Anti-feminist anger, p2

[Guest Raidne]

You have no appreciation for hyperbole. Fine, okay, let's just say that Egypt was probably a grain-based culture at the time the Sphinx was constructed around 2500 B.C., and that agricultural societies have been linked to traditional gender relationships. So I feel pretty safe saying that gender inequality in essentially the way we understand it today has existed for 4500 years.

Now, tell me about the effort that was made to secure equal rights for women before the late 19th century, and make a good argument that it contributed to the women's suffrage movement of the late 19th early 20th century.

I asked you about the 13th century, as a random example, already, and I expected you to tell me about some precursor to Julian of Norwich or something, but you pretty much had nothing, so I'm not expecting much here, despite all of your professed historical expertise.

Please, surprise me.

ETA: Also, as bare minimum, I should not be able to take whatever argument you offer and use it to link, say, Marsilio Ficino to Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Blaine]

If some, say, school board really mandated that textbooks use the phrase "herstory" I would agree that would be a little...well...stupid. History isn't derived from "his story" anyway, duh. But if you're using that as shorthand for language nuetrality, i.e. the use of s/he or alternating pronouns, or changing "workman's compensation" to "workers compensation," I will argue that it's a mainstream issue with my dying breath.

No, I'm definitely not equating "herstory" with "s/he" or "us" instead "men", etc. I think gender neutral is the way to go, going forward. At least, everything I've written for my job in the last 12 years has been that way. Unless, it's marketed toward men or women specifically. Changing things that pre-exist is harder, for a variety of reasons. I'm also queasy about re-writing or editing the past... it always feels like a whitewash to me, to some degree.

To me, "herstory" reminds me of a time when an ad client insisted I change a phrase in some ad copy to "we honor the heroes and sheroes who have paved the way..." (Italics show her revision). I was aghast, mainly because it was in no way a piece about women's rights. And I'd never imagined that the "heroes" in question couldn't refer to women and men. Finally, I got my way by pointing out that their company's brand policy insisted that we only use words recognized by AP Stylebook/Webster's.

A litmus test: speaking of workers' comp, my Torts prof called out a male student in class for using "workman's" and asked that everyone, including him, please use the correct term. Was that unnecessary or out of line, or not?

I think it sounds a bit like grandstanding, to do it in front of class. It seems like an awfully easy mistake to make. But if it got the point across, I guess that's up to the Prof.

As for your main point, it should work that way, shouldn't it? But I'm not sure that it does. If we really wanted to be purely expedient and exploit our current positioning, we'd organize and tell one group of people to call themselves "feminists" and propose outlandish policies while we secretely align with another group of "egalitarians" who propose comparatively reasonable stuff. But, alas, like all leftists, we'll never be that organized.

Sometimes I wonder if the right wing is actually that organized, or if they're just better at denying their weirder elements in public while secretly funding them semi-anonymously.

As to the point of fringe ideas pushing older fringe ideas into the central position, it's absolutely true. Or at the very least, it's messaging dogma. But it can take years, depending on the ideas at play. In general, the longer people live with an idea, the less radical it becomes to future generations, who will then seek to push it further and so on.

[Kalbear]

It depends a lot on the ideals in question, blaine. I think that pushing the fringe to move the mainstream can work, but it really depends a lot on the spectrum. If you have a good spectrum on a specific ideology that says x is mainstream, x+1 is a bit much and x+5 is way out there - pushing x+5 can move things some to the point where everyone wants x+1.

But in the case of feminism, I think a lot of extremists aren't pushing anything like that. The ideas aren't really easily associated with feminist ideology in the way that most would recognize, so if you say "I'm a feminist and I support all men being castrated' there's no way you can connect that with equality of sexes.

As to the s/he thing - in books, I really prefer using she on all left pages and he on all right. If that's what you're referring to, I apologize. I like it because it feels more like it flows correctly without being in your face about correcting it, and it reads better.

I think that the right wing doesn't dismiss a lot of their ideas or fringe, but they do a much better job of staying on message. This can be detrimental when the message turns sour (ohai, Bush), but it gives them a central notion of what the party means and what they stand for. And that's quite powerful, politically; the victories of the left have been largely a response to the right's failure of policy and going in opposition to those views, making them defined largely by what they are not.

[Guest Raidne]

Really, shouldn't it be She-ras? Sheroes is so derivative.

God that's embarassing.

[Lady Blackfish]

Shryke, yes I don't think I have been understanding your points or certainly why they were addressed to me. I know that some people don't think that the Canadian National Anthem is exclusive to women, but if we have a fundamental disagreement about that, then of course I am going to think that you are not seeing some entrenched sexism, because I would genuinely be seeing it there. That would be a disagreement, and if you think that this outweighs any agreements you have with feminism, that is your call, but I feel it would be dishonest to represent feminism solely by the issues that irritate you. I think we've reached the end of any interesting place this exchange could go though; that was my only point with the posts I think you were responding to.

