More Gender Wars

[Guest Raidne]

To respond to James Arryn's objection to the title:

No, here's my point:

It's a comment on the human condition if someone from a group which has been exploited due to a qualifier seeks to rectify that in an adverserial manner.

It means that it's ok to think and act in blocks.

Which means its fine to be adverserial along lines of prejudice.

Which means that a woman thinking adverserially about men has more in common with the generations of back-slapping old boys club members than a man who doesn't think that way.

Meaning it isn't about gender, it's about anything that gives someone an advantage over anyone else. If we defined hair color as a qualifier and people exploited it, it wouldn't be any different, nor would it be a comment on the blonds or brunettes...it would be a comment on some types of people found in both groups, and distinct from the other types in both who don't think that way.

So, in the end, adverserialism seeks to excuse past adverserialism by it's existence.

Here is where this all goes wrong - "prejudice" is "an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or

examination of the facts." My position is that ending sexism necessarily entails removing some of the material advantages that men - in the aggregate - have over women. This is an opinion formed with knowledge and examination of the facts. It is also inherently adversarial. I do not think think that any individual man should have material advantages taken away and given to any individual woman, or all women, unless, of course, he chooses to unfairly divide labor with his wife or something of that nature as an individual, at which point my opinion is again, formed with knowledge and evaluation.

As such, there is no prejudice.

When I am perceived as less capable of leadership for the sole reason that I am female, I am prejudiced by sexism.

Try to look for whether someone is getting ready to treat an individual unfairly due to a group attribute in determining whether there is prejudice.

Furthermore, the adversarial context doesn't inherently involve stereotyping or groupthink, I assure you, and there is no way to end adversity without an adversarial approach. It's not like women achieved suffrage through integrative negotiation strategy, and I assume you don't find that the women's suffrage movement sought to excuse the sexism that preceded it?

And finally, sexism is not adversarial, by and large. For that to be true, the perpetrators would have to give enough of a shit about it to actually put some effort into it instead of just mindlessly enjoying the status quo. I mean, look at your post, which I assume didn't require any great expenditure of effort in order to reach a sexist conclusion as there isn't a single logically valid sentence in the entire thing.

Final take-away lesson: if you're going to risk being offensive (like you are if you call activist feminists akin to sexists) you had better either be (1) damn sure you're right or (2) really, really funny.

[karaddin]

Was talking to one of my close friends a couple of weeks ago, she had been asked to step up and take on the role of Director of Operations at a company. Oh but she's not allowed to actually have any authority over anyone, she just had to do the duties without the authority. Why? No reason apparent, other than that she's a she.

I think growing up as a man makes it hard to see this kind of thing going on from the other side, unless you have someone specifically relating it to you like that, or you are involved in conversations that open your eyes to it. I know my attitude has evolved a lot courtesy of this board, and it's not like it's just some echo chamber all professing the same idea brain washing me, there is significant diversity between say Raidne's opinion and TPs. My reaction to my friends story was yo say "don't take that, tell them to fuck off". Unfortunately it's not always that straightforward, but I think in some cases simply having the background of privilege makes it easier to stand up against something unfair. I guess I'll get a better idea of how I go at putting this into practice when I actually try and get a post transition job! I'll probably be a lot worse at it than I imagine, I'm far from the most assertive person in the world.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Here is where this all goes wrong - "prejudice" is "an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or

examination of the facts." My position is that ending sexism necessarily entails removing some of the material advantages that men - in the aggregate - have over women. This is an opinion formed with knowledge and examination of the facts. It is also inherently adversarial. I do think think that any individual man should have material advantages taken away and given to any individual woman and women, unless, of course, he chooses to unfairly divide labor with his wife or something of that nature as an individual, at which point my opinion is again, formed with knowledge and evaluation.

Is the first "think" in the bold supposed to be "not"?

[Guest Raidne]

That would be a very difficult employment discrimination case to press unless there is also a pay difference or something else tangible.

ETA: Thank the gods for you MFC, that had the potential to be a total clusterfuck uncorrected.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

That would be a very difficult employment discrimination case to press unless there is also a pay difference or something else tangible.

ETA: Thank the gods for you MFC, that had the potential to be a total clusterfuck uncorrected.

