Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

I am utterly unqualified to state any of this.

But you stated it quite well. :yep:

ThunderPeel, recently I met up with a friend of mine that I hadn't seen in about 10 years. The subject of feminism came up, and she said "oh, I could never be a feminist." I was surprised, but suspected what was up so I asked her to define feminism – sure enough, she thought it was about female superiority. I clarified, and she understood, but then said, "but still, I don't think I could be a feminist." "Why not?" I asked. She replied, "Because some women like getting ogled at and wolfwhistled while wearing skimpy things, and I think they should be able to."

There are several schools of thought on this matter. There is such a thing as sex-positive feminism, which basically boils down to "do what feels good", and on the other side of the spectrum we have those who believe that certain things like pornography, BDSM, and prostitution have historically harmed women more than not. Personally, this is where it gets complicated for me, because I both agree that anybody can wear whatever does not get you arrested, yet quietly believe that women being brought up to crave a man's approval of their appearance, and society rewarding this, has a lot to do with it.

But the basic principles of equal rights, equal dignity, equal value in society and equal opportunities are all embraced by all feminists (except the ones that are wrong). Look at yourself in the mirror and go, I am a feminist, and it's ok.

Relevant:

9mfyx.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the basic principles of equal rights, equal dignity, equal value in society and equal opportunities are all embraced by all feminists (except the ones that are wrong).

Exactly. And that includes liking being wolf-whistled at, if that's your bag. Crazy and sad that some women (and men) don't understand feminism.

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. Sorry to turf this up, but I have to say... that comic that about "sexism" on the internet really offended me. From its self-pitying, defeatist tone, through the unbelievably sexist portrayal of men, right to the worst crime of all: Making it so that a man, like myself, cannot disagree with anything a woman says about sexism (or that comic) without having your opinion reduced to:

attachment.php?attachmentid=721&stc=1&d=1312299306

Which is surely the very thing the comic is complaining about in the first place: Valid opinions being ignored and mocked.

Note: If any other male members of this forum agree with me, then please DON'T POST HERE. I would guess that that's one aspect in which the comic is accurate: A bunch of people from Group A telling the minority Group B that they're wrong, comes dangerously close to bullying.

(Conversely: If you disagree with me, then please jump on in. :tup:)

Sorry for (possibly) restarting this discussion. I missed the whole thing because of my computer being out of action. I went for a walk, but the comic was still bugging me so much that I had to post about it when I got back.

Also, sorry for (arguably) picking on you, subbes. You're a wonderful addition to this forum, and I certainly wouldn't want to make you feel marginalised.

post-94-13375603416653_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait what you were picking on me what

OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE NOT VERY GOOD AT IT

I have mixed feelings about that comic. It is q accurate at describing the typical (and draining) route that these things take, but it also boils everything down to a level that allies can find disturbing (like you do, TP).

I have some thoughts on allies (and other representatives of the majority in minority groups, e.g. White women in Black feminist groups) but I am on my iPhine right now so I'll have to come back to it for a full post (and what I say in this comment is a bit off-the-cuff).

In essence, and using feminism as an example - it's ok, we don't need a man to tell us what sexism is or what we should or shouldn't find offensive. We're quite happy to include you if you are coming in goodfaith, but don't try to tell us what we should or shouldn't feel. Also, if you take the last of the coffee, brew a fresh pot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, but just as aside: Nobody renamed Christmas...

Sorry, I was being overly brief. I meant people who take scare stories about having to refer to Christmas as "holiday season" or similar at face value (rather than it actually being some entity, usually corporate or public, and therefore having a much greater stake in being universally relatable than an individual has, electing to do so as a voluntary gesture of sensitivity, sincere or not). I'm sure you've encountered the mindset: "It's having an opinion gone mad! We can't even call it Christmas any more! Whatever next?!" It's paranoid nonsense; that was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you stated it quite well. :yep:

Thanks :)

"Why not?" I asked. She replied, "Because some women like getting ogled at and wolfwhistled while wearing skimpy things, and I think they should be able to."

I thought this was what people mean when they say "post-feminism". Is that right?

Thunderpeel: it bugs me a little too. But then I noticed that both the men and the women (other than the original artist) are faceless, represented only by their gender symbol. I think this means that they are equivelent and both sides are nearly as bad as each other. Maybe. Note that the artist is not present in the 'pink' crowd.

