To feminize or not....

[foxy]

Last year I took a course entitled "Women in Popular Culture", from the department of Women Studies at my university.

I entered the class with a definite feminist mindset, but unfortunately my fluffy and idealistic version of feminism based on the idea that all people are equal.

I was rudely awakened to the fact that feminism isn't about equality, its about a bunch of dissatisfied women not getting their way in society (mostly).

So, the question I have, is what is feminism? (granted besides a political and social movement) And does feminism still have any merit today? Is feminism promoting equality or superiority, or a victim complex for the women of today?

[DarkTrojan]

What she said ^^.

My opinion on such matters has always been that women and men are not equal, and therefore we shouldn't aim for equality. We all have our great individual qualities \o/

[Mexican Pie]

They're communist. They are acting like this because they are too stressed and need some good sex- sex is actually healthy, increases life span and reduces stress! They must think otherwise...

[foxy]

Please if you dont' have anything constructive to say, I would prefer that you didn't post in this thread.

I'm realy curious about this topic and I want some serious responses.

thankyou :D

[b_em]

These days: feminism means the rise of women to the top of society, eg, not just becoming equal but overcoming men.

Naturally, this is crap.


I recently undertook to start a group for female civil engineering students. The idea is that the issues facing us in the workplace are different to those facing male civil engineers and therefore we should have a tailored program. It was welcomed by the Faculty and before I knew it, the idea was stretching to the entire Built Environment and Engineering school, and then to the whole of the state of Queensland. Oh yes, I have a big mouth.

My problem came when I started recruiting support from women in engineering in Australia...women who graduated long ago and who have now become well respected Engineers. Their ideas were things like....'higher starting wage for female grads than male grads', 'higher marks bias for women', 'jobs for women only'. The list goes on.

I was reading their responses wondering where the hell they were getting their ideas from when suddenly in came an email from the senior engineer at a multinational engineering firm, slipping in the word FEMINISM. Aha.

Feminism to me is about raising the cause of women to have equal rights and equal opportunities as men. It's about ensuring that our academic courses cater to our needs as well as theirs, that our careers counselling caters for us as well as them, that our wage structure is the same as theirs, that our career prospects are based on skills and not gender. It's about ensuring that we have an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to have our voices heard.

Unfortunately, there are those who have made a career out of feminism. To them, feminism is about female supremacy. It's about catering to the needs of women above those of men, paying women more, generally reflecting what they see as the more important role of women in society. You'll notice that a number of these women, despite claiming that women are superior due to their child bearing capability (sounds like im describing a missile here), are also the women who put their career ahead of their family and then end up childless.

In short, it really is bullshit. Crazy women waving the feminist banner have taken the cause highlighted by Emmeline Pankhurst and perverted it beyond belief. It's like if the black rights movement in america got to the stage where they hang whites and burn their homes....all utter crap.

But dont lose heart. I havent given up on my quest for a tailored women in engineering program..I'm just having to carefully vet the women who I involve from industry because I won't let it become a feminism circus. I do believe that as more of us young women come along, on a backdrop of *almost* equal opportunity, this perversion of feminism will die out. Until then though let them wave their handbags. Just dont listen to them.

[Mexican Pie]

Basically, what I just said.

[b_em]

only more eloquent, with better grammar, more purpose, more content and more basis for an argument.


take your spuff elsewhere

[Mexican Pie]

Once I saw a Feminist, and she yelled at me really really loudly because I was wearing a T Shirt with the Quiksilver logo on it, and called me heaps of shit, and did the "Zeig Hie!" thing. She was with (and I'm not lying here) a person dressed up as Hitler... Scary.

From that moment on, I think of that person every time I see Feminists. Not my fault, she was really pissed off.

[CheHamstera]

a subject close to my heart thanks to doing a similar women & pop culture course.

this is a quote off a National Union of Students Women's Campaign poster, and this is a very good summary of my reasons behind being a feminist:

"because a woman't work is never done and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or repetitious and we're the first to get the sack and what we look like is more important than what we do and if we get raped it's out fault and if we get bashed we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if we love women it's because we can't get a 'real' man and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and if we expect community care for children we're selfish and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and 'unfeminine' and if we don't we're typical weak females, and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural and because we still can't get adequate safe contraceptive but men can walk on the moon and if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion and... for lots and lots of other reasons we are part of the women's liberation movement."

if all the above sounds really good to you, then guess what - you're probably a feminist.

but because of militant women like Germain Greer and women who want superiority rather than a level playing field, feminism gets lots of bad press.

and if none of the above really applies to you then consider yourself very lucky becuase i think sexism affects us all on one level or another.

i don't want equality in the sense of being the same as a man, but i do want equality because i want to be seen as just as good as a man. i am especially worried that when i graduate university i won't be earning the same as a man with the same qualifications in the same job as me. i'll very likely be earning less. i want to know how businesses can justify that to their female workers.

and we are not 50% of the populataion - we are 52% and rising. it's time for a change.