No problem. I was just trying to make sense of the sentence, and it did not flow the with subsequent conjunctive conditional. (It also didn't exactly sound like Raidne.)

[Lyanna Stark]

So take-away lesson: if you're going to risk being offensive (like you are if you call activist feminists akin to sexists) you had better either be (1) damn sure you're right or (2) really, really funny.

From arguing with James Arryn before, I have got the distinct impression he does not believe feminism is necessary.

[Guest Raidne]

Okay, there were a ton of errors in there. I may have fixed them all and reworded for greater clarity. In the interest of full disclosure, James is far from the first person to raise an issue with the "war" terminology, although having this problem is correlated with either being new to the Board or going by FLOW.

ETA: Lyanna: Oh...he thinks men and women have equal opportunity right now? Because of some fuzzy definition of equal opportunity, or as an actual matter of fact?

[James Arryn]

Just saw this; to sum up quickly, I'll quote the PMs I exchanged with ES in the matter: The first was a response to her last post in the thread that I typed as it wasbeing locked, so I sent it as a PM just afterwards:

NO, it's not.

Because MEN are not practicing the political structure.

SOME MEN are...those empowered by the system. Which means they're either fine with thinking of women homogenously and judging them wanting as a whole, or they are unconcerned about the justice of the judgment and will exploit it either way.

In other words, they think in an adversarial manner. Which I think you'll agree hasn't really lead to a just society. More thinking along those lines will correct it?

--at this point I'm responding to the comment about women making .62 of men---

That would certainly be a situation to question the empowered. But to think adversarially about the gender that generally respresented them is just more of the same. The men who thought of women as a block may have had that in common...their way of thinking was the commonality, not their gender. Different people have benefitted from different levels of systemic injustice throughout history. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I'd imagine the lower class made a lot less than .62% of the upper class of either gender for most of history. If we could somehow apply a physical distinction to those who bear some genetic similarity with those previously in the upper class...or even with those presently in the upper class...which doesn't itself connotate to their exploiting it, would it be right or wrong to think of ''them'' as a block, and act adverserial towards them?

I know it's a truism and all, but reinforcing prejudice isn't a way of eliminating prejudice. It's merely a way of shifting the balance in power between 2 groups made distinct by prejudice.

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

The second...I don't want to quote hers, as it's not my call to quote someone else's PM, but I'll try and do justice to her response in summary; she questioned where I saw sexism in an issue which to her didn't involve it (ie in demanding equal pay). She noted that she thought men tended to get defensive about these things, and she thought most seemed to be able to keep the 2 issues seperate. I'll edit out the more personal stuff we exhanged from my response:

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

Well, we were specifically talking about 'adversarialism' in a thread about 'war'...

I don't think it's odd to introduce prejudice as an active element in that, but maybe we see it differently. Not trying to be snide; to me prejudice is inherent in either of those concepts. But I'm open to other interpretations.

:)

The thing is, I can see the practical reasoning behind reverse discrimination of any kind. I think it has the advantage of being better than nothing, which has often the alternative. I just strongly think...and this will sound childishly sophomoric, but nevertheless...that you either buld walls or knock them down. You can't conceptually seek to knock down some while building or reinforcing others. That just makes it a grand scheme power play, and as easy as it sounds to say this from a white heterosexual male's POV, I seriously think that it undermines the notion of equality.

We need less qualification as it applies to power/enpowerment, not more. So while it helps soothe the symptom to reverse the pendulum for some groups, it underlines the idea of groups themselves as active definitions. The response is, what's the alternative? I don't have one...but I also don't know how to cure a headache, but would still resist suggestions of decapitation as workable even without a medical licence. :)

[James Arryn]

To respond to James Arryn's objection to the title:

Here is where this all goes wrong - "prejudice" is "an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or

examination of the facts

Well, no. It's opinion formed beforehand. An examination of the facts doesn't tell you anything before you know it. If you think X about Group Y based on your 'examination of the facts' where X necessarily = Y because your take on Y tells you X will be the same without direct knowledge, that's prejudice too.

." My position is that ending sexism necessarily entails removing some of the material advantages that men - in the aggregate - have over women.