Yes it is I, Over-Analysis Boy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad to hear you don't totally subscribe to that comic, subbes. I look forward to your post about majorities and minorities. For me, it's pretty clear cut: Prejudice is defined by logic, not by any group of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that comic is fairly accurate, but I'm wary of anything that reduces the participants in an argument to caricatures like that. (This is the same problem I have with those bingo cards linked earlier.)

My personal view is that equal rights, opportunities, etc. are so obviously desirable goals that I kind of can't believe this is a conversation that still exists. If, as a straight-ish white male, I'm apparently not allowed to consider myself an actual feminist, I would certainly consider myself an "ally" of the ideals of the movement. That said, I can't say I've felt very welcomed by some of its members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for example, am incredibly unwelcoming.

(EXAGGERATION.)

(But I do get defensive.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would find it weird to not be able to call myself a feminist but instead have to call myself an ally. In GLBT circles, I am classified as an ally because I am a heterosexual who believes in their cause and fights on their side but is not actually queer (unless having a preference for girls with short hair/shaved heads counts, which I don't think it does). In philosophical circles I am an incompatibilist because of what I have elected to believe. As I understand it, to be an ally is to fight alongside people who didn't have a choice in what they feel, to be any kind of -ist is to make the decision to believe a certain way and try to live by it. If I did not personally believe in feminism but supported feminists (a weird situation), I would define myself an ally. As it stands, I believe in feminism, so I figure I must be a feminist.

Patrick-Stewart.jpg

I have produced a picture of Patrick Stewart, so I must be right.

At any rate, whether you want to call us allies or not is sort of irrelevant unless you don't want to let us in on the conversation as a result, so I suppose it doesn't matter. As I said back on the first page, I believe that allies have a significant role in plying the more stubbornly resistant members of society (and here the term "allies" I find more appropriate as well, because it would also apply to racial issues and I certainly never chose my race). If a woman begins to tell a stubborn anti-feminist white guy that they may actually have feminist leanings or have said something totally out of line, it's far too easy and socially acceptable for this guy to say something like "Whatever, you must just be on your period or something. Talk to me in a week when you've calmed down". Similarly, an anti-racist argument could be shrugged off with "Man, you guys are always so sensitive. I'm not racist, so this totally racist thing I just said is cool. Check out my culturally appropriated dreamcatcher tattoo, I'm obviously sensitive". These people find it way too easy to dismiss arguments that come from the people they're putting down. The sad truth is that the only way to get through to them sometimes is to have a fellow white guy say "dude, not cool". The shock of that can sometimes be enough to make them think a little. I believe that to be my role and duty as an ally. Sort of a straight-white-male feminist sleeper agent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argh! Laaaaaaanguage!

I'm defaulting to "ally" because of my background with LGBTQSIAA activism/politics/study (my undergrad major was, more or less, Human Sexuality/Queer Theory; also I'm not sure on that last A, it perhaps should be another Q - it's so hard to tell, with these modern haircuts) and I don't know the actual guidelines for who is part of an -ism and who is just an ally or, er, y'know, in but not of, sort of thing. It'll probably turn out I am completely misusing the term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you guys make of this?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0405/breaking12.html

recently two irish gardai (policemen) were recorded making jokes on duty about raping some female protestors at the Shell plant in Mayo. apparently, if you hear the recording, it's clear they're lampooning some other gardai who created a PR disaster a while ago by saying the wrong thing. These guys have been vilified in Ireland and an investigation was launched, but the complaint was thrown out.

i'm so torn about this. on one hand, if they were lampooning, then it's essentially harmless and just a case of stupidity at being recorded during work hours making inappropriate jokes. on the other hand, if this is a single entendred, straightforward joke about raping some 'crusties', then i find it really disturbing that there has been no disciplinary action for this. on the (3rd?) hand, there's something incredibly irksome about the EVIL RAPIST POLICEMEN LET OFF SCOT FREE attitude that most irish people appear to be adopting around this issue.

thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeesh, that's a complicated set of affairs. I suppose nobody can say any more than you've already said. Either it's ok (kinda) or it's really not. I suppose more knowledge of the person they were supposedly lampooning would help make it easier to be sure.

Of course, clearly making a joke about bombing an airport is apparently not enough to get some people off the hook, so I don't know...

Also: I am a feminist. Not sure where it came from that that's "not allowed"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some ladyfeminists prefer dudes to id as "pro-feminist" or similar since in their opinion dudes who aren't female haven't experienced the oppression that female ladyfeminists have, since a dude can never fully know what it's like to be a woman.

It's extremely debatable and I think wanders into the gender essentialism/biological determinism field, and causes difficulty with inclusion for T* members of the community.

