Jump to content

Failings of feminism - real or not?


Lyanna Stark

Recommended Posts

regarding the radical fringe fucking it up for everybody bit--

this is a strategic necessity. those in the mainstream doing the actual work that has a reasonable chance of pragmatic, non-revolutionary success need a fringe that they can throw under the bus when the adversary gets tactically aggressive or the mainstream side becomes tactically vulnerable.

e.g., BHO needs people like me to throw under the bus in order to advance a moderately progressive set of ideas that i happen to support, as far as they go. they accuse me of being a communist--but look: here be real commies, and they crazy! i'm not like them at all. it works the same way for any of the broad movements that HE identified upthread.

lacking an under-the-busable fringe, the most vulnerable portion of the mainstream position becomes the sacrifical portion. this means that one must continually compromise the basic objectives, moving the center rightward over time.

we therefore need to counter every crazed 'baggerism with our own fringier element. lunacy in support of stabilizing the rightward drift of the center! all power to the ultras! &c.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am EXTREMELY OFFENDED that my post in the OP was used without me receiving any notification whatsoever. I have been called barbaric, uneducated, and other things! I was one of the only people that actually understood Lyanna's original OP in the other thread and was actually excited to discuss the subject matter. If I had not come here for the same reason I would have never known that my comments had been twisted into something ugly.

Neither of you have an explanation on my thoughts and feelings towards feminism, NEITHER of you! I did not fully articulate my views on feminism when I made that post. I was responding to the OP and other posts I had seen in the original thread. My statements have been taken out of context and are not representative on my thoughts related to just "feminism".

So what say you wise Gen Chatters, what are the reasons for what I think are misconceptions about feminism and the importance of feminism, which obviously some/a lot of people think very differently about? Are they even misconceptions, or are feminists and feminism generally as described above?

I do not have any misconceptions about feminism nor the importance of feminism, as I stated in my response to your first condescending reply to my statements in the original thread. I chose not to go into detail about my opinions, because I knew it would derail the other thread, so it was extremely disrespectful of you to bring my statements here and parade them as something that they are not. I came here to have enlightened discussion on the idea of feminism, but sadly I don't feel I will be getting it here. This is not what I call intelligent, respectful, productive conversation.

:lol:

I am more interested in how they came to be expressed the way they were. To me it's fairly obvious that without feminism, I would not be working with what I do, I would not be voting, and I would generally be far worse off, but that seems to be totally non-obvious or even the opposite to a lot of people, despite it being "common knowledge", or so I thought!

Did I refute ANY of this in MY post? Am I too ignorant/barbaric to understand this obvious concept? And I'm glad you find it funny to insult the intelligence of others with a few statements taken out of context.

I am probably going to regret stepping into this thread, but...

I think you will find very few people (men or women) disagree about overarching "feminists goals": equal pay, equal opportunity, etc. The issues become contentious when they are presented in an overly adversarial manner and when discussing proposed remedies. One can disagree whether companies should be required to provide paid paternity leave equal to maternity leave without being a dirty sexist pig. This notion escapes many, unfortunately.

I'm glad you stepped into this topic. My general issue with the debate surrounding feminism stems from the idea presented in this statement. That is all I wish to say on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever felt judged by other women for being a SAHM? I was honestly quite shocked at the contempt SAHMs receive from some women who purport to adhere to feminist ideals.

I have felt more negative attitudes from "SAHM's" than from "working" women.

I am not sure that is necessarily helpful as a fact in itself. The one women who occupies the top job can tell the story 'that there isn't a problem, its just whiny women who aren't good enough. The best person can fight their way to the top' etc etc, which I would say is the impact of Mrs T in the UK, looking at certain recent events in India possibly the case with Indria Gandhi too.

Didn't mean to suggest your reading of this "fact" at all. I'm rather surprised by it. I guess that makes me somewhat niave. My point was about prejudice, not qualifications. In the US, women in the political realm, rank behind men, of any color, and that is because of a long standing desire to keep women in a certain place. Another little fact for you in this same vein, prejudice as opposed to qualifications for a particular job can be found in my chose profession: the law.

The case, Bradwell v. Illinois, (1873), remains the "law" with regard to my profession and has never been expressely overruled. In it, Illinois refused Mrs. Bradwell's application for a license to practise law because she was a woman. She brought the case to the US Supreme Court arguing that the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution made available to citizens of the states through the Fourteenth Amendment required that women not be disadvantaged by this particular law prohibiting licensure based upon her sex. The Bradwell Court held that the right to practise law was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In a much cited concurrence, Justice Bradley asserted that. . . "The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I enjoy reading Cersei's chapters because she fights against being a woman and wants to be a member of the male system, but she uses her status a as woman to active her goal."