But adopting an adversarial approach is by definition perpetuating the issue; it's just changing the beneficiaries. The idea shouldn't be to target 'men', but to target those specifically benefitting. Not all men are benefitting; not all men would. Not all men anything, excepting being a man. When you adopt an adverserial approach to an entire gender based on what you perceive to be universal, you'd better be sure it is. If it isn't...and I think we can agree, it isn't...then using that broad a stroke is not only misdirected, it's harmful to the principles that are supposed to be the foundation of what we want: Not that women deserve more than they are getting vs. men, but that everyone should be treated equally.

Think of Fox News; they maintain they are striving for equality, but they do so by specifically targetting one side of an argument they feel or at least argue is disserviced by the media as a whole, which they feel is biased. They may or may not be accurate; but the specifics of their approach, which they openly proclaim is to present the 'other side' to the liberal agenda...is not anc cannot be party to objective journalism. As soon as they overtly adopt an adverserial approach towards liberalism, their ability to be what they maintain is their original purpose goes out the window. In order to break lines they feel shouldn't be there, they've dug them deeper.

So instead of an overall increase in objective journalism, we see a stratified state of increasingly subjective journalism.

It may be a 'win' for conservatives if you think a journalist's role is to support a political agenda, but it's a loss for objectivism in journalism; the object they supposedly wanted to help.

This is an opinion formed with knowledge and examination of the facts. It is also inherently adversarial.

It is, but not towards a gender. Towards those who are demonstrably exploiting the situation. And that should cut across several other lines of exploitation too. It should not be engaged as an assumed block.

I do not think think that any individual man should have material advantages taken away and given to any individual woman, or all women, unless, of course, he chooses to unfairly divide labor with his wife or something of that nature as an individual, at which point my opinion is again, formed with knowledge and evaluation.

But you do, though. You are necessarily lumping men in as the 'advantaged' and therein excercising the the same kind of thinking we're trying to eradicate. Some men are, some are not. We do not travel in herds, we do not share each other's benefits, gains, goals, or anything else other than gender. To adopt an adverserial position vs. the gender as a whole is, and must include adopting such a position against men who are not your adversary, who have not benefited from or exploited the biases you seek to eliminate. And by lumping those in with all the others by virtue of their common gender, you are being as biased in your labeling as those you rightfully resent have been in theirs.

As such, there is no prejudice.

Should have included this above, sorry.

When I am perceived as less capable of leadership for the sole reason that I am female, I am prejudiced by sexism.

Yes, you are! When any assumption about you is made based on your gender other than your gender, you are prejudiced by sexism. Like if for example I adopted an adverserial position towards you as inclusive in something which statistically applies to only some of your gender, and talked in terms of being at war with your gender, that would also be you being prejudiced by sexism.

Try to look for whether someone is getting ready to treat an individual unfairly due to a group attribute in determining whether there is prejudice.

Groups are comprised of individuals. Women suffered from sexism as individuals and as a whole; the former more true than the latter because there are always exceptions. The effects that individuals faced were usually decided about them as a whole; so while they may not have necessarily led lives of quiet desperation, their inclusion in the whole still affected them as individuals.

Or....I have friends who are black, etc. To try and rarionalize a prejudicial attiude...ie war, adverserialism, etc....on the basis that you don't necessarily mean it to each individual personally, just as a whole...that's an argument to sidestep the wrongs in prejudice going way back, no?

Furthermore, the adversarial context doesn't inherently involve stereotyping or groupthink, I assure you, and there is no way to end adversity without an adversarial approach. It's not like women achieved suffrage through integrative negotiation strategy, and I assume you don't find that the women's suffrage movement sought to excuse the sexism that preceded it?

But the women's movement was not adverserial towards men. It was adverserial towards prejudicial laws and practices. It did not identify men as the enemy; many men were involved in the women's movement. It was not...then...about swinging the pendulum back, it was about getting rid of the mechanisms which prevented equality. There is a huge difference. Just as the civil rights movement wasn't a adverserial towards white people; (Talking King, not Carmichael, etc.) it was adverserial towards racists and the legal and practical means they used to exploit blacks. Huge difference again.

And finally, sexism is not adversarial, by and large. For that to be true, the perpetrators would have to give enough of a shit about it to actually put some effort into it instead of just mindlessly enjoying the status quo. I mean, look at your post, which I assume didn't require any great expenditure of effort in order to reach a sexist conclusion as there isn't a single logically valid sentence in the entire thing.