There are many differences between the "American" and "feminist" labels. Most importantly, we have a legal definition of what an American is. As you can see, there is no such agreement on what constitutes a feminist. It is a purely self-chosen label (which angers "feminists"). Being an American is a choice only so far that you can leave the country.

About the first, unlike Kalbear I don't see that the basic definition of feminism ("the radical notion that women are people") is all that lost, not among self-identifying feminists that is. That is lost to the mainstream is the PR issue here, but it's still a working idea for people attracted to the issue. I don't think that it is self-chosen has angered anybody, has it?

About the second, yes opting out of being American is a very different proposition than opting out of being feminist. But that aside, I don't think that anybody feels that the word "American" is as affected by who else calls themselves American, it doesn't delegitimize them being a very different kind of American. At this point I hope I've made one thing clear: I'm not here to make anyone call themselves a feminist. What concerns me more is this sense I get, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the various definitions of "feminist" has made the word useless.

It's like, if I went up to a conservative and said "How can you call yourself a conservative? Ann Coulter is vile." And really, I do think she is a vile human being, she's said some vile things that have kept me up all night wondering about the future of humanity. I don't think conservatives are all vile human beings though, and I don't think that they need to give up the word, and I don't see that their calling themselves conservatives means that they condone Ann Coulter. I don't see what point there would be for them to say that the word doesn't apply to her. Would it get her to stop using it? Would it be some kind of symbolic victory? I already know that she isn't representative of the entire group, so what do I get out of pursuing that? I do see what point there would be for other conservatives to disagree with her on specific issues.

PS - FWIW, nobody among feminists of my age talks about "herstory", that word itself doesn't seem to me like a live issue. Like Raidne said, "history" doesn't even derive from "his". I maintain it's your choice to decide to call yourself a feminist or not, but if you guys are running around thinking a majority of feminists still demand the change of that particular word, I just don't see it happening much at all.

[Tempra]

You have no appreciation for hyperbole. Fine, okay, let's just say that Egypt was probably a grain-based culture at the time the Sphinx was constructed around 2500 B.C., and that agricultural societies have been linked to traditional gender relationships. So I feel pretty safe saying that gender inequality in essentially the way we understand it today has existed for 4500 years.

Now, tell me about the effort that was made to secure equal rights for women before the late 19th century, and make a good argument that it contributed to the women's suffrage movement of the late 19th early 20th century.

No. Why would I? I said man has been struggling for equality for thousands of years. If you want a starting point, try looking at the shift from the bronze age "warrior elite" culture to the citizen-soldier culture typified by Athenian Hoplites. I trust you are capable of calculating the years from then until now to verify the truth of my statement.

I have no doubt that the struggle is much, much older than Greece, but my "professed historical expertise" and history itself gets increasingly fuzzy.

I asked you about the 13th century, as a random example, already, and I expected you to tell me about some precursor to Julian of Norwich or something, but you pretty much had nothing, so I'm not expecting much here, despite all of your professed historical expertise.

Don't be an ass.

[Guest Raidne]

No. Why would I? I said man has been struggling for equality for thousands of years. If you want a starting point, try looking at the shift from the bronze age "warrior elite" culture to the citizen-soldier culture typified by Athenian Hoplites. I trust you are capable of calculating the years from then until now to verify the truth of my statement.

See my ETA at the bottom there? Fail.

See, here's the thing. I was saying that feminists have accomplished more in less time relative to the length of their oppression than any other group, and you tell me that this statement - which is relative to other oppressed groups - is wrong because the drive toward equality for all has been going on for some time.

Identify the flaw in your logic. It should be glaringly obvious.

[jurble]

So anyway, having never read this thread or its antecedent, I shall give my two cents.

I think a lot of men few feminism as a us vs. them. To them, to give women anything (such as closing the income gap) is viewed as a loss in some sort of great game.

[Tempra]

See my ETA at the bottom there? Fail.

See, here's the thing. I was saying that feminists have accomplished more in less time relative to the length of their oppression than any other group, and you tell me that this statement - which is relative to other oppressed groups - is wrong because the drive toward equality for all has been going on for some time.

Identify the flaw in your logic. It should be glaringly obvious.

Actually, you made a very open ended statement: "So, IMO, people, ahem, men, who want to tell us how we can do it better can take a number. Get back to me when you can show me some other group that's accomplished so much."