Cersei is one of the most vilified characters in the series. I think a big part of the vitriol aimed at her comes from the fact that she's a woman who is breaking the 'feminine ideal' mold.

"I honestly don't get "feminists." Google provides me with some enlightenment as to what it technically means. But as far as I can tell, a "feminist" is a girl who typically lacks femininity (in its traditional sense of the word). Asha, mentioned here, being a great example. As if a girl who behaves like a man (not that I think there's anything wrong with that) can be a representative of female identity that will lead it down the road to earning respect and social equality. That seems to me, using a masculine female as an idol, as if it will only further alienate the more typical nature of girls and simply leave it behind in the dust without its own voice.

Indeed, it seems more and more as "feminists" make advances in society that instead of traditional views being honored with the respect that women deserve (matters like abstinence befor marriage or other associations typical in religous and moral cultures), girls are instead berated for their ideas. Far from equality occuring, a typical Western highschool now has a culture of humiliating girls for chastity and the promiscuous girls (the ones who behave in a way formerly reserved for men) are deemed as the "cool" girls. It's not like I haven't been teased for being a virgin before and wanting to stay that way.

So instead of feminist identity being accepted with equality. Society has changed in a way so that it still berates femininity and instead prefers girls that behave like men... the wonders of modern "liberalism."

This whole passage is such a load of horse manure that just using this term is demeaning to horses. What the hell? Is this person living next door to June Cleaver? Newsflash: She never existed. Another newsflash: Feminists are not interested in robbing women of their 'female identity'. And what does that even mean? I have no interest in being 'manly' or behaving like a man, whatever the hell that means. But what if I do? Why should that be 'wrong' or even a topic of discussion? How do you even have a rational conversation with this sort of language?

I know one thing, though - the passages you referenced show a clear and decided need for the continued movement of the Feminist 'agenda'. When people are getting their information through soundbites via Rush Limbaugh and FoxNews, this is the crap that comes of it. And we need to continue to have these conversations about the pay gap, the failings of the education system, and the roles that we are continuing to force both men and women to play.

I must admit that when I originally read that last quote in the other forum I agreed with the sentiment insofar as one of the biggest problems I am having lately in the book discussions is just how much Sansa is hated for being feminine and liking to wear pretty dresses. Take a look at this horrid example that came up just two days ago in a discussion in the general book forum:

If Sansa were to grab hold of a mule and lead it down the mountain herself, or even reconcile herself to wearing the drab clothes appropriate to her pretend status as a bastard, I might think differently, but she hasn't.

And I don't know what you think Littlefinger is doing to her, but I think he's grooming her to be his little plaything and that when he's through with her she'll be someone who'd do considerably more than defer to a man's judgment. In spite of all she's been through, or perhaps because of it, the end of AFFC sees her wishing for a pretty dress, sitting on Littlefinger's lap and letting him stick his tongue in her mouth. There's agency for you.

Like you said, so she likes to wear pretty dresses! Is that such a crime?

But then when I took a closer look at the Saga quote I realized that she is just doing the same thing and denigrating women who choose to be more masculine** and also stating that all feminists are that way which is just so wrong. The real issue should be about a woman's choice as to how they wish to present themselves to the public and that is a topic for feminist discussion.

**I also find it really ironic and hypocritical that a lot of the people who hate Sansa for teasing Arya about wearing boys clothes and behaving like a boy then denigrate Sansa for wanting to wear pretty dresses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in future it is more polite to message someone to tell them you are including their quote in a thread, or to at least remove their username as not to demonize their words, taken out of context, without their knowledge. I'd also be rather offended if I made an off-hand comment in a thread that was then used as an example of something 'barbaric' in a serious and necessary topic like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. When I was 20, I would have been mortified and ashamed if someone had described me as a feminist. In my defense, I was wholly ignorant and conflated "feminism" with "hatred of men", which is, of course, not the case. I also (mistakenly) thought that gender discrimination was no longer applicable, particularly to women of my generation, and that women, like men, would rise and fall as a result of their abilities (nothing more). Finally, I was more interested in men (as a category) "liking" me (that is, wanting to date/hook up with me), rather than finding a man that i like and that respected me as me. It was a deep insecurity that I am happy to have grown out of and that caused me to play a role that did not suit me very well.