I'm sorry? So my post was sexist? Really...elaborate; I objected to adverserialsm by gender. THAT'S sexist!?!?!?! How do you figure? I made not a single comment about either gender in the post you're objecting to. I made a statement against using prejudical groupings as a means of fighting prejudice. And somehow that's sexist. Oh, joy.

Final take-away lesson: if you're going to risk being offensive (like you are if you call activist feminists akin to sexists) you had better either be (1) damn sure you're right or (2) really, really funny.

Sorry, lesson? Is there any reason you've gotten so personally antagonistic in this discussion?

Sexism is defining by sex; Men adopting an adverserial position towards women is sexism. Women adopting an adverserial position towards men is sexism. Saying sexism is wrong is not sexism.

[James Arryn]

From arguing with James Arryn before, I have got the distinct impression he does not believe feminism is necessary.

Lol, this keeps getting better.

I was a feminist. I was raised by a feminist. I've belonged to feminist groups. My mother was a social worker who dealt primarily with single mothers or abused women, and as she was my sole parent, that meant that was where I spent much of my childhood; with those groups. I've attended several academic symposiums on feminist or related issues (in history, lit and film). I've written and taught courses on social issues and practices which included gender relations and the history of prejudice in society.

Feminism as defined by seeking to render gender a non-factor is something I still believe in.

Feminism as a means of furthering gender as a factor is something I don't.

Feminism that in any way enjoys the idea of 'it's about time' with regards to any perception of advantage or leverage, as some kind of retribution for past wrongs I strongly reject. In part because it co-opts the important work that feminists I knew did and takes into just another power-play, and one which aligns itself morally with the sexist men who perpetuated the problem in the first place.

And yet you have somehow decided I'm anti-feminist.

Honestly, this is a bit much.

[Lyanna Stark]

And yet you have somehow decided I'm anti-feminist.

Honestly, this is a bit much.

I haven't decided anything. The only factors I have to go on are your past posts in the book threads where people who are outspoken feminists often hold differing viewpoints on gender issues.

Being an anti-feminist is not anywhere near the same as thinking feminism is not necessary either.

It's intriguining to me however that you say "I was a feminist." Does that indicate past tense? If so, may I ask why? (Genuinely interested.)

[sologdin]

yeah, very likely that those convinced by basic first wave liberal feminism (i.e., a large number of persons) can draw a line at first wave liberal feminism, render it normal and thereby non-feminist & non-adversarial, and thereby make it the point of resistance against more radical arguments by self-identified feminists.

is this debate therefore best construed as an intra-feminist polemic, or rather as the confrontation between grievance and extrinsic power?

[Guest Raidne]

Because MEN are not practicing the political structure.

Tell you what, we'll take it one sentence at a time, and if I get an answer that helps me understand what you are saying, I'll move on to the next one. Here goes.

What is "practicing the political structure?" I understand "object to/endorse the political structure," but I know not what it means to practice it.

[Guest Raidne]

In other news, good Slate piece (short) on the wage gap: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/10/24/an_honest_conversation_about_the_wage_gap_between_men_and_women_why_is_it.html

The wage gap gets larger the more educated you get. It exists right when you hire in.

The author breaks down the factors like this:

It speaks to an occupational segregation gap, a negotiation gap, a promotion gap, a self-promotion gap, a mentorship gap, a parenting gap, a STEM gap, a political representation gap, and an overt discrimination gap. And still: Part of the wage gap remains unexplained.

Kinda funny - Ann Romney's free choice becomes a "parenting gap." That's probably really a better way to phrase it. Most of these gaps listed have a voluntary component; it's not the issue. The issue is just the gap and figuring out how big it is and where it comes from.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

This is an appropriate place for this study:

http://nawl.timberlakepublishing.com/files/NAWL%202012%20Survey%20Report%20final.pdf

The National Association of Women Lawyers took a look at law firm demographics and found some pretty interesting things, including the following:

"The gap between the median compensation of male and female equity partners

cannot be explained by differences in billable hours, total hours, or books of

business."

[Guest Raidne]

You know, as this is really the only job I've had in my professional career, I have no idea what it's like to not know what everyone you work with makes. And to have guaranteed equal pay. Naturally, I've heard commentary from white men and, to a lesser extent, white women on unfair affirmative action practices, etc. I don't think this is true, but in a way it is because of how much better those people would be doing relative to women, black men and women, etc., if they worked someone else? Sometimes the idea of what your "due" is gets subconsciously influenced by these things.