Regardless, I contextualized your boast. Your statement is meaningless, self-important fluff. It is akin to China boasting that it have been able to industrialize in 20 years (for example) while it took England/US near 200 years to get to where we are today. Not to diminish anything that real feminists have accomplished, but your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding and appreciation for everything that came before the women's rights movement.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That is not what that point is about. The point is that (1) rape is about power, (2) the relationship between the genders has historically been rife with systemic power differences, (3) as long as "men" have more power than "women" all sex can be analogized to rape. It is not to say that every man is a rapist.

Well, sometimes, it gets pretty damn close to that. Oberlin College in Ohio had an incident a few years ago that relates to this. The student women's rights organization put flyers up all over campus with a photo of a first-year male on them labelled "potential rapist." What did this kid do? Absolutely nothing, and nobody claimed that he had. By all accounts, a nice, shy kid. The point of the flyer was that all males are potential rapists, and picking this random kid was the way they chose to make their point. They wouldn't take them down, and never apologise. Poor kid ended up leaving school. the effect of this policy on this kid didn't concern them in the least. After all, he was nothing more than a member of a historically oppressive class, right?

It's to say that when a man and a woman have casual sex, it's not necessarily going to be the same thing. She might be called a slut. He might even make her feel like a slut. And there's nothing similar she can do to him, because of the power differential. So if I have a continuum, rape is way over on the one end, and the guy who bangs some chick and then brags about what a slut she is to his friends falls way over on the other end, but they are on the same spectrum of actions based on exploiting the power difference.

Are you aware of the somewhat infamous Antioch college sex policy? For those unaware of it, I think it would be worthwhile checking out the link. Antioch is basically defunked now, and you can speculate as to the reasons, but the policy sort of goes to the heart of what you're saying, Raidne.

http://www.thefire.org/article/8138.html

I'll be upfront about this and say that my general reaction to the word "feminist" as it is now most commonly used by people to affirmatively self-describe themselves is negative. Or rather, limit it to the context of "feminist activism". It doesn't make me angry, but I think "dismissive" would be closer to the mark. There are some "feminists" with whom I agree, but probably more (in my experience) with whom I do not. The reason for that is that while I do agree with legal equality between genders in principle, most feminist activists interpret that concept differently than I do. And of course, there is also the thinking at Antioch and Oberlin with which I completely disagree, Andrea Dworken, Etc.

Having said all that, the issue I spend the most time on now is women in the military. Before that, it was equal pay

To me, there are two completely different ways to look at the concept of gender-equality. One is neutrality -- treating people exactly the same regardless of gender. That, I support. But the second one, with which I don't agree, is summarized by the argument that "neutrality" is not "equality". In that sense, it is the responsibility of the law to even out whatever disadvantages nature may have bestowed on one gender or the other. I disagree with that interpretation.

And otherwise, it's equalized parental leave.

What do you mean by that? That men and women get equal unpaid leave for the birth of a child, whatever that happens to be?

[Guest Raidne]

Your statement is meaningless, self-important fluff.

It is? I mean, I wasn't even alive when the 19th Amendment or Title VII were passed.

It is akin to China boasting that they have been able to industrialize in 20 years (for example) while it took England/US near 200 years to get to where we are today. Not to diminish anything that real feminists have accomplished, but your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding and appreciation for everything that came before the women's rights movement.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. I do not think there really is another group in all of history that has faced discrimination that is as all-encompassing, ongoing, and widespread. And yet, here we are. It was very hard fought, and I think feminists should be proud as hell to carry that torch.

If you want to make a real criticism (who are these "real" feminists, by the way?) tell me we had an unfair advantage because we were sleeping with the enemy or something else that makes sense.

ETA: FLOW, in order, that group committed actionable slander, and should have been sued, IMHO. I have made fun of the Antioch policy several times on the Board - I am not a fan. This is something that does not make me popular in certain threads, and I can't say that other people haven't done a good job making the case - they're around this thread, so I'll leave it to them. On the next issue - I take it you think women should be able to fired for taking maternity leave then? And lastly, no, I think you know that FMLA already provides that, right? I'm for equal paid leave for men and women. Mandatory for all employers covered by Title VII. 6 weeks. That way, they have the option of splitting some of the time and both of them get a chance to bond with the new baby.

[Kalbear]

Bakker would say that all the hard-won feminist victories happened because of the Industrial revolution and because of the pragmatic need for more workers in the workplace, so feminists didn't really win anything.

There ya go, Tempra - you can just take the tactic of a well-known and popular author who ALSO calls himself a feminist and say that's your opinion too!

[Guest Raidne]

I really thought the argument I suggested was more appropriate in serious consideration of Tempra's temperment - I really put in a lot of effort to come up with something that was both facially plausible but with a suitably demeaning and patronizing undertone that I'd hate to see go to waste.

