Failings of feminism - real or not?

[Nas!]

I think the problem is often to do with a tension between people's willingness to accept that an idea is "right" or even necessary, and should therefore be adopted and implemented, and the reality of actually doing something helpful in supporting the idea. If an idea questions a person's privilege, threatens their comfort, or makes their own future uncertain in any way, the best that person is likely to give it in support is lip service (likely combined with some criticism, contrary anecdote, etc.). As with any social movement, complacency is the great enemy.

[Lyanna Stark]

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.

Then explain your stance instead. You are posting on a public forum after all.

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".

I did not take that university course in mind reading. Unless you post in plainly, I cannot know. Neither can somebody else. If you did not fully articulate your views, then you can hardly blame me or anyone else for reading and responding to what was written, can you? None of us are mind readers.

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.

Well, I am glad to hear that you indeed have no misconceptions, and I am sorry you think linking you helpful resources is condescending. I read that blog on occasion myself and find it very interesting.

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.

I brought these statements here specifically because it derailed the other thread. And I put a note in the other thread, too. It's there for you to read should you wish to. Both threads are crosslinked, and that is not secret.

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.

Well, I am sorry we are deprived of your knowledge, since you stated above you have no misconceptions. I find it interesting that you don't, but still do not want to divulge your knowledge to the rest of us when you seem to think we DO have misconceptions. If all you wish to say on the matter is that you have no misconceptions but the rest of us do, but you don't want to explain what they are...well, ok then.

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.

If you state views on a discussion forum, they will be discussed. If you do not want your views discussed, then perhaps it would be a better idea not to post them on a public discussion forum in the first place?

[Robin Of House Hill]

Only because people feel attacked by the slightest opposition to their point of view. The point of discussion is to hear the viewpoints of others, not to find a group of people that agree with you. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

"Isms", create "ists". The problem is that some "ists" are more "isty" than others. (In other words, some are content with deliberate, but slower progress, while others want to take the fight to the next level, which while riskier, might resolve the issue sooner.)

I would have loved to have seen a calm discussion that included thoughts on how best to get a privileged group to accept giving up that privilege. That is something that is at the heart of many issues, but apparently, I won't find that discussed under these circumstances.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

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

It's a public forum to state my opinion in full context, but if I choose not to share my opinion in full context and state that I have not shared my opinion in full context, a few statements should not then be moved to another topic where they are used to demonize an unstated view.

The "messenger" did not deliver my message.

I originally came to this thread to share my message, but after seeing how one user was just unfairly attacked and their words twisted, I'm good. That is not my idea of pleasant conversation.

[SerMixalot]

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

There are no absolutes.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

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?

This is an area I try to keep up on so I'd love to see the article (I get trotted out like a show pony (or freak in a freakshow?) to talk at various conferences that wring their hands about what to do about women in law firms. I've certainly seen articles like the one you are describing (I think there might have been one recently in Working Mother). Very personally, when asked questions like that, I say a bunch of things:

1. I wish that people would stop focusing so much energy when it comes to women in law firms on "work life balance." It's not a woman issue. It's a human (or at least lawyer, jury's out on whether we're human) issue. The sad truth is that in my experience, women (and they are almost all women - I think if a man did so, the result would be the same) who take these alternative schedules are sidelined and marginalized, and honestly, it's hard from a business perspective to see any other way around it. My client's problems are my problems, and sometimes that means that I'm working 24/7 for a couple of days. It's hard to do that on an alternative schedule. If you want to go there, better in my view is to (a) give women sufficient maternity leave (I got 6 months - which I think should be the minimum) and give men sufficient paternity leave (I'd give the same amount, personally but allow leaves to be coordinated so that they do not overlap) and (b ) give adequate support for childcare (better backup plans, etc.). But again, I think it's a red herring, and alternative schedules, offered as a panacea, I think actually hurt women overall (but I might be suffering from some confirmation bias because, well, I don't take advantage of anything like that.)

2. The real issue in my mind is that to suceed at a law firm you need a sponsor. (Not a mentor. Mentoring is fine and dandy, but you really want someone who will stand in front of management and say "I need this person. Make it so."). For whatever reason, in my observation, women have more trouble finding sponsors than men. I don't think it's the quality of the work (in general). It's something else.

Anyhow, I'd be interested in your views as well. Like I said, it's something I think about a lot so I have something to say when I'm trotted out on one of these panels.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

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?"