[squealpiggy]

"because a woman't work is never done and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or repetitious and we're the first to get the sack and what we look like is more important than what we do and if we get raped it's out fault and if we get bashed we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if we love women it's because we can't get a 'real' man and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and if we expect community care for children we're selfish and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and 'unfeminine' and if we don't we're typical weak females, and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural and because we still can't get adequate safe contraceptive but men can walk on the moon and if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion and... for lots and lots of other reasons we are part of the women's liberation movement."


Now now, if you carry on like that you'll never finish the ironing before Coronation Street starts! :p

I am a feminist. You have to be to get laid these days...

OK joking apart, I am not a feminist, I am a humanist. I have equal standing in my partnership with my future wife, we give and take, we support each other. She makes more money than me, so what? she studied and I didn't. She deserves it. But I do draw the line with anything like this when it starts to go over the other side. Like black people pulling the race card when pulled over for speeding, like women or disabled being hired over better qualified able bodied or male candidates because the company wants to fill a quota. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

[notmarcie]

I think the concept of positive discrimination has been somewhat lost. The idea is that presented with two equally qualified individuals, one of whom is male and one is female you pick the female, not that you pick the female despite her being lesser
qualified.

That said I hate the practise. I would like to know I got a job for being me, not for my chromasones.

I am a feminist. I only did one feminism based course in university called Gender, Politics and Sexuality, it also looked at Masculinites (eg Stiffed by Susan Faludi). My feminist values were already firmly in place by the time I did it, and I had the sense to reject the loons like Dworkin and MacKinnon etc etc. If pressed I would say I follow third wave feminism, but not word for word. I don't believe all that Faludi says, or Wolf. I am capable of making uip my own mind and not swallowing theory whole.
Feminism isn't about being the same as men, it is about equal treatment to men, that means equal pay, equal rights to promotion, equal treatment before the law.Equal and the same are two different concepts

I don't think the time for feminism has passed, and we are not at a stage where we can dispense with the term and be humanists. I define being a feminist as acknowledging women have rights too. If we ignore white middle class feminists and look at the experiences of women who are not white, not relativelywell off and not living in the West then you can't fail to see that in this world women are still second class citizens.
I am a feminist not just for <b>my</b> desire to be treated equally to a man, but in recognition that worldwide women are still in the dark ages. Its not just my experience of being female that influences my beliefs.

Too many people still have this idea of feminists as dungaree wearing, crophaired sandal wearing fruitcakes. Its moved on from that. Feminism is about choice, the choice whether or not to havew children, the choice to work or stay home and be mum. The choice to go and get a degree or not. There is no prescribed route to be a feminist, there is no tick list or things to do to be a feminist, just a belief that women should not be disadvantaged for being women.

Right I am off to grow my leg hairs more and burn my bra.

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by notmarcie
I think the concept of positive discrimination has been somewhat lost. The idea is that presented with two equally qualified individuals, one of whom is male and one is female you pick the female, not that you pick the female despite her being lesser
qualified.

That said I hate the practise. I would like to know I got a job for being me, not for my chromasones.

I am a feminist. I only did one feminism based course in university called Gender, Politics and Sexuality, it also looked at Masculinites (eg Stiffed by Susan Faludi). My feminist values were already firmly in place by the time I did it, and I had the sense to reject the loons like Dworkin and MacKinnon etc etc. If pressed I would say I follow third wave feminism, but not word for word. I don't believe all that Faludi says, or Wolf. I am capable of making uip my own mind and not swallowing theory whole.
Feminism isn't about being the same as men, it is about equal treatment to men, that means equal pay, equal rights to promotion, equal treatment before the law.Equal and the same are two different concepts

I don't think the time for feminism has passed, and we are not at a stage where we can dispense with the term and be humanists. I define being a feminist as acknowledging women have rights too. If we ignore white middle class feminists and look at the experiences of women who are not white, not relativelywell off and not living in the West then you can't fail to see that in this world women are still second class citizens.
I am a feminist not just for <b>my</b> desire to be treated equally to a man, but in recognition that worldwide women are still in the dark ages. Its not just my experience of being female that influences my beliefs.