My ex works in a very supposedly woman-friendly part of consulting. Supposedly. For one, he started at a salary 25% more than the women who also graduated from top 5 programs with great reputations who started with him at the same company, same time, same job title. For another, two women coworkers of his were told that they did not look "professional" enough at work and were instructed on hair styling and make-up. This in the field that pioneered the phrase "work/life balance," etc. Secondly, he has since gotten promoted faster because there is this perception that clients like him more, he seems more "authoritative" but approachable, whereas the women just seem to either come across as too weak or too shrill...When we split he started dating one of his co-workers, a different one, and I think she about flipped when she realized that she was two levels over him and he made more money than she did. Of course, that didn't last all that long because he got promoted over her within a year and she quit the company. Personal access to all that information on how much you are getting screwed because of your gender is just too much to handle, I think. Come to think of it, every woman he's ever worked with has quit the company. Whenever they pried him for salary information, I think he eventually told them because he just felt like they should know they were getting that screwed over.

It's not hard to be a woman and be perceived as B+. In some environments, it's hard to get to A+, I think, and I bet it involves environments where you need to be "tough" but also "charming" because that's a classic double bind for women. Michelle Obama does this really well though.

ETA: Wait, wait - more nonbillable hours for female associates? WTF, that's like a freaking third shift. This is a great article, btw.

Zabz, I'm almost to the end and a trend has emerged - it's ethics. On average, I bet men steal more clients, inflate more hours, backstab more colleagues, etc. Even the answers to questions in my legal ethics class were this way. Person who ripped the page needed for the timed assignment out of the library book? Male. Person who decreased their margins to meet their law review submission minimum page requirement? Male. Ranking of those two jackasses? Top ten. Jackass #2 filed a greivance over his submission getting tossed and still got on law review.

[James Arryn]

I haven't decided anything. The only factors I have to go on are your past posts in the book threads where people who are outspoken feminists often hold differing viewpoints on gender issues.

That's a fairly slanted perspective, though. In general I tend to take (not insincerely) contrarion points of view. On a sports board where I post, which is dominated by men and the male perspective, I am viewed as a little self-righteous in the manner with which I oppose sexism in the other direction. I tend to strongly resist groupthink, and the predominant strain on this board seems to come up re: feminism as the central or only significant objection to all kinds of anachronictic social wrongs depicted in Westeros.

We have little trouble with slavery, classism, racism, etc. We even largely adopt moral codes which have no bearing on the modern world...death for breaking an oath is generally regarded as justice, whereas if it were transposed to the here and now that would seem ridiculous. There are all kinds of 'wrongs' in Westeros, but the only one that seems to generate indignation/tons of threads/entrenched camps of position are with regards to gender. I think group dynamics tend to polarize perspectives especially when they are working in a moraly undefined environment like 'what is wrong and right in a medieval fantasy world', and can take on their own momentum. For example, although I was not around for this, I know that 'rape justification' is a serious 'no fly zone', and I feel it should be. What I feel is interesting, though, is the degree to which 'death/murder/killing justification' is a matter of course. There are liminations when people get too graphic or seem to relish in the degree to which suffering is the intention, but beyond that we as a board see reflections on who should be killed on a daily basis.

That dichotomy troubles me. It is indicative of a certain kind of mindset being present, where some issues matter much more than others. We see death/murder/killing as par for the course re: a medieval setting, which is accurate, but then so was sexual abuse. It would be seriously distasteful to have to read of people enjoying the idea of ___ being raped, but it's also distasteful to me to read the glee with which some people describe or anticipate murders and violent deaths. For example, people overtly celebrate moments like Arya engaging in a frenzy of rage killing. To me that, and the celebration of it, is as morally dubious as any kind of rightness attached to any infliction of suffering, such as sexual abuse, and I say this as someone who was technically sexually abused (no biggie, the women were adults and I wasn't, but neither then nor now did I see it as abuse, but w/e).

Maybe being part of this setting for a while tends to alter the perspective, but when first coming in here it was startling to see one issue be discussed as so central whereas other issues fell by the side of the road. This is not to say that particular issue holds any less legitimacy than others, but the contrast with which it is held as inviolate whatever the supposed 'times' ASOIAF reflects whereas others are only occassionally raised, and meet with half-hearted response...it's striking from the outside.

