Your attitude toward feminism is?

This thread is based on some ideas expressed in a thread by lumberjack_jeff:

What is the primary purpose of feminism?

Note that the thread by lumberjack_jeff asks people to vote based on their gender, but this poll by Boojatta doesn't ask for self-identification based on gender.

to be able to make choices based on who they are, their heart, and what they believe is right for each individual without regard to gender. It's about actualizing people as INDIVIDUALS, not being bound to any ideology based on gender.

:thumbsup:

falsely splitting hairs like the OP (with inspiration from LJ :wow: ) is divisive

bit of garbage to imply that women's interests is something different than being treated as equals, and neither one of those encompasses any critical thinking on a useful level, like referring to whether equality means something other than having the right to be equally destructive in a system set up by men for men. :eyes:

(I wish people wouldn't come into this forum with the idea of trying to define women here in a snappy 2 second sound-bite to fit their agenda.)

You'd be surprised (or maybe not) that there are still people who don't consider women to be people.

My first job, first day on the job, working as a gas station attendant. 1985, yes this was the 80s when we all should know better. Friend of co-worker who was training me in did a double take when he saw my female self working at a full service gas station, one of the last in the state. He said: "Oh yeah, girls can do the same jobs people can do." He got a deer in headlights shocked look from both of us.

Even today, getting people to acknowledge that the species comes in male and female both can lead to indignation on the part of people who only want to acknowledge the male half.

The suffragists (NOT suffragettes, that was a perjorative when women were battling for the right to vote) were told back in the mid 1800s that they had to wait their turn, the issue of slavery was far more important that their desire to be full citizens with the right to vote. Guess what? Women are great multitaskers and most suffragists were heavy into abolition as well as agitating for black men, black women, and all women for that matter to gain the right to vote. And then to see editorials in the recent news asking whose turn it is for a shot at the presidency. (Though I like both, I lean Obama, not because of color or gender, because he's more liberal than Clinton. And certainly not because it's "his turn". Meh!)

Has anyone NOT been told to choose your battles when bringing up an issue relating to women and full humanity? How often has that been told to you when discussing other issues you feel strongly about? For me it's been women's issues and only women's issues. The battle you don't fight is the battlefield you concede to the ones who would regard the Taliban as having a good idea.

And for the bonus round, we've heard a lot in the news about the Roman Catholic church, the greatest champions of women's full humanity (NOT!). They're all about human rights EXCEPT when it comes to the female of the species. On nearly every issue. I grew up in this tradition, even down to attending Catholic schools, so I got a huge dose of that brand of hypocrisy nearly every day.

Upshot is, every battle is worth fighting, and we can't ever stop because those primitive and uncivilized ignoramuses will drag the entire species down to the cesspool with them.

This is one of those posts that open many windows.

that make me click a person's profile. This was one of them. :)

the DU table.

Boojatta is strictly top-drawer. I can understand your profile-click.

I haven't seen any evidence that it's actually concern about women's rights, more like concern that the women here aren't doing enough in the women's rights forum to expand men's rights. That's been a fairly consistent theme, buried (oh so cleverly) in the word choices he makes, and the questions he poses.

A number of us are kinda tired of it, and wish he would keep that stuff in GD or the lounge if he's not actually here for the purpose of the forum itself, but rather to critique and examine those uppity women who are tired of being discriminated against or abused.

and tired of it too.

:hug:

Whoever posts this is obfuscating -- detracting from reality and encouraging a regressive faux controversy, splitting hairs in narcissistic pretend demographics, which deflects from boiling it down as simple as it really is and encouraging more folks to GET that. "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."

Signs of the times...

No surprise there, huh?

not an object in everyone else's.

Feminism is not only about being "equalls". Equal to what? To men? To be pseudo-men? Almost-men? It is crude to see feminism as "we too want to be like you men". Feminism is about dissecting the whole patriarchal world, the power relations, the identity construction based on the penis-anus/domination-submission paradigm. Being a feminist is like being a metaphisical anarchist. Every generation can produce only a handfull of real feminists - most people can't take the existential pressure and turn into relativist neo-suffragetes.