Too many people still have this idea of feminists as dungaree wearing, crophaired sandal wearing fruitcakes. Its moved on from that. Feminism is about choice, the choice whether or not to havew children, the choice to work or stay home and be mum. The choice to go and get a degree or not. There is no prescribed route to be a feminist, there is no tick list or things to do to be a feminist, just a belief that women should not be disadvantaged for being women.

Right I am off to grow my leg hairs more and burn my bra.

If you grow your leg hair long enough you could weave it into an organic living bra. But I wouldn't burn that one...

I take it you're Steph!

[lzzrdgrrl]

'...I was rudely awakened to the fact that feminism isn't about equality, its about a bunch of dissatisfied women not getting their way in society (mostly)...'

Is that a problem?.....

'Equality' does not answer any important questions, such as: 'Am I happy or no, and why?' and 'What circumstances are optimal for the development of my potential?' and even, 'What does being a woman in this culture mean, how and who determines that and what input do I have in the matter?'....

Of course 'feminists' of the 'radical' sort are not respected. They are unproductive, if not outright destructive - just as all important philosophers of any given age, are......

[foxy]

Originally posted by lzzrdgrrl
'...I was rudely awakened to the fact that feminism isn't about equality, its about a bunch of dissatisfied women not getting their way in society (mostly)...'

Is that a problem?.....

'Equality' does not answer any important questions, such as: 'Am I happy or no, and why?' and 'What circumstances are optimal for the development of my potential?' and even, 'What does being a woman in this culture mean, how and who determines that and what input do I have in the matter?'....

Of course 'feminists' of the 'radical' sort are not respected. They are unproductive, if not outright destructive - just as all important philosophers of any given age, are......

Socrates, was not destructive (except maybe of himself), Descartes was not destructive, John Locke was not destructive.

I think it is important that women are equal, that we live in a form of mertiocracy, HOWEVER, we as women can't deny the fact that we are only half the population, and that we have to live in a society with men. Isn't it rather hypocritical to move against men, to be better than them, to try to dominate them that doesn't make sense to me, and will only create new problems.

We live together, and we have to be together, that is the only way our species will survive, yes women should have equal rights, starting wages, etc. However, our method if we are too abraisive and too confrontational will only create more problems in the end.

[Pie Priestess]

Originally posted by CheHamstera
i don't want equality in the sense of being the same as a man, but i do want equality because i want to be seen as just as good as a man.
Here Here Che!

I consider myself a feminist of that ilk. I believe that feminism has to do with economic, political, sexual, spiritual, and cultural equality. Women are the equal of men (and many I've met do seam to be a damn site more evolved), but I believe one can and should be a feminist with being anti-men. I feel that feminism is the appreciation and celebration of women including those areas in which we DIFFER from men. But to elevate anyone group at the expense of trampling another underfoot is perpetuating the exact unjust and baseless prejudices that feminism or humanism strives to elimate.

Originally posted by Izzrdgrrl
'Equality' does not answer any important questions, such as:
'Am I happy or no, and why?'
and 'What circumstances are optimal for the development of my potential?'
and even, 'What does being a woman in this culture mean, how and who determines that and what input do I have in the matter?'....
Equality can't answer those first two questions...only the individual can answer those. But the third has a lot to do with women's place or status in an given culture.


Originally posted by Izzrdgrrl
They are unproductive, if not outright destructive - just as all important philosophers of any given age, are......
Honestly, do you really believe that "all important philospers of any given age" were considered unproductive and often destrutive???? Mohammed? Confucius? Buddha? Descartes? Kant? Ghandi?


...Izzrdgrrl reminded me of this unrelated but important fact...
Eddie Izzard rules.

[jessifur]

Feminism isn't the engendering of equality, it's the rise of thought that the female is superior to the male. The same could be said for a more male-centered movement, but such would invariably be deemed chauvinist and likewise misogynist (though misogyny really has nothing to do with male thought and everything to do with anyone with an animosity towards females). The deterioration of "feminism", I believe, is due to the fact that it has been taken to such extremes over the course of the last 30 years; as has the thought that chauvinism is married to the male and misogyny ... and they should be separate.

As well, feminists like to practice a sort of carte blanche in that that form of superiority has been accepted and even catalysed by society's blessing. "We've been shit on for years, so now it's our turn to shit on you. How do you like THAT, f*cka?"