I have seen other environments where other social wrongs take center stage...be they hompphobia, racism, classism, etc. For example, that sports board I mentioned; racism is discussed daily, whereas sexism is hardly ever cited. Because it's an environment within which racisl clashes are more indicative of the populace of the board than others. And again, as with here, the central issue holds water; I do see race as a legit issue in sports and the portrayal of sports. But the degree to which it is the only issue most of the time is imo an unrealistic reflection of the state of the world, but within that echo chamber it can be increasingly cited as THE issue.

But even that pales somewhat compared with here, largely because other issues are ignored in more of a specific environment. Sexism, classism etc. can tangentially be included in a discussion of the NBA playoffs, but it takes some work. Whereas with Westeros we have literal reflections of the whole panapoly of systemic moral wrongs...I would say homophobia is downgraded in the books, actually, but the tv series ratchets it up, and religion so far takes a much more secondary role...but other than those exceptions the wide range of immorality and prejudice is on full display, and we as a whole largely accept them all, except one.

So if it seems that that's an issue or perspective you see me debating more, I'd agree, but do not make the mistake of assumptions as to what that says of my position itself. I'll argue with groupthink when I see it a lot of the time whatever the issue. I have had a somewhat unique life as a man amongst women...raised by one, beginning when I started Uni, I was the only guy in a house with 6 other college age women for over a decade and a half, meaning I've lived in intimate circumstances with something like 75-100 women., etc. I honestly think I am devoid of sexism; the only generalities I've taken away from life about women involve sex and laundry. (I had no idea before that women in general love the smell of fresh laundry so much, nor that bras were such a variable when it comes to how they are laundered, let alone how much they turn loads into crazy knots.)

So, anyways, make your mind up however you like, but be careful not to engage in presumptions when trying to fight prejudice.

Being an anti-feminist is not anywhere near the same as thinking feminism is not necessary either.

I think it must be. Even if I object to some manifestations of the movement doesn't mean I think the world could function morally (or with an effort to be what I conceive of as moral) without feminism. As much as sexism might be central for some people here, I see THE central struggle in human history as that between those enpowered by the status quo vs. those unempowered by it. Marxism isn't what I mean...Marx himself was too rigid in his class distinctions; to me they are more phlegmatic and involve a wider range of issues, gender among them, But to get back to my point, some kinds of people will always exploit others where it is available. The history of the world involved so much manual labor and warfare that gender naturally became a social determinant, but that having been true made it an easily exploitable distinction for those kinds of people who wanted to use it that way, and that hasn't changed. There are still many people who will reduce women or any other kind of specification to lower status to fulfill their own wants if they are able, and absent feminism that would increasingly become true.

So I take issue with the distinction you are making above. I think anyone who feels feminism isn't necessary is on some level anti-femism (as I define it...will get to that lower down), even if they are so without malice.

It's intriguining to me however that you say "I was a feminist." Does that indicate past tense? If so, may I ask why? (Genuinely interested.)

Yes, this is the crux. Getting back to my view on the central issue, the problem I see with people and power is akin to the maxim about power and corruption, though the reality is more complex. Allow me to seemingly deviate to illustrate; there have been very few successful revolutions in history. Most follow the pattern with which we are familiar, say the French. Ideals give way to retribution, revenge, and often an eventual shift in who is in power with no change in the form of power or it's relationship to the populace in general. I see this in some ways as the corrupting effect of power, but more I see it as a product of the process of gaining power, and the types of people who engage in that process.

Struggles by definition become myopic if they want to succeed. All kinds of catchwords for people who succeed through struggle...passionate, focused, driven, relentless, dedicated, patriotic, zealous, martyr, etc. are representative of a kind of concentration that has 2 effects: it reduces scope and it upgrades antagonism and/or competitive drive. Which is why soooo many originally pacifist freedom fighters turn almost invariably to violence; the cause becomes an end so universally desired that the means increasingly is regarded as a secondary concern. And, more, the mindset that increasingly needs to think 'us vs. them' reduces 'them' to someone unworthy of serious consideration in the way we would for something akin to 'us'. I don't necessarily mean the degree to which dehumanization can occur, although that is true too, but often more of a 'well, they'd do it to us/did it to us, so we should/have to/are okay to do it to them.' And increasingly 'them' can become anyone not distinctly 'us'. Which is why you will often see extremely passionate internal conflicts within movements/struggles, etc. 'Us' who became 'them'...if anything more worthy of contempt.

