether that is a deal breaker or not.

Perfectly good man needing to win? Against you? Casually?

That's the guy you throw away. Or he's a child and needs to be tossed back.

IMHO.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Idygrffn,

So, for clarification, if third-wave feminism is about reclaiming the term for non-western/minority/poor people who had no voice in the second wave, what is the term for the type of feminism we are discussing in this thread?

I always thought that third-wave was about including all women in feminism, those mentioned before, and the women who were perfectly content to be stay at home moms, or just wanted to wear stylie clothes and make-up, and were ostracized from the second wave movement for it.

Agreed. If third-wave feminism is focusing on racial/class disparities among women isn't it something other than feminism which, at it's core, should be focusing equality between men and women without reference to racial or economic class groupings?

[Balefont]

That's the guy you throw away. Or he's a child and needs to be tossed back.

IMHO.

That's what I was thinking. Shit, the SO and I are so competitive with one another. And you know what? It works because it makes us give our all to whatever it is we're doing. And if I win, he still wins because he is proud of me. And vice versa (actually, he's the better loser but he likes it when I get "that look" and try even harder).

I couldn't imagine throwing anything for fear of losing a guy's interest.

Oh, and I'm close friends with a couple who got a married a few years ago and are planning on having kids in a few years. They both have their Masters and are in their mid-twenties. Their plan is and always has been for him to stay home and raise the kids.

I see gender equality acceptance as I do the legalization of marijuana and the recognition of gay marriage. Like the suffrage movement and civil rights, these things do take time but they're happening. Slowly but surely and maybe not in our lifetimes but it is happening.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Bale,

Right after high-school my best friend was a hyper-competitive woman. We would play board games to all hours of the night. When she won she would do "victory laps" around the house. One time(and I do me one time) I won a game of

Risk. She was so angry she threw me out of the house.

It wasn't funny at the time, but it is now twenty years later.

[mormont]

Agreed. If third-wave feminism is focusing on racial/class disparities among women isn't it something other than feminism which, at it's core, should be focusing equality between men and women without reference to racial or economic class groupings?

I'm not sure you are actually agreeing with ldgryffyn at all, Scot. She does not appear to be suggesting that the plight of disadvantaged women isn't actually properly labelled 'feminism' at all, nor does she appear to be suggesting that the issue is disparities between first and third world women. Rather, the issue is about the priorities of feminism as a movement and inclusiveness in that movement. To say that is 'something other than feminism' seems daft. It's a movement within feminist thought - of course that is feminism.

[ljkeane]

I couldn't imagine throwing anything for fear of losing a guy's interest.

Oh, and I'm close friends with a couple who got a married a few years ago and are planning on having kids in a few years. They both have their Masters and are in their mid-twenties. Their plan is and always has been for him to stay home and raise the kids.

I see gender equality acceptance as I do the legalization of marijuana and the recognition of gay marriage. Like the suffrage movement and civil rights, these things do take time but they're happening. Slowly but surely and maybe not in our lifetimes but it is happening.

I don't know that many guys that would lose interest in a woman because she is competitive. I largely agree with all you have said here although I'm not sure I'd equate gender equality and gay marriage with the legalisation of marijuana :)

Having said that there is no way I'd be staying home and raising a child if I have kids, I think I'd go insane.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mormont,

I'm not sure you are actually agreeing with ldgryffyn at all, Scot. She does not appear to be suggesting that the plight of disadvantaged women isn't actually properly labelled 'feminism' at all, nor does she appear to be suggesting that the issue is disparities between first and third world women. Rather, the issue is about the priorities of feminism as a movement and inclusiveness in that movement. To say that is 'something other than feminism' seems daft. It's a movement within feminist thought - of course that is feminism.

I have to disagree. If Tzanth is correct about "Third-wave feminism" the issues being addressed is at such a varience from what Feminism is supposed to be about it appears to be a subject change, in my opinion. "We want equal rights for poor/minority women, those rich white women can fend for themselves." That simply seems to miss the point of equal opportunities for all women.