2. 15 years later, I proudly identify myself as a feminist. I am fortunate. I have gotten pretty much to the top of my profession (which, btw, is overwhelmingly male dominated). So, you'd think that confirmation bias would have led me to continue to bleive that feminism is no longer necessary. In fact, actually entering the real world and this particular profession has made me realize how far there is to go. It's not that exceptional women do not get promoted. They do (I also have no modesty :P). It's rather that I see mediocre men get promoted when equally mediocre women get passed over. Why is that? Kids don't explain it, because half these women don't have children. In addition, I've realized that feminism isn't hatred of men. Feminism doesn't mean that I can't enjoy looking nice. It doesn't mean that I can't like jewelry or that my children can't play with dolls (they do have dolls; they also have dumptrucks and excavators). It just means that my gender by itself shouldn't be determinative of the options that are available to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Didn't mean to suggest your reading of this "fact" at all. I'm rather surprised by it. I guess that makes me somewhat niave. My point was about prejudice, not qualifications. In the US, women in the political realm, rank behind men, of any color, and that is because of a long standing desire to keep women in a certain place...

Well exactly, but don't call yourself naive, we've had a woman in the top government job, it gives a different perspective.

Just having a woman occupy the top jobs doesn't tell you if that was because structurally that organisation is acceptably fair and equal in how it functions that she got to the top.

It's not rare in the UK to read the token high placed woman decrying feminism or the need for quotas or the need to change the way the organisation works to make it, just a little, fairer for women. This can easily become a public narrative that: 'the best people do reach the top, it just so happens that not many women are that good. The problem isn't fundamental inequality in society, the women just need to spend less time moaning and work harder'. It can be a stick to reinforce prejudice.

Mrs T notoriously did not position herself to improve the position of women in the Conservative party, let alone in Parliament or the country as a whole. Perhaps, due to our established attitudes ("she's only promoting her because she's a woman!") she felt she couldn't. (Of course if Barbara Castle had become PM back in the day we'd all be living in a land of milk and honey now :) )

You know if Mrs Clinton became the next president of the USA is that because any woman can become President and the whole US political system is equally open to men and women or because she is a remarkably well connected individual?

Having a woman in the top job of any organisation is not of itself a sign that woman have equal opportunities throughout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, that is the core problem with feminism and feminists. they do not have answers on the problematic of childraising. Men and woman should have equal rights and equal pay and all, I think no one on this forum disagrees, but it must be possible to have a different way of life as a mother (staying part time at home, concentrating more on the children than on carreer), which is not accepted by modern feminsts.

Really? This is not my impression at all. As long as it's the woman's own choice, the vast majority of the modern feminists are fine with it.

They (well some, not all feministic views will be the same) focus on equality with men which they interpret as the best way to live your life as a human is to live your life as men do (full time carreer and so on) and do not see that some mothers (not all, the choice should always be with the mother) prefer to raise their children themselves and find this much more fulfilling as a 'career'. Why exactly is payed job so much more seen as superior and more desirable in our society than to look for and raise your own children?

Because we live in a consumerism society and so earning money so you can spend them on stuff is seen as paramount and it's in the interest of those in power to promote this view. It has very little, if anything, to do with feminism.

What about the role in raising the kids, BTW? Your post make it sound as if it's only the job of women to do it. What if the husband stays at home raising the kids so his wife can concentrate on her career?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. 15 years later, I proudly identify myself as a feminist. I am fortunate. I have gotten pretty much to the top of my profession (which, btw, is overwhelmingly male dominated). So, you'd think that confirmation bias would have led me to continue to bleive that feminism is no longer necessary. In fact, actually entering the real world and this particular profession has made me realize how far there is to go. It's not that exceptional women do not get promoted. They do (I also have no modesty :P). It's rather that I see mediocre men get promoted when equally mediocre women get passed over. Why is that? Kids don't explain it, because half these women don't have children. In addition, I've realized that feminism isn't hatred of men. Feminism doesn't mean that I can't enjoy looking nice. It doesn't mean that I can't like jewelry or that my children can't play with dolls (they do have dolls; they also have dumptrucks and excavators). It just means that my gender by itself shouldn't be determinative of the options that are available to me.

Question for you regarding women, promotion to partnership, and alternative work schedules. I read an article recently (I will try to dig it up) stating that efforts major law firms have undertaken to keep women in the workforce have reduced the number of women "qualified" to become partner. Particularly, alternative work schedules (teleworking and part time work status) as well as taking "counsel" positions with reduced responsibility/stress were named as culprits. Do you have any thoughts on whether these efforts to keep women in the workplace are a net positive for women in general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Feminism ... just means that my gender by itself shouldn't be determinative of the options that are available to me.

