Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

well i think that sex has large influence on gender, i don't think it is a 1:1 correlation but they influence each other strongly (meaning the differences aren't all social constructs), and you are putting across the "good" side of feminism it isn't all that reasonable 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it were true that sex would influence gender even without society to enforce the difference (difficult, for obvious reasons, to prove or disprove), that's no excuse to treat someone differently based on what you perceive their gender should be, statistically. This is the same problem that there is with taking broad statistical analyses of racial groups and inferring personality traits of individuals from that basis: Individuals are not statistics. Do not treat people as members of a group, treat them as individuals.

 

Gender, at least as a concept tied directly and intimately to physical sex, is completely fucking useless, and I abhor that it's encoded into the very language we use at such a fundamental level as pronouns. Seriously, what's good about it?

 

re: feminism/patriarchy terminology, I think the difference to me is in terms of how the conversation is introduced. As terms, they imply a very direct confrontation, women vs men: I think that does cause a lot of people who would be otherwise receptive to the tenets of feminism to tune out early, either because they feel personally under attack or because they find the concept of a literal war between the sexes gross.

 

The conversation becomes less about the individuals who are harmed by these institutions, which include not only victims of sexism but transphobia, homophobia, racism, etc, then about the bad men who perpetuate the system. Because the people who actually perpetuate the system, in many cases, don't do so through an active contempt of social minorities, they are indignant at being cast as the villains and thus the people who are in the best position to change the system are lost as allies. And, I think, to some degree we see this enacted in feminist culture as it is now, that frequently prioritizes shaming perceived allies of the 'patriarchy' over supporting people who have been damaged by it or promoting understanding.

 

By front-loading the confrontation, they may be able to bring more people to the war banner, but it also necessitates that it be a war banner instead of a dialogue. Am I naive for thinking it could possibly be anything else? Perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i think that sex has large influence on gender, i don't think it is a 1:1 correlation but they influence each other strongly (meaning the differences aren't all social constructs), and you are putting across the "good" side of feminism it isn't all that reasonable

The differences between people in each gender are not differences that are entirely socially constructed: if you and I were the only people alive, and we were in different genders, then of course many of the gender differences (height, weight, age, etc.) would not be socially constructed. However, because the genders themselves are socially constructed, although any construction of gender necessarily creates differences, there is no necessary gender construction based on any specific difference. An obvious way to construct genders is to try to match the sexes, but that of course breaks down when it comes to intersex people, transgendered people, and so on. You could construct genders however you want (theoretically) just like you could construct a religion or a government however you want: it's all just social phenomena.

If I'm putting across the "good" side of feminism and that's unreasonable because feminism has to include whoever the "bad" feminists are, then surely you're putting across the "good" side of whatever the fuck it is you believe and there's a shitton of godawful bullshit that I could lump in with you if I felt like it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences between people in each gender are not differences that are entirely socially constructed: if you and I were the only people alive, and we were in different genders, then of course many of the gender differences (height, weight, age, etc.) would not be socially constructed. However, because the genders themselves are socially constructed, although any construction of gender necessarily creates differences, there is no necessary gender construction based on any specific difference. An obvious way to construct genders is to try to match the sexes, but that of course breaks down when it comes to intersex people, transgendered people, and so on. You could construct genders however you want (theoretically) just like you could construct a religion or a government however you want: it's all just social phenomena.

If I'm putting across the "good" side of feminism and that's unreasonable because feminism has to include whoever the "bad" feminists are, then surely you're putting across the "good" side of whatever the fuck it is you believe and there's a shitton of godawful bullshit that I could lump in with you if I felt like it

i said you were being reasonable Mr Angry

 

edit: maybe i needed more punctuation or something, because i meant what you said was reasonable but not all of feminism is (that reasonable)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re: feminism/patriarchy terminology, I think the difference to me is in terms of how the conversation is introduced. As terms, they imply a very direct confrontation, women vs men: I think that does cause a lot of people who would be otherwise receptive to the tenets of feminism to tune out early, either because they feel personally under attack or because they find the concept of a literal war between the sexes gross.

The conversation becomes less about the individuals who are harmed by these institutions, which include not only victims of sexism but transphobia, homophobia, racism, etc, then about the bad men who perpetuate the system. Because the people who actually perpetuate the system, in many cases, don't do so through an active contempt of social minorities, they are indignant at being cast as the villains and thus the people who are in the best position to change the system are lost as allies. And, I think, to some degree we see this enacted in feminist culture as it is now, that frequently prioritizes shaming perceived allies of the 'patriarchy' over supporting people who have been damaged by it or promoting understanding.

By front-loading the confrontation, they may be able to bring more people to the war banner, but it also necessitates that it be a war banner instead of a dialogue. Am I naive for thinking it could possibly be anything else? Perhaps.

Are you suggesting that the conversation should go like this:

"I know a woman who hit a glass ceiling"

"That sucks. We should do something about that!"

Instead of:

"Fuckin men and their glass ceilings"

"Yeah! We need to take them down!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I certainly think the first is preferable. I didn't mean to characterize the current dialogue as being the second example, but it's maybe a bit further down that path than it should be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also implied that feminism isn't, which is patently untrue.

i said it isn't ALL as reasonable as that (changed the wording slightly because i realise "all that reasonable" can be read in a way it wasn't intended) implying that some is and some isn't, which is true, like Problem Machine and clyde were saying above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any movement, no matter how benign, will have members who consider being part of the movement as more important than educating or protecting others. There will always be people who react to any dissenting opinion as an attack, rather than an opportunity for discourse or education. I think the existence of such a sub-subculture is a bit distressing, but also inevitable, and reflects in no way upon a given movement as a whole.