I'm probably losing you here, but it's all involved; my perspective isn't that simple, so it needs breath of illustration if I have any hope of you understanding.

Anyways, to try and dovetail, many morally solid/necessary movements...some would say most...follow the same pattern. Burn baby burn. Often understandable, and worthy of empathy, but not 'right'. And more, usually resulting in a means which runs contrary to the end it was originally intended to foster as whole. instead of an ideal where races should be equal, we'll see increased definition by race because the struggle itself makes many feel they have to choose a side in order for progress to occur, and once that side is chosen the pattern outlined above is a natural progression. In an effort to seek equality, we reach adverserialism. And barring the day when some broadly accepted higher power calls game, that won't stop. Adversaries are the enemy, not the structure of process. And adversaries being increasingly defined as 'other than us' leads to hypocracy within movements originally intended to achieve equality, because equality is not self-defining in real-time, no D.H.P. is going to call game, and so the struggle takes on its own life and form for those engaged. And as it increasingly takes hold, it shapes views on both sides, and from both sides towards the middle.

To depart again, Bush's 'for us or against us' mentality, which is about the worst kind of view that can take hold. That kind of moral sophmorism is antithetical to understanding or real-time equality, and can and will only result in more prejudice and the walls being raised higher. But that's a normal end-view for people who engage in struggles, and more the kinds of people who think that way are more likely to engage in struggles, which brings me to my final point about power.

The kinds of people who are attracted to power and struggles for power are also the kinds to exploit it if and when they can get it. There aren't that many Cinncinnatti's or Washington's in the world. Normally people, even originally altruistic in some ways, who are attracted to power and it's pursuit already have a fairly 'us vs. them' or 'get what's mine' mentality. So the fact that those tend to deominate movements is itself not surprising.

So when I think of feminism, I see distinctions. Feminism as it was originally, or as it still is to many is a desire to achieve equality. I think increasingly technology will be our greatest ally against systemic bias in that it will allow people to interact in a non-social basis without the means to make superficial judgments or assumptions. But, more, I think the material basis for sexism's origins...that the people who had to do the killing/protecting/dying naturally became the rulers (even within genders, btw) and those who were protected also became the ruled...is eroded by technology, the less it will serve as a background basis for pretense at argument in favor. As we increasingly move away from the physical to the intellectual, in terms of our functions, we increasingly have fewer pragmatic basis for gender distinction at all. That itself won't solve the problem without vigilance because of that endemic power/expoitative along w/e means possible aspect I talked about earlier, but it should help to isolate biases for what they are ans allow for equal access and freedoms across the board. (Religious tensions might not be helped, but that's another issue).

So that's the ferminist I am. I think people should be treated equally. I undertstand some of the gender distinctions made in ancient times because I see them also applying within genders themselves, reaffirming a belief that it was on some level functionalism as opposed to sexism, but I think there is no basis for that kind of distinction in the modern world, and any manifestations of such today are either hyper-conservatism or exploitation as a means to power, both of which I strongly oppose. I think the targets for feminism were functional; laws, hiring practices, exclusions, etc. I understand the desifre to attack softer targets, but I see that as becoming part of the never-ending-struggle/us vs. them mindset I mentioned earlier. I think the problem doesn't stop when you eliminate the material manifestations of prejudice, but over time it erodes. I understand impatience with that from an unempowered POV, but the alternatives aren't actually more effective than time, and as I said, often serve as fuel for their own prejudices.

There was a time not too long ago when being catholic in North America or Britain was cause for all kinds of discrimination. Not just burnings and the like, but more recently it was a huge obstacle to being employed, allowed or given equal standing under law. The fact that JFK being a Catholic president strikes us all now as a non-event, but that the time it was huge, and 50 years before it was unthinkable. In politcally correct Toronto there was an example where Catholic jeerers at an Orangeman's parade had a balcony above a butcher shop collapse whereupon they fell and were impaled on the masses of meat hooks, and the Protestant observers cheered. Again, seems unthinkable to us now, but at the time it would have seemed unchangeable. I know my oen grandparents thought in Catholic vs. Protestant more than in any other form of prejudical distinction.