It's all a bunch of bullshit if you ask me. Feminism does not denote the spread of equality. Equality and openmindedness denote the spread of equality (forgive the redundancy, though it does help to prove the point).

What's the male version of feminism? Masculinism? I didn't see it anywhere in the dictionary, which is interesting.

^J^

[Vivi]

alright, lets take my basic, if not below average, i.q. and put it to the test. Women should have equality. They can specialize in crap Men aren't as likely to, yet men can specialize in stuff that women aren't as likely to do. Examples...

Women
Army, Navy, Marines... yeah, they can do it too
Sports-Even footbal, few but proud
Work-There are buff women out there proving themselves in all fields

Men
Trnnys-Nasty but it happens
Dancing-Broadway anyone?
Poets-I AM ONE

Then again the whole rights and equality thing is jsut a bunch of chiks who weren't fully "considered" equal so they wanted a voice. Oh well, I'm done here.

[squealpiggy]

Trnnys-Nasty but it happens

Transvestites? Why is it nasty? In a world where you have suicide bombers, collateral damage, corporations that would sell their own grandmothers to increase their market share, oil spills, mass starvation and brutal regimes I think some blokes wearing dresses is fairly low on the scale of "nastiness". Especially when you consider that to, say, the ancient egyptians wearing makeup and skirts was the height of masculinity!

[Mexican Pie]

It's all just about society, really.

Look at places like the middle East and Africa- Women over there are very respected because of the work they do around farms, households etc.

It's just because of the women who want to be superior to men- they ruin it for us all by ruining the chance to see both sides of the wall.

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Transvestites? Why is it nasty? In a world where you have suicide bombers, collateral damage, corporations that would sell their own grandmothers to increase their market share, oil spills, mass starvation and brutal regimes I think some blokes wearing dresses is fairly low on the scale of "nastiness". Especially when you consider that to, say, the ancient egyptians wearing makeup and skirts was the height of masculinity!

In many parts of Africa they still practise female circumcision, through much of the middle east women are still not allowed to own property, can be stoned to death if they get pregnant out of wedlock, are forced to wear covering clothing by the law of the land, cannot vote or work, are killed for associating with men from the wrong culture or the wrong tribe... For many women though they may be "respected" they are not free. And what is the point of respect without freedom? To say that because the men say they "respect" women in these cultures then they have equality is naive.

I prefer living in a society where women are the equals of men... I'm not happy about the idea of inequality anywhere.

[b_em]

On the subject of female circumcision (which is practised regularly outside of Africa in countries like the UK and US even today), I'd like to direct people to a book written by the model Waris Dirie.

I wrote a bit about this on the old forums but as it's nigh on a year ago now I think I can get away with repeating myself.

Waris Dirie was the daughter of a roaming farming family. As a young girl, she underwent female circumcision. It's also more appropriately known as female genital mutilation. The person carrying out the procedure is usually a respected elder of the community or nearby community, with no medical experience or qualification. The tools used vary, but in the case of Waris, a sharpened flint (stone) was used.

The procedure involves cutting away the labia and clitoris, and generally butchering the area. After FGM, a woman will not be able to experience any form of clitoral stimulation and consequently, no orgasm.

After 'circumcision', the vagina is sewn closed. This practice is a way of assuring the future husband (most likely an older man paying for the marriage) of his wife's purity. On the marriage day, the husband will either cut his wife's vagina open with a knife before intercourse, or will more usually force himself into her, tearing apart the healed skin.

Now tell me about women being respected and valued in African nations.

Waris Dirie got out of Africa, and became a model in the US. Her periods were of course absolute agony for her, as there was no opening other than a tiny hole for blood to pass through, and the area was almost constantly infected. She underwent surgery in the US to reopen her vagina. She now has a husband and child, and works for the UN to stop the practise of FGM.

The book is called DESERT FLOWER, and it's by WARIS DIRIE. It's available worldwide. Although it is written in a somewhat broken manner, Waris' story comes across strongly. I read the book from start to finish in one go and cried for almost its entirety.


To me, equality means a fair go, a decent shot at things. I imagine for Waris and the MILLIONS of girls worldwide who undergo FGM every year, it means a whole lot more.

[squealpiggy]

Absolutely FGM is not unheard of here, but it isn't legally or culturally sanctioned in the Uk or US at least. It's a barbaric custom, absolutely disgusting.

[I'm Jim Too]

To continue in the same manner:
I would think that the treament of women in the mid-east would also be seen as repressive particularly under strict muslim rule. No jobs, no education, no sport and enforced wearing of the face veil (niqab) when it is not strictly required by the quran (this is a point of debate however).