[The Anti-Targ]

Damn litechick...lotta good thoughts.

I think you were trying to make the point somewhere that gender stereotypes will never totally disappear. If that's right I would agree with you. Or at least any substantial changes that constitute a paradigm shift won't happen in our lifetimes.

I have to say that I disagree with you and litechick on this. Though I note your qualification Triskele, and agree that perhaps the inevitable outcome of a fully realised equality of the sexes may not happen within my lifetime, but it will happen. I don't discount the possibility of seeing it before I die. Basically the realisation of the equality of men and women is a necessary prerequisite for any substantial social evolution beyond the current state of any present day culture. And the elimination of stereotypes is a prerequisite to that realisation.

Write this down boys and girls, LoB is possibly noticing sexist behaviour from Litechick. ;) emphasis mine

again; me

Perfectly good man needing to win? Against you? Casually?

That's the guy you throw away. Or he's a child and needs to be tossed back.

IMHO.

IMHO too LoB.

A propensity for childish, trembly lipped responses to being "beaten by a girl", I would have thought, would be one of the first things you'd want to know about a guy BEFORE you entered into any sort of relationship, unless said relationship is going to be:

a) a one night stand for cheap and dirty sex; or

b) cheap and dirty sex, possibly occurring over a single nocturnal period; or

c) clean sex, not incurring a time commitment greater than 8 to 10 hours, primarily between the hours of sunset and sunrise.

If one's aim falls into one of the 3 options above then, letting him win is a pretty good strategy for maximising your chances of getting what you want.

Said strategy, however, is not something which particularly advances the cause of equality between men and women. Though it might advance a narrow definition of feminism in some way.

Men who need their egos massaged are empty shells. Women who think men need their egos to be massaged are doing men and women a disservice.

Don't get me wrong, I like a good ego stroke every once in a while. But I don't feel the need for it in order to feel like I am someone of value.

[Balefont]

I don't know that many guys that would lose interest in a woman because she is competitive. I largely agree with all you have said here although I'm not sure I'd equate gender equality and gay marriage with the legalisation of marijuana :)

I do in the sense that it's about people opening their minds and facing whatever their hang-ups and fears are. And I think the eventual legalization of pot would be a huge social movement here in the States. Just cuz pot itself is an inanimate object doesn't mean the users who feel strongly about its legalization are not. ;)

[ljkeane]

I'm not sure you are actually agreeing with ldgryffyn at all, Scot. She does not appear to be suggesting that the plight of disadvantaged women isn't actually properly labelled 'feminism' at all, nor does she appear to be suggesting that the issue is disparities between first and third world women. Rather, the issue is about the priorities of feminism as a movement and inclusiveness in that movement. To say that is 'something other than feminism' seems daft. It's a movement within feminist thought - of course that is feminism.

I think the point Scot is making is that feminism should be about addressing the disadvantages all women suffer from rather than restricting it to certain racial or economic groups. That's not to say that prioritising the focus of feminism might not be important but if the issue becomes about excluding certain groups from feminism that might be were you could make an argument about it's benefits.

To be clear I really don't know that much about feminist theory so I have no idea if this is the case :dunno:

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

But that's not what it is (for most), Scot -- it's as mormont said. "There are still lots of problems for white, middle-class women, but we should be working on them as part of a larger whole. Look at the number of women who were left out when we focused on such a narrow slice. Helping everyone will help, well, everyone."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aoife,

But that's not what it is (for most), Scot -- it's as mormont said. "There are still lots of problems for white, middle-class women, but we should be working on them as part of a larger whole. Look at the number of women who were left out when we focused on such a narrow slice. Helping everyone will help, well, everyone."

So the focus should be moved from the West to places where women really are oppressed for example less developed Islamic nations (Afganistan, Saudi Arabia)?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

See, I don't think that that's the automatic and sole consequence of saying "Hey, there are more than white, middle-class women in the world."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aoife,

See, I don't think that that's the automatic and sole consequence of saying "Hey, there are more than white, middle-class women in the world."