Take away the material means for systemic prejudice and it will eventually cease to have a hold. It won't evaporate, and there are always people who will seize any advantage they can get over any defined-other, but they will increasingly be unable to do so, and in time it will become as other preduces of the past became when they had no engine parts. Not unreal, but unrealistic as a whole.

That does not mean that I think the gains achieved by feminism are fait accompli, it means I think the focus should remain on the systemic means for prejudice,not become the gender viewed as most representative of that prejudice. That view itself is prejudice. And as I was engaged in feminism, I increasingly met a 'it's about time!' response or dismissal of instances of prejudice working the other way. Which is, to me, a betrayal of the movement itself, but also a natural bi-product of the myopia and us. vs. them that some people make some elements of any movement.

So when I say I 'was' a feminist, that's not a divorce from my sympathies and feminism, or even my divorce from feminism as it stands today, but feminism isn't a homogenous whole; it has all kinds of branches, and the ones which oftten get the most play are the ones least represtative of the kind I am, and so I say 'was' as a nod to popular understanding. I am not now what many see a feminist to be. I am an equalist, and to me they used to represent the same thing, and for many still do, and sacrificing equality or allowing for prejudice as means to achieve it is self-defeating. Being able to sympathize with the emotional fuel for the frustration that often serves it does not mean I can uphold it or see it as consistent with the aim.

Hope this helps. It might help you slot me into a category for easy consumption if you're wanting that..

[karaddin]

That would be a very difficult employment discrimination case to press unless there is also a pay difference or something else tangible.

Well she's also not getting paid anymore to do those higher duties than she was doing her previous job. I don't know that's a case of sex discrimination though, or just general company taking advantage of an employee because they can. Also made more complicated by the company then going bankrupt a few weeks later and splintering off to try and start a new one to continue the work.

My cousin works for a large US IT company and she gets paid less than any of her comparable managers. She didn't even get a pay raise when they bumped her up to manager, but then turned around a year later when the GFC hit and cut her pay like they did for all the managers as a show of good faith to the staff. She was then shuffled sideways into managing a different group, and they hired a guy to do the one she just vacated at 25% higher than she is paid. Yet another example that would make me ropeable if I had to deal with it.

[Elder Sister]

Two things -

• Firstly, here are some good links regarding pay inequality. http://www.trustwomenpac.org/2012/03/gender-inequality-in-the-u-s-today/, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/news/2012/04/16/11435/infographic-the-gender-pay-gap/, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2012/04/16/11391/the-top-10-facts-about-the-wage-gap/
  
• Secondly, regarding James' post: I had a lengthy response typed and I somehow deleted it, owing to the fact that my fingernails are partially wet and I didn't want to smear them. Read what you will about feminism into that statement. :) The biggest problem that I have with your argument is this: In order for it to make sense, I must be a feminist with an ingrained dislike/resentment of men. I do not dislike and am not resentful of men. They are human beings, and I don't see men as 'separate' or 'apart from' the rest of humanity. Having said that, I do want equality for all people, and this includes women. I think most, if not all of the feminists I know and have met on this board feel the same way, especially because many of them are men.
  

[James Arryn]

Two things -

• Firstly, here are some good links regarding pay inequality. http://www.trustwome...-the-u-s-today/, http://www.americanp...gender-pay-gap/, http://www.americanp...t-the-wage-gap/
  
• Secondly, regarding James' post: I had a lengthy response typed and I somehow deleted it, owing to the fact that my fingernails are partially wet and I didn't want to smear them. Read what you will about feminism into that statement. :) The biggest problem that I have with your argument is this: In order for it to make sense, I must be a feminist with an ingrained dislike/resentment of men. I do not dislike and am not resentful of men. They are human beings, and I don't see men as 'separate' or 'apart from' the rest of humanity. Having said that, I do want equality for all people, and this includes women. I think most, if not all of the feminists I know and have met on this board feel the same way, especially because many of them are men.
  

But we are talking about war and adverserialism. Those are very difficult concepts to incorporate into equality. Remember, I did not start this by saying feminism is distinct from equality, I said that adversarialism applied to gender is.