My point was that on subjects such as this, people often take polarizing sides. When they feel their side is being attacked they go full force against the other person and then the other person does the same thing.....then the whole purpose of the conversation is lost somewhere in the middle.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Extreme feminism is as bad as extreme anything. Recently read the "Schroedinger's rapist" theory. It's depressing. It tells women to assume that every man is a potential rapist based in some fucked up numbers. Even saying that "if a man with tattoos approaches to you, it might be a dangerous man. If you have tattoos, don't talk to women on the street and only talk to women online". Really? Isn't that prejudge? How is that different from saying that any black person is a potential mugger? This is a very extremist point of view and it's one that hurt men and the opinion women should have about them.

No "ism" is good, neither feminism nor machismo, they both are extremes. Women are women and men are men, they are very different from each other in may areas, but even so, they are entitled to have the same rights, duties and opportunities. Time ago I read the complain of a man who was trying to be a fire-fighter, saying that the tasks to get accepted were different for women. He said "is the fire going to burn less just because you're a woman? slower because you can't run faster?". I think he has a point here. Why is wrong to make women compete in the same standards than men?

An example. A, B and C are men and D, E and F are women. they all are trying for a place in a hospital and the hospital will take two men and one women.

A gets 10

B gets 10

C get 9 points.

D gets 8.

The hospital then hires A, B and D. But C gets a higher score than D. D is hired only because it's the hospital policy to hire one women for every two men? As a patient, I want to be attended by capable people, either they're men or women.

[Stalker]

Why are these views so prevalent? Is it a failing with feminism or feminists that the "real" picture is not getting out? Is the topic difficult to understand? Has equality been reached?

Well, your examples seems to make it abundantly clear that straw feminists are this issue here. Of your examples, only the ones in the first example seem to exist at all, and then as a small minority. So the question one should ask is why such strawmen is commonly believed, even by people who are not from strictly social conservative backgrounds, a scenario which makes it rather obvious where the misinformation comes from.

Is feminists to blame? Well, if there were no radical feminists, there would be no driving, fanatical radical feminists, but that that's the case with any group. People who have found the Truth that everyone else must be told of can be rather annoying and overbearing, no matter the cause, and even if you think they are correct.

But as your other examples show, actual existence of an example of the straw feminist isn't required. One needs to look at the general discourse to see how those notions are conveyed. The answer is probably complicated, they generally are, but I would like to point to one mechanism; if there is a greater interest in spreading a myth that there is in spreading correct information, it can be very hard to prevent it spreading. This has been observed in the spread of urban legends, for example.

[MinDonner]

Linking to GC from the book forums? Turns out this is like the board equivalent of opening a portal to Hell. Or possibly just turning the wrong valve on the sewage outflow pipe.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Extreme feminism is as bad as extreme anything. Recently read the "Schroedinger's rapist" theory. It's depressing. It tells women to assume that every man is a potential rapist based in some fucked up numbers. Even saying that "if a man with tattoos approaches to you, it might be a dangerous man. If you have tattoos, don't talk to women on the street and only talk to women online". Really? Isn't that prejudge? How is that different from saying that any black person is a potential mugger? This is a very extremist point of view and it's one that hurt men and the opinion women should have about them.

No "ism" is good, neither feminism nor machismo, they both are extremes. Women are women and men are men, they are very different from each other in may areas, but even so, they are entitled to have the same rights, duties and opportunities. Time ago I read the complain of a man who was trying to be a fire-fighter, saying that the tasks to get accepted were different for women. He said "is the fire going to burn less just because you're a woman? slower because you can't run faster?". I think he has a point here. Why is wrong to make women compete in the same standards than men?

An example. A, B and C are men and D, E and F are women. they all are trying for a place in a hospital and the hospital will take two men and one women.

A gets 10

B gets 10

C get 9 points.

D gets 8.

The hospital then hires A, B and D. But C gets a higher score than D. D is hired only because it's the hospital policy to hire one women for every two men? As a patient, I want to be attended by capable people, either they're men or women.

I don't think anyone is arguing that giving jobs to unqualified people is a tenet of feminism.

[Regina]

This calls for Kate Beaton's Straw Feminists comic.

Those quotes disgust and sadden me, but I can't say that I'm surprised. The backlash against feminism is pretty extreme and the tactics are dirty, and I think all we can really do is continue to point out the fallacies when they crop up.