Between wanting to promote equality for women in society... and wanting to change people & society fundamentally so this is not an issue.

From a political perspective I have more faith in the former. In a personal perspective I strive daily to ensure I behave like someone from a "GOOD" society (this does not mean I think our current society is evil, or even that it could really be - or should be - "fixed") I don't succeed at this every day and I say and do sexist things, but I'm a work in progress and will strive towards getting there until they start shovelling dirt on me.

But I found this while vanity-searching for something else.

I have a question about the language of the questions. As I see it, the main choices are between "equality for women" and "promoting the interests of women".

Hypothetically, if it were found that the starting wage of women teachers was 10% more than the starting wage of male teachers, would the cause of "equality for women" include fixing this inequity? If not, then what's the difference between the two?

In other words are "equality for men" and "equality for women" the same mission?

the slogan "equal pay for work of equal value" is intended to be taken literally. Alternatively, is the slogan intended to express the idea "equal or higher pay for women who do work of equal value"?

Is that a serious misunderstanding or is that approximately the idea?

How many kinds of "equality" are there?

What makes "equality" distinct from "equality for women"? If they are not the same thing, then how is "equality for women" different from "promoting the interests of women"?

I don't really intend to argue specific topics, but a concrete example might be useful. Today, the law requires 18 year old boys to register for the selective service. It does not require the same thing of 18 year old girls. It's inarguably a form of legally-enshrined inequality and discrimination. "Equality" dictates that this inequity be rectified either by ending registration or requiring girls to register. "Promoting the interests of women" dictates that the current situation be left alone.

What position does "promoting equality for women" require on this issue?

I was under the impression that a female infant's birth certificate was automatic enlistment in the World War on Women. No special training, no guns or bombs, helmet, body armor, enemy unclear, no combat pay, no medals, no bumper stickers stating a universal unifying message of Support the Women. And as my husband just said, no official exit plan. If 18 year old boys think that registering for selective service is discrimination, then I suggest they get serious and fight for their rights instead of waiting for women to do it for them.

I think this qualifies as another line item in the male privilege checklist.

Promoting the interests of women, as opposed to equality, is the point of feminism?

promoting the interests of women IS in the interests of all people. It's not an either/or. However if men are feeling discriminated against, let me call them a whaambulance. They had it their way for thousands of years and the world is as men have excluded women from making it. Like Mushroom said, let them fight their battles, and stop expecting feminists to do it for them. The majority of men historically have done very very little to advance equality for women.

A few years ago, a very southern friend of mine was telling me a story about how someone (a young white man) she knew had wound up in jail and had mysteriously died while in police custody. A few months after that, a young black man also mysteriously died while in police custody. My friend was bitching that the black community rallied to call for justice. "Where were they when Jeff died?" she asked. My question back to her was, Where were you? If there is injustice why didn't you do something? If the black community was willing to work for justice, why weren't you? And yet, had she and the rest of the 'white community' rallied for justice when Jeff died, there might have been more oversight to prevent any further deaths of prisoners in police custody.

And vice versa. After the black prisoner's death, the city's investigation has apparently halted whatever abuses were present- nobody black or white has died in police custody from unknown causes in that town since (as far as I know- this was a few years ago). When women's interests are brought to an equal level with those of men, the whole dynamic changes in favor of both genders.

It sounds as though you are saying that promoting the interests of women is a battle that all people should join, but working to prevent violations of the rights of men is a battle for men to fight alone.



Click on "Strategy for Victory in Iraq" at
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

no, don't answer, I could care less.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But I still cringe when I hear people use the "B" word or say 'slut', etc. I also don't mind men being gallant (holding doors, giving up their seats on the train)...So I have no idea where I fit... I do believe in equal rights, however.

In a pine box, apparently.

Sometimes one just can't resist.


But cereally, folks.

How is it possible to say in one breath that one believes in "equal rights" and in the other that one is cool with one half the human race being "gallant", i.e. treating the other half as if it is composed of dimwitted and feeble specimens who need guidance for deciding how and when to do simple things like going through doorways, and help making it through without injury?