Please be aware that I am not attacking the muslim faith by making this point but am attacking governments that institute religious doctrine as common law. Surely the point of a faith is that people chose to follow it...

As for feminism I believe it exists in two forms.
The first is the true or original form. A principle which seeks to further the freedom of women by achieving equality with men in world law.
The second is a co-opted form, a weapon of empowerment largly used by western women to gain equality (and/or dominance) in their personal field of endeavour.

Now obviously the second form is a tougher, more selfish pill but that doesnt make it wrong. In fighting for promotions, pay and respect in the work place, it can be an extremly effective movement.

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by I'm Jim Too
To continue in the same manner:
I would think that the treament of women in the mid-east would also be seen as repressive particularly under strict muslim rule. No jobs, no education, no sport and enforced wearing of the face veil (niqab) when it is not strictly required by the quran (this is a point of debate however).

Please be aware that I am not attacking the muslim faith by making this point but am attacking governments that institute religious doctrine as common law. Surely the point of a faith is that people chose to follow it...

As for feminism I believe it exists in two forms.
The first is the true or original form. A principle which seeks to further the freedom of women by achieving equality with men in world law.
The second is a co-opted form, a weapon of empowerment largly used by western women to gain equality (and/or dominance) in their personal field of endeavour.

Now obviously the second form is a tougher, more selfish pill but that doesnt make it wrong. In fighting for promotions, pay and respect in the work place, it can be an extremly effective movement.

I'm all for equality, but I don't like positive discrimination. Of course this was originally so that two people who are equally qualified to do the job then the one chosen would be the minority, but it has since been extended so that you have actual advantages if you are in the minority regardless of how qualified you are to do the job. Even worse in the case of race or disability some people are hired on the basis of this because the company has a quota to fill!

If a woman is better than me at my job then so be it, I'll accept that.

[I'm Jim Too]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
I'm all for equality, but I don't like positive discrimination.
Positive discrimination isnt a problem with feminism - its a problem with that particular companies employment policy. Unless, of course, the employer is a feminist exercising personal discrimination against company policy.

Originally posted by squealpiggy
If a woman is better than me at my job then so be it, I'll accept that.
I dont think you'd really have a choice in the matter, but it's nice that you wouldn't be bitter! :p

[squealpiggy]

I said I would accept it, I didn't say I wouldn't be bitter!:mad:

:nana: badgersbadgersbadgers

[Pie Priestess]

Originally posted by I'm Jim Too
Please be aware that I am not attacking the muslim faith by making this point but am attacking governments that institute religious doctrine as common law. Surely the point of a faith is that people chose to follow it...
But not so for Muslims. The Kuran dictacts the rules for governing the community. It IS the religious leaders who institute the common law.

If anyone really is interested in this subject, I HIGHLY recommend NINE PARTS OF DESIRE: THE HIDDEN WORLD OF ISLAMIC WOMEN by Geraldine Brooks. She's an awarding winning foreign correspondant who spent six years covering the middle east. It's very very readable (not dry and boring at all) she talks about many different Muslim countries and how different their treatment of women can be. She covers it all in a really accessable way.

[notmarcie]

I endorse and second Pie Priestess' recommendation. I have read Nine Parts of Desire several times. It is especially interesting to compare the treatment of women in Iran (reveiled by the West) to Saudi Arabia (our petrol station/friends). Also take a peek at RAWA.

I'd also recommend 'Sex Slaves;The Trafficking of Women in Asia' by Louise Brown, which looks at the experiences of women in prostitution in the Middle and Far East and how their lives and the way they are treated is indicative of the attitude to women in wider society in countries as diverse as Japan and Pakistan.

In regard to positive discrimination, whilst I don't favour the concept of hey lets make men down trodden in the way women were/are, I do wonder how often women are passed over in favour of men because they are women and thus (in the minds of some employers) 'going to leave the job to have kids and not looking for a long term career'. In interviews I have been asked if I had kids whilst the male interviewees weren't. This is an illegal question, whether or not I have children is irrelevant to my ability to do a job, but it was still asked of me. I said as much too.
I don't want to see men denied jobs because they are male, but likewise women are still being denied jobs because they have uteruses.

[b_em]

a fine point, well made!!


I know that by choosing a career in Civil Engineering, I'm kind of jumping right in to a male-dominated industry. I accept that: having been through the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Admiralty Interview Board, I'm well aware of the requirements of a woman in a 'man's world'.