And keep clamping down on that minority-language poetry, of course.

Min, have I ever declared my love for you before? I don't think so, and that is a gross oversight on my part.

There are about a million points already made in this thread that I would like to respond to, but it's already turning into chaos, so I think I will just leave that lovenote for Min and get out.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Then explain your stance instead. You are posting on a public forum after all.

As I told you in the other thread when I saw you had misinterpreted my meaning, I do not wish to have the conversation here.

I did not take that university course in mind reading. Unless you post in plainly, I cannot know. Neither can somebody else. If you did not fully articulate your views, then you can hardly blame me or anyone else for reading and responding to what was written, can you? None of us are mind readers.

And I told you that I did not fully articulate my views before you moved my comment over here and demonized an unstated view.

Well, I am glad to hear that you indeed have no misconceptions, and I am sorry you think linking you helpful resources is condescending. I read that blog on occasion myself and find it very interesting.

Did I not defend your initial reply in the original thread? It wasn't until I came to this thread that I thought to myself that I may have misinterpreted your good intentions and maybe you really were being condescending.

I brought these statements here specifically because it derailed the other thread. And I put a note in the other thread, too. It's there for you to read should you wish to. Both threads are crosslinked, and that is not secret.

And I specifically stated in the other thread that I did not fully articulate my view.

Well, I am sorry we are deprived of your knowledge, since you stated above you have no misconceptions. I find it interesting that you don't, but still do not want to divulge your knowledge to the rest of us when you seem to think we DO have misconceptions. If all you wish to say on the matter is that you have no misconceptions but the rest of us do, but you don't want to explain what they are...well, ok then.

Again, you are twisting my words. I do not believe that any of you have misconceptions on the topic, but you do have misconceptions on my view of the topic. You automatically assumed that I had misconceptions on the idea of feminism due to my statements. You then provided me with information that I have already read and used in other conversations. I fully understand and do not have misconceptions on the topic, as you automatically assumed based on my statements. We can all fully understand the topic and still have differentiating opinions on the topic.

If you state views on a discussion forum, they will be discussed. If you do not want your views discussed, then perhaps it would be a better idea not to post them on a public discussion forum in the first place?

Read above.

"Isms", create "ists". The problem is that some "ists" are more "isty" than others. (In other words, some are content with deliberate, but slower progress, while others want to take the fight to the next level, which while riskier, might resolve the issue sooner.)

I would have loved to have seen a calm discussion that included thoughts on how best to get a privileged group to accept giving up that privilege. That is something that is at the heart of many issues, but apparently, I won't find that discussed under these circumstances.

:agree:

[Sci-2]

Even saying that "if a man with tattoos approaches to you, it might be a dangerous man. If you have tattoos, don't talk to women on the street and only talk to women online". Really? Isn't that prejudge? How is that different from saying that any black person is a potential mugger? This is a very extremist point of view and it's one that hurt men and the opinion women should have about them.

Okay, if this is a real thing I guess I should concede there are illogical people who identify as feminists.

The hospital then hires A, B and D. But C gets a higher score than D. D is hired only because it's the hospital policy to hire one women for every two men? As a patient, I want to be attended by capable people, either they're men or women.

Can you cite where this happened?

[Lummel]

This is an area I try to keep up on so I'd love to see the article (I get trotted out like a show pony (or freak in a freakshow?) to talk at various conferences that wring their hands about what to do about women in law firms. I've certainly seen articles like the one you are describing (I think there might have been one recently in Working Mother). Very personally, when asked questions like that, I say a bunch of things:

...

2. The real issue in my mind is that to suceed at a law firm you need a sponsor. (Not a mentor. Mentoring is fine and dandy, but you really want someone who will stand in front of management and say "I need this person. Make it so."). For whatever reason, in my observation, women have more trouble finding sponsors than men. I don't think it's the quality of the work (in general). It's something else...

Oh ho, so you are the token woman - do they give you a badge for that ;)

I think your point about patronage is very important, definitely in certain types of workplace because organisations are profoundly political places. Patronage is exactly it, building up your coterie of people, networking, choosing your successor etc. The problem is the right woman can reach the dizzy heights, if she is talent spotted by the patron(ess), but that doesn't mean the organisation is fairish and equalish.