[Jaerv]

I read the large majority but not all of the posts in these two threads. So I do not know whether this point has already been made:

Many people do not only disagree with the most extremist proponents of feminism, as has been discussed here, but also with the core of feminism, i.e. equality between the sexes.

They believe that men and women should have different rights and obligations and should not be too similar to each other. They believe that differing gender roles are good things that should not be abandoned.

This does not only include men, but many women also. For example, I have recently read a study (Abele, 2005) that found out that 62% of young female German university graduates would prefer a family with the husband working and they themselves being part-time employed. 29% wanted to be homemakers. Only 9% wished full-time employment for themselves.

This is not in good agreement with what feminist politicians are currently doing in our country, i.e. making the homemaker role more and more difficult to life (for example, by severely reducing widow’s pensions, effectively forcing women into employment if they want to avoid poverty in old age).

So, many people do not only disagree with a few extremists, but with the central message of feminism. Since feminism has become one of the dominating ideologies in our society (even the CDU, the traditionally conservative party, makes feminist laws nowadays), these people feel misrepresented and threatened, which can easily lead to anger.

[Kalbear]

jaerv, I don't think any of those things go against the central tenet of feminism, or the core values.

Many feminists want to encourage women who would rather be mothers to do that. What they also encourage is for women who don't want that to be able to do it as well as any other person.

Similarly, widow's pensions: the only thing here would be that if it's a pension for widows, it be for both men and women.

[Guest Raidne]

For example, I have recently read a study (Abele, 2005) that found out that 62% of young female German university graduates would prefer a family with the husband working and they themselves being part-time employed. 29% wanted to be homemakers. Only 9% wished full-time employment for themselves.

Has anyone else seen data like that? Is it a fluke? Is it cross-cultural? I would have to re-examine some key assumptions if this is a widespread phenomena.

Of course, if there was no associated stigma, maybe menwym would all prefer to work part-time also...

[Lady Blackfish]

Well I saw a Jaywalking clip on an episode of The Tonight Show once ...

[Swordfish]

No, I'm definitely not equating "herstory" with "s/he" or "us" instead "men", etc. I think gender neutral is the way to go, going forward. At least, everything I've written for my job in the last 12 years has been that way. Unless, it's marketed toward men or women specifically. Changing things that pre-exist is harder, for a variety of reasons. I'm also queasy about re-writing or editing the past... it always feels like a whitewash to me, to some degree.

To me, "herstory" reminds me of a time when an ad client insisted I change a phrase in some ad copy to "we honor the heroes and sheroes who have paved the way..." (Italics show her revision). I was aghast, mainly because it was in no way a piece about women's rights. And I'd never imagined that the "heroes" in question couldn't refer to women and men. Finally, I got my way by pointing out that their company's brand policy insisted that we only use words recognized by AP Stylebook/Webster's.

You should have just pointed out that 'heroes' starts with the word 'her', and then demanded that it read '"we honor the heroes and hisroes who have paved the way..." '

That is not what that point is about. The point is that (1) rape is about power, (2) the relationship between the genders has historically been rife with systemic power differences, (3) as long as "men" have more power than "women" all sex can be analogized to rape. It is not to say that every man is a rapist.

Bill Clinton, I'm looking at you.....

[Jaerv]

jaerv, I don't think any of those things go against the central tenet of feminism, or the core values.

Well, then the public idea of what feminism wants and the real goal of feminism might not be in accordance with each other. My impression is that feminist politics are usually aimed at the complete destruction of the traditional gender roles. I may be wrong, I am not an expert in feminism. But then, why did i get this impression? Is it only misrepresentation of feminism in the media?

[Red Sun]

Bakker would say that all the hard-won feminist victories happened because of the Industrial revolution and because of the pragmatic need for more workers in the workplace, so feminists didn't really win anything.

That's a vulgarisation of the Marxist theory that economic circumstances influence mentality and/or societal structures. And I have much problems with such a reduction of more complex developments. I do think that the Industrial Revolution did have a lot influences on the genesis of feminism, but not only because of some practical needs, but because it brought better possibilities for organisation and contributed to new perspectives of women on their worth in society. So, even if structural elements contributed to some of the "victories" of feminism, the dynamic of the movements has a few more aspects than pure practical needs.

I do think that the genesis of new ideas and/or cultural/societal norms is linked to the degree of complexity in a society, but if you take the human factor out of feminism, you have to do it with every single accomplishment in history, because you can contribute every step towards more egality to the practical needs of the (economical) cirumstances.

Sorry for ranting, but these thoughts were wheighing on my mind for a while, and I needed to get them out. ;)

ETA: I find "herstory" as a word, totally silly and painfully anglocentric, but I do think that the power of exclusive/inclusive language should not be underestimated.