Okay, my confusion is that I can't imagine feminists (in the first two waves) not already understanding that point as it seems quite obvious. So if this is only saying, "Hey, there are more than white, middle-class women in the world" to what purpose is this point being made if there isn't a shift in emphasis away from the West to other cultures that have been less receptive to feminist ideas?

[mormont]

I have to disagree. If Tzanth is correct about "Third-wave feminism" the issues being addressed is at such a varience from what Feminism is supposed to be about it appears to be a subject change, in my opinion. "We want equal rights for poor/minority women, those rich white women can fend for themselves." That simply seems to miss the point of equal opportunities for all women.

There is some 'missing the point' going on, Scot, but I'm afraid I think it's on your part. No offence meant.

What's said above, as I understand it, is that 'third wave feminism' is about an adjustment within feminism to allow more prominence to voices within that movement that have trouble being heard in the past. So far as I can see, then, it is intimately concerned with what feminism is, what it means, and what its priorities should be: it's therefore 'about feminism' by definition.

Tzanth's post, to me, suggests it is about giving more priority to third world women specifically within the movement. But this is not a zero-sum game here: and it's not about first world women being the oppressors, but third world men. If you had two broken legs, and one was splinted and bandaged, you would prioritise treatment for the other. That wouldn't mean the splinted leg was being forgotten about or that you'd 'missed the point' of having two healthy legs.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mormont,

Okay. That being the case I'd like to know what the change in emphasis means concretely for feminism?

[CiaranAnnrach]

For example: I am not very competitive in personal relationships but I know a lot of men are. If I meet a man and I'm interested in him, I would not want to risk turning him off by beating him. (I'm thinking specifically of a game of darts at the bar in which I was mortified to have won--and I'm not that good.)

I would never 'throw' the game deliberately but I just wouldn't try very hard/the effort I put into it would be in proportion to his skill level. If he was clearly, unquestionably kicking my ass I would try my best but if I was in any danger of winning I would relax into a more cavalier attitude.

I gotta agree with Bale and some of the others, any guy who dumps you 'cause you won a game isn't a guy worth keeping. And it really isn't about winning or losing, it's all about how you handle yourself afterwards that's important. If you win and gloat/brag over it, then yeah, the guy's gonna get pissed. If you win, and are flirty and playful without gloating or bragging, then the guy's not gonna care. (If he does, see the first sentence of this paragraph.) Same thing with losing. Grace is important.

Besides, if I'm usually winning at something like pool when I'm with a girl, I'll ease up and try to lose a match or two. The most important thing is having fun, not winning, and if letting her win gives her a bit of an ego boost, then it's worth it. So, if both the girl I'm with and myself are trying to throw the match...well, that's not very good, now is it?

[Guest Raidne]

I have to disagree. If Tzanth is correct about "Third-wave feminism" the issues being addressed is at such a varience from what Feminism is supposed to be about it appears to be a subject change, in my opinion. "We want equal rights for poor/minority women, those rich white women can fend for themselves." That simply seems to miss the point of equal opportunities for all women.

The idea behind these race and class critiques of second-wave feminism was that feminists were looking at all the issues from a purely white, upper to middle class perspective. For instance, the drive for women to be accepted in the workplace and get out of the home - for lower-income women, this was thought to not recognize the fact that these women had been working out of the home for some time. Similarly, with rape, there were black feminists who thought that mainstream feminism talked about rape without acknowledging all the instances of false accusations brought against black men for raping white women. Then there's the whole issue of identity politics and whether black women are black first, women first, or black women first, and the fact - failed to be recognized in law - that some workplaces will show discrimination against black women without showing discrimination against blacks as a group or women as a group.

I would, personally, term all these critiques post-modern feminism, but others would perhaps not. I would also not call it third-wave feminism.