I used ally since in other anti-oppression groups it is sometimes appropriate to request non-Minority members not ID as if they were members of that minority.

(Also ally includes those who are pro-women's rights but not necessarily feminist. More inclusive word choice in my brain ended up being completely the opposite. Well done, subbes.)

I found some good stuff from bell hooks on the issue of men as feminists, and some other links but again, I'm on my phone.

The Gardai thing is, er. Even as a joke it troubles me if I think about it (LOL FEMINISTS CAN'T TAKE A JOKE) but I havent been following the sorry so I don't know enough to say anything.

Edited by subbes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, it seems that having a non-livejournal-esque conversation about the topic has encouraged subbes to say some things. Real discourse can make any subject more palatable. Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally saying something off the cuff and having to come back and correct myself/explain, more like ;)

(Also I am bored at work.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[strong female characters cartoon]

I have no idea whether people will have read this or not, but it encapsulates quite effectively what I've often found to be quite a patronizing portrayal of what strength in female characters is. I must admit my interest is partially selfish: it's obviously counter-productive to blow off appeals for equality by pointing to some supposedly empowering bullshit, but beyond that, they're just bad characters and therefore less interesting to watch than good characters. Fantasies on legs don't make for good drama. Still, it genuinely does concern me that people are either getting confused or being deliberately misleading about what the purpose of this whole effort is. Not that I claim to know precisely where things should be headed. I just know it's not Megan Fox in hot pants draped over a motorbike.

There is such a thing as sex-positive feminism, which basically boils down to "do what feels good", and on the other side of the spectrum we have those who believe that certain things like pornography, BDSM, and prostitution have historically harmed women more than not. Personally, this is where it gets complicated for me, because I both agree that anybody can wear whatever does not get you arrested, yet quietly believe that women being brought up to crave a man's approval of their appearance, and society rewarding this, has a lot to do with it.

Society is where things always get difficult for me. Taking every situation in isolation, I think it's generally pretty clear what's proper and fair: if you don't deliberately injure anyone (be it physically, emotionally, intellectually, or whatever), and take all reasonable measures to avoid doing so accidentally, and if you don't unduly restrict anyone's freedom, it seems that things should be OK. But once you consider the system of society, and it's infinitely complex network of connected subsystems, and all of the emergent phenomena it generates, it suddenly becomes difficult or impossible to properly predict what secondary and tertiary effects an action will have, and to demarcate who is responsible for what, and where free will does and doesn't lie, and so on. Perhaps I'm being dense, but that's where all my thoughts become much less concrete, which is something I always find very disheartening, and something of a barrier to further analysis. Bloody society. And free will (or "free will", if you prefer). Bloody that too. Complicating everything.

I don't know. I hesitate to say too much, because I'm not very well-versed on the subject, and because I know I'm by no means the model of progressive thought and equality and all that. I'm not immune to hypocrisy. Admitting it doesn't excuse it, of course. I mainly don't want to appear stupid.

This is all interesting stuff, though. Hopefully I can learn something from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is all interesting stuff, though. Hopefully I can learn something from it.

INTERESTING YOU WOULD SAY THAT, because I've just found my way back to a site I had bookmarked ages ago that may come in handy in this thread.

It is called "Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog" and I know I've used a couple of their pages as primers before.

NOTE - there's an "I was sent here by feminists, whaaaaaa?" page that implies you were sent there because you asked a silly question or etc. That's not my intention in using this link - I don't think anyone has asked a silly question. In fact, it's because that Feminism 101 blog has more answers from more intelligent people than myself, and lays out answers that are far better than anything I could give. I'm still learning from that blog myself - also there's a ton of "further reading" links if you're interested.

Now, onto the subject of men in feminism, an excerpt from bell hook's Feminism is For Everybody (I've tried to cut it down a bit, hence all the ellipses. Emphasis mine.).

Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression.

[T]he movement is not about being anti-male... the problem is sexism... all of us, female and male, have been socialized from birth to accept sexist thought and action. ...to end patriarchy (another way of naming the institutionalised sexism) we need to be clear that we are all participants in perpetuating sexism until we change our minds and hearts, until we let go sexist thought and action and replace it with feminist thought and action.

Males as a group have and do benefit the most from patriarchy, from the assumption that they are superior to females and should rule over us. But those benefits have come with a price... Most men are disturbed by hatred and fear of women, by male violence against women... But they fear... are not certain what will happen to the world they know most intimately if patriarchy changes... Again and again men tell me they have no idea what it is feminists want. I believe them... And I believe that if they knew more about feminism they would no longer fear it, for they would find in feminist movement the hope of their own release from the bondage of patriarchy.