precisely, it annoys me to think that my mother and sister, daughters unborn, friends, passing acquaintances have their options, level of pay, conditions of work, social value are or have been or might be determined by the mere genetic lottery of their gender. Actually it annoys me rather severely, I must be extra irritable today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, that is the core problem with feminism and feminists. they do not have answers on the problematic of childraising. Men and woman should have equal rights and equal pay and all, I think no one on this forum disagrees, but it must be possible to have a different way of life as a mother (staying part time at home, concentrating more on the children than on carreer), which is not accepted by modern feminsts. They (well some, not all feministic views will be the same) focus on equality with men which they interpret as the best way to live your life as a human is to live your life as men do (full time carreer and so on) and do not see that some mothers (not all, the choice should always be with the mother) prefer to raise their children themselves and find this much more fulfilling as a 'career'. Why exactly is payed job so much more seen as superior and more desirable in our society than to look for and raise your own children?

Bull. Fucking. Shit. Seriously, this is vomitous.

I am a working mother, currently of one, soon to be of two. Your labelling of "modern feminists" as not being concerned with motherhood is malicious, wrong and absolute and complete misinformation.

Also, if you have missed that being a SAHP is

a. not for everyone and

b. weighed down with a lot of baggage

c. a choice that is often conditioned by tradition, and not by conscious choice

then you are seriously out of order.

I can also tell you exactly why, in monetary terms, a paid job is better. Because today, being a stay at home parent, as Lummel pointed out, is penalised in monetary terms. You have no income of your own, which means you are dependant. Since you have no income, you pay no tax and you do not get a percentage of your income paid into your pension account, meaning you come out worse than people who have worked. Further, any education you have will become old and not as interesting in the job market, should you choose to return.

These are harsh, penalising factors which should enter everyone's mind when they decide to become a SAHP (Stay at home parent, not mother, let's not be sexist). To become a SAHP is not an easy choice, and a lot of parents struggle with it, for very real reasons. To dismiss those reasons or pretend they don't exist, or are *made up* by feminists is simply shameful and it devalues the choice a lot of SAHP make for the sake of their children. It is a choice that has ramifications, and you have to be aware of those and be able to live with them.

This is one of the MAIN feminist issues and the battles fought over parental leave, right to take leave for sick children, parental leave for fathers, etc have been some of the great milestones of the last 30 years in the country I live in. I am extremely and eternally grateful for living in a country which enables parents to be parents and work, so I do not need to make that difficult choice if I do not absolutely want to. And who fought for this? That's right: the feminists, which you are trying so hard to tar and feather. And guess what? We are still fighting for even better legislation for parents.

So you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am EXTREMELY OFFENDED that my post in the OP was used without me receiving any notification whatsoever. I have been called barbaric, uneducated, and other things! I was one of the only people that actually understood Lyanna's original OP in the other thread and was actually excited to discuss the subject matter. If I had not come here for the same reason I would have never known that my comments had been twisted into something ugly.

Errh the link to this topic is in the original thread, which you can go read at your leisure. It's not a secret. Both are cross linked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big deal is that my comments were taken out of context, but if you guys don't see anything wrong with that...so be it.

Then use this public forum to state your opinion in full with the context you want. Share the nuance of your view.

Don't shoot the messenger - share your own message

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got me there, I can't give specifics. Perhaps it is, as others have suggested, a media construct. What I can say is that I have had personal experiences, on this board, with people purporting to hold a feminist viewpoint that have left me wanting to lash out against feminism. Even knowing that their views did not truly represent feminism did little to calm my anger at them or, unfortunately, the ideals they purported to stand for. I think it is incidents like this that are responsible, in some small part, for the twisted way in which feminism has come to be defined in the minds of some .

No, I think I get what you are saying.

I've once been faced with feeling that I needed to revoke someone's feminist card, for instance. In a case where it was argued that a person who claimed to identify as feminist also claimed women who wanted an abortion should be locked away in mental institutions and prosecuted for murder.

Not perhaps aligning with any radical fringe thinking, but difficult to approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errh the link to this topic is in the original thread, which you can go read at your leisure. It's not a secret. Both are cross linked.

If I had not chose to read this thread for discussion purposes I would have never known. I specifically stated in the other thread that I would rather not discuss the topic and then you bring my comments here and demonize them. That was done in really poor taste.

If you do not see how rude and disrespectful you were, we are done here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

No, it really doesn't. Sometimes, sure, but it's not an absolute.

Also, since this just came up and it just seemed so topical: Which kind of feminist are you? :P

As an example, this is one of the questions: "You’re a giant, standing over a giant bathtub. Camille Paglia is trying to climb up the plug chain. Germain[sic] Greer has made a tiny dinghy out of the soap dish, and Caitlin Moran is losing her shit because she’s allergic to Matey. Who do you save first - and why?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...