 

Eh, in other words, any group of people will have its crazies, and you might as well not mention them because they are universal and irrelevant and only add noise to the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there some sort of official Feminist manifesto? so that i could compare it with what self proclaimed feminists write and say "this isn't feminism, and this is" because if even people who call themselves feminists don't know what it is how is anybody else supposed to know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's the problem with movements, isn't it? They're made up of individuals, and each individual has a different idea of what that movement is about. Charters and manifestos don't fix that, since people will just disagree with whatever they declare the movement is about and create a schism.

 

Broadly speaking, though, I'd say feminists are those who recognize that society as it is now is set up in such a way that it disadvantages women and want to rectify that. Recognizing that it also disadvantages other social minorities, and even in some cases the social majority (IE Men's Rights), frequently comes with the territory, but isn't part of the definition. Of course, I don't know shit about shit, and other people are free to disagree with me on this score, but that's my perception of the definition anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thestalkinghead, you seem to be trying really hard to see the worst in feminism. You're in a forum full of feminists, male and female, saying, basically, "feminism is about equality for men and women, which by the way will involve bringing up the rights of women because in general they have it worse" and yet you're instead focusing on all these unreasonable, unnamed feminists whom you don't want to cite.

 

Can someone please link to some 101s on the definition of feminism and the "I agree with you but your tone is wrong" trope? I think there's a feminism wiki that lists all that stuff. I'm pretty sure a lot of people here will have it at their finger tips but if not, I'll go find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many different kinds of feminism, there are probably a billion manifestos. I understand that you're ostensibly challenging us so we can correct and educate you, stalkinghead, but you really should, at this point, just take it upon yourself to read more about it. Even starting at the wikipedia entry would clearly be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many different kinds of feminism, there are probably a billion manifestos. I understand that you're ostensibly challenging us so we can correct and educate you, stalkinghead, but you really should, at this point, just take it upon yourself to read more about it. Even starting at the wikipedia entry would clearly be helpful.

the thing is, i have been researching feminism and i just want to sort the crazies from the actual real thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/06/22/504090/an-introductory-feminist-reading-list/

 

EDIT: Again, the way you're framing this is really weird. "Sort the crazies from the real thing"? It's like saying "I just want to know, out of Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Huey P. Newton, which one was correct." There's no answer to that. There are radical feminists who want a complete break from men (including trans-women) and there are reformist feminists who think that slow incremental steps are the right approach. There are anarchist feminists and women who want to see more female CEOs and feminists of color and queer feminists and second wave and third wave and standpoint feminists and post-feminists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the best article on the topic of what feminism is. As it points out, and like others have pointed out, feminism is not one thing any more than any social movement is ever one thing. If we must have definitions, though:

bell hooks' definition of feminism: "Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." (From her book feminism is for everybody)

Cheris Kramarae's definition of feminism: "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."

Google's definition of feminism: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

So there you have it. That's what feminism is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the best article on the topic of what feminism is. As it points out, and like others have pointed out, feminism is not one thing any more than any social movement is ever one thing. If we must have definitions, though:

bell hooks' definition of feminism: "Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." (From her book feminism is for everybody)

Cheris Kramarae's definition of feminism: "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."

Google's definition of feminism: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

So there you have it. That's what feminism is.

not read everything but that first article is very good so far

 

edit: i will try and read all the links on that page tomorrow because it's late and I'm tired, but feminism is complicated (and i think it needs to be).

 

i guess i am mainly against the more radical or militant forms of feminism or the Richard Dawkinslike approach to feminism, and maybe i sort of am one form of feminist (need more research to know what type) but i don't like to get too specific about these things, rock music is just rock music to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered that you are only against the strawman feminists that frequently appear as villains or freaks in movies and television, written as one-dimensional monsters by people who oppose feminism or don't understand it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My twitter feed is full of women who feel shitty about themselves and their apparent place in the games industry and I don't feel like I know them well enough to say anything supportive. The omnipresence of people who use kindness as sexual currency makes me feel like I can't be kind without looking/feeling like a creep. I feel like I'm oppressing women by being attracted to them and feel incredibly isolated even by my standards.

 

I hate feeling this way. Everyone hates feeling this way. And people find it super easy to just blame feminism because it it was something they didn't have to deal with (just the women who felt unsafe because of it), but the problem itself lies with the fucked up sexist power dynamic feminism has exposed.

 

More than anything else, I want to dismantle this fucked up power structure just so I can be free of its context to express myself as one human being to another. I do not feel free to do so now.

 

Not responding to anything in particular. Just needed to vent a little.

 

I've been feeling this way myself of late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered that you are only against the strawman feminists that frequently appear as villains or freaks in movies and television, written as one-dimensional monsters by people who oppose feminism or don't understand it?

That's definitely how it comes across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered that you are only against the strawman feminists that frequently appear as villains or freaks in movies and television, written as one-dimensional monsters by people who oppose feminism or don't understand it?

no, i can't even think of any feminists in films, so i have no idea what you may be referring to (but obviously i would be against strawman feminists).

 

i am just against immature hateful feminist that say things like "all men are sexist" or "misandry doesn't exist" or just people who spin everything in male culture into sexism, or people whose definition of the male gender includes sexism or misogyny. 

 

or just like what i said the Richard Dawkins approach (crude imitation of richard dawkins, who i do actually respect and agree with a lot but not his approach) "oh, you belive in god, you must be an idiot" so the feminist version would be "oh, you don't agree with every aspect of feminism, you must be a misogynist"

 

sure most of that is just a tone thing, but tone matters to me, so like with Richard Dawkins i can agree with what he is trying to do, but disagree with how he does it, same with feminism.

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

×