...An example. A, B and C are men and D, E and F are women. they all are trying for a place in a hospital and the hospital will take two men and one women.

A gets 10

B gets 10

C get 9 points.

D gets 8.

The hospital then hires A, B and D. But C gets a higher score than D. D is hired only because it's the hospital policy to hire one women for every two men? As a patient, I want to be attended by capable people, either they're men or women.

OK. Question why is the woman in this scenario the weakest candidate? Is it because she has less access to education or training? Less access to the employment market because society expects her - values no doubt that she has internalised - to be the principal carer?

Does the weakest candidate at interview/assessment remain the weakest candidate forever? What about training? What about potential? What about the structure of the workplace?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Oh ho, so you are the token woman - do they give you a badge for that ;)

I think your point about patronage is very important, definitely in certain types of workplace because organisations are profoundly political places. Patronage is exactly it, building up your coterie of people, networking, choosing your successor etc. The problem is the right woman can reach the dizzy heights, if she is talent spotted by the patron(ess), but that doesn't mean the organisation is fairish and equalish.

OK. Question why is the woman in this scenario the weakest candidate? Is it because she has less access to education or training? Less access to the employment market because society expects her - values no doubt that she has internalised - to be the principal carer?

Does the weakest candidate at interview/assessment remain the weakest candidate forever? What about training? What about potential? What about the structure of the workplace?

No badge :) And I should point out that things are better than when I started practicing. I distinctly remember when the first woman in our office in the transactional group made equity (and it was on time, too!). Now, our "senior women coffee hour" that started off as something that could fit in an office now needs a (small) conference room. But yes. I'm often the only woman on a deal team. In addition, a lot of clients have started really focusing on the diversity of the legal team that will represent them. That means that I get put in front of clients a lot more than maybe I otherwise would have for pitches, etc. (women being underrepresented on the transactional side in my experience).

[Winter's Knight]

Okay, if this is a real thing I guess I should concede there are illogical people who identify as feminists.

The theory in question:

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?

Do you think I’m overreacting? One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I bet you don’t think you know any rapists, but consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur. These rapes are not all committed by Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, or other members of the Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion. While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is. Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty. That means four in my graduating class in high school. One among my coworkers. One in the subway car at rush hour. Eleven who work out at my gym. How do I know that you, the nice guy who wants nothing more than companionship and True Love, are not this rapist?

I don't.

The tattoo advice:

The second important point: you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance and behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat.

This means that some men should never approach strange women in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a woman cold. That doesn’t mean you’re doomed to a life of solitude, but I suggest you start with internet dating, where you can put your unusual traits out there and find a woman who will appreciate them.

Are you wearing a tee-shirt making a rape joke? NOT A GOOD CHOICE—not in general, and definitely not when approaching a strange woman.

[Sci-2]

She's the weakest candidate because she's the weakest candidate, she didn't perform and as a doctor you have to perform consistently. Don't make up bullshit excuses.

Please, someone cite where this unqualified female doctor/nurse/orderly/whatever is being pulled from.

Links, note these aren't representative of every feminist but may be helpful:

Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog

Logical Fallacies

Derailing for Dummies Again

What is Evidence?

[Kittykatknits]

Lyanna Stark - thank you for starting this thread and it's a well needed one.

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

Blisscraft, I made a similar choice after my daughter was born. Long hours, middle of the night phone calls, quality child care - it was all to much. But, for the most part, I've received nothing from support for my decision. I'm curious what the negative attitudes from SAHMs were if you don't mind sharing. I would guess it goes back to the better mother debate but I do not want to put words in your mouth.

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.

How sad that it took me a moment to figure out who this mysterious Mrs. T you kept bringing up was. To go back to the thread that inspired this topic, we saw some of this with Cersei herself. A woman in power doesn't necessarily equate to something positive for women. She can just as easily reinforce the system as change the system.

Linking to GC from the book forums? Turns out this is like the board equivalent of opening a portal to Hell. Or possibly just turning the wrong valve on the sewage outflow pipe.

Welcome to the chaos that is the book forums, I guess. Any feminism (or Cersei) topic in the book forums do not end well.

[Sci-2]

I think the etiquette of board quoting is a separate topic worthy of it's own thread.

eta: Also, to nip this strawman in the bud, no a less qualified doctor should not be hired. The point is that an equally qualified or more qualified woman should [not] be hinder[ed] by gender.