Without males as allies in struggle feminist movement will not progress. As it is we have to do so much work to correct the assumption deeply embedded in the cultural psyche that feminism is anti-male. Feminism is anti-sexism. A male who has divested of male privilege, who has embraced feminist politics, is a worthy comrade in struggle, in no way a threat to feminism, whereas a female who remains wedded to sexist behavior and thinking infiltrating feminist movement is a dangerous threat.

But it ain't as simple as sticking a "Feminist" button on your shirt, for either ladies or dudes, if you want to actually participate. The Feminist movement's been burned before by people coming in and saying "oh yeah I am totally one of you" and then working against feminism, and that's led the movement(s) to be quite... suspicious? Guarded? Not entirely sure what the wording would be, but there's what might feel like a high barrier to entry.

There's also self-policing going on as part of the need to divest privilege and patriarchal thought, which is part of the reason why it may seem like feminists spend more time arguing with each other than the patriarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody renamed Christmas...

Nowhere in the UK. Pittsburgh renamed it "Sparkle Season" for nearly a decade though.

I am utterly unqualified to state any of this.

You state it so well though. This:

This is why I have no real truck with a 'war of the sexes' - it divides the line in entirely the wrong places.

cuts through all kinds of dancing around the issue I've seen. There are some really crucial frames of reference missing from important discourse (I'm not saying that on the assumption I have them, more the assumption that I often don't).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, like many, am not good at debating these kind of things, so I will veer off via Strong Female Characters and talk about something I know how to discuss; movies.

I recently saw Bridesmaids, and it was a revelation in more than one way. My first thought out of the cinema was "wow, it was so refreshing to see a movie with women characters that were neither over-sexualised nor pandering to a female audience." My second thought was "but it shouldn't be, it should feel normal."

With few exceptions, most films are made with a male perspective, where the most prominent female character is the Love Interest, who is usually either a capital b Babe, or a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. If there's a second one, it's usually the Doesn't Take Any Shit, Michelle Rodriguez type of character depicted in the Kate Beaton comic and the article JamesM linked. (It's amusing cause she's a girl, yet she acts like she's tougher than all the guys. Isn't that hilarious?)

Another striking illustration of this is how many movies fail the Bechdel test:

1. It has to have at least two women in it

2. Who talk to each other

3. About something besides a man

Try looking at your DVD collection and see how many fail this.

You can blame the evil executives that just repeats "well our test show that movies from a male perspective keeps selling, so we keep making them", or you can blame the fact that the majority of screenwriters and directors working in Hollywood and elsewhere are male, but either way, the results are the same; movies as a medium are almost exclusively patriarchal.

Films are supposed to capture and reflect humanity, both in reality and imagination. The fact that it is still so lop-sided is (to me) the clearest example that we still live in a sexist society (not that anyone questioned that in this thread, but I have encountered plenty of people who have).

A lot of women themselves don't even stop to question how they are portrayed in media, they just accept their passive, objectified role. (Such people as Sal's friend, I would guess.)

Looping back around to Bridesmaids, the early buzz around the movie used such terms as "The Hangover, but with women/for women!" "a chick flick guys can enjoy!" "an R-rated romantic comedy" and so on. The trailers and other marketing also heavily emphasize "look at these wacky women obsessing about this wedding and their relationships", when in reality, none of these things describe the movie at all. It's simply a buddy comedy, like other Apatow-produced movies such as Knocked Up and 40-Year Old Virgin, except the characters happen to be girls this time.

In fact, when I have mentioned that I wanted to see/have seen the movie, several people have cocked their head to the side and said "really? You?", because when a movie has an all girl cast and is called "Bridesmaids" the 'natural' (indoctrinated?) assumption is that it is a flick for chicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the "Strong Female Characters" comic was linked in the previous discussion, but I refrained from commenting on it.

I'm of the opinion that chivalry is not dead, and for that I may be slightly crazy, but that comic still rubs me the wrong way.

Also!

Another striking illustration of this is how many movies fail the Bechdel test

Whatever will I do with my James Bond collection?! :violin: It is. . .terrifying how correct that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that chivalry is not dead, and for that I may be slightly crazy, but that comic still rubs me the wrong way.

I think you've understood this comic to mean the exact opposite of what it means.

Read the article JamesM posted and you may see it in a different light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×