I'm pretty confrontational anyway, so I have no problems with the daily push and shove of the male workplace, I fit in well with men, and I find I work better with them than with women (no, not all of them, but it's my personal choice who I befriend).

Yet when I graduate, I know that it will be THAT bit harder to get a job. THAT bit harder to work my way to the top. THAT bit harder to get a horrifically enormous wage. However, I know I can do it, and I will. If the tide is against me in the multinational companies, I wont be bothered, as I have my own business and will simply put my efforts into that.

I'm trying to represent Women in Engineering (or, Women with a Realistic Approach to Civil Engineering WRACE) because I know I'm one of the lucky ones. I have a big mouth, I had a character building upbringing and I'm not shy of a fight. But that's no reason why other women with less confidence should be put off this career. Hopefully I can raise their profile, and in doing so, maybe their confidence.

I don't want to make women superior to men, I just want us all on a level playing field so that we can all shine in our unique ways. You'd have thought it wasn't much to ask!!

[squealpiggy]

In interviews I have been asked if I had kids whilst the male interviewees weren't

This actually highlights another gross inequality and while it may not seem fair to ask that question to women who have no intention of starting a family you have to look at it this wsy:

If a woman has a child she is legally entitled to take extended paid leave, the company has no option but to hold her job open. If a man starts a family the company has no legal obligation to allow him time off work and any time off it most often unpaid. Of course it is going to be of interest to the company whether or not their investment is going to end up, nine months down the line, costing them a huge amount of money for no value.

This is of course unfair on career women who have no intention of starting a fa,ily but I would imagine that the majority of women, like the majority of men, would like to start a family. If this inequality was changed and male parents were afforded the same rights as female parents then the need to ask this question would disappear. After all, men are ot always the breadwinners any more.

[notmarcie]

It still remains that this is an illegal questions to ask. They ask it of women becasue of the assumption that women are the main care giver and if you have children you are more likely to be off than a man with children, due to the fact it is usually the mother who will take care of a child who is ill. It is this assumption that women will be the main care giver which disadvantages men in the amount of leave they are entitled to when they become fathers. Women take the mandatory maternity leve for health and practical reason (no one on earth would want to run the risk of their waters breaking in my office). Having squeezed something the size of a watermelon through a hole the size of a grape, it is hard to even sit down, add to that leaking breasts, possible PND and it just isn't physically practical for the first few weeks. I am sure many mothers to newborns would love to have the father around more during the first few weeks of a baby's life just to relieve some of the burden for them. A woman I spoke to at work yesterday is taking one years maternity leave. She doesn't really want to, but there is an overwhelming amount of pressure on her that 'baby should have mother around all the time' for the first year. The father is never mentioned.

So men are being disadvantaged by sexism, by an assumption that the mans role in children is limited to providing sperm, and then when the child is about 9 stealing their Scaelectrix. My brand of feminism wants to see a recognition of men in caring for children, for men to be allowed to take a break from their careers for year to be with their child without it affecting their career prospects.


You used the phrase Career Women. I am one of these, but I might also want to be a mother. Nobody would refer to my partner as a career man, I don't think I have ever heard the phrase. There is very much as assumption for a woman to have a career she has to not have children, and that if she has kids she is not interested in a career.

Feminism is about choice. As women we shouldn't have to choose children OR a career. Men are able to have both why shouldn't we ? Women with children are less likely to be promoted whilst men with children are more likely to be promoted ( a stereotype that once a man has a family nhe need to be able to provide whilst women's jobs are just hobbies ? Just speculating). Its also means men shouldn't have to fulfill this breadwinner steroetype, that they should be able to be the one who stays at home playing with play-doh and wiping snotty noses and doing all the cooking cleaning etc while the woman earns the main wage. Its not yet acceptable to mainstream society. Films like Three Men and a Baby and some other that I forget the name of ridicule the notion that men can care for a child, they have to find a woman to help them. I wasn't born knowing how to put a nappy on a wriggling sprog, its a skill I may acquire, there is no reason why men can't. But engrained ideas that men cannot look after children, and so shouldn't want to look after children, mean that many men who want to be the main care giver are denied the right to do so.

Feminism is about breaking down strictly assigned gender roles and expectations of what to be male and female is. If you think it is unfair that men are not entitled to have time with their children then you believe in one part of what feminists believe.

[squealpiggy]

In part I agree with you, but there is an assumption that women would be the main care giver and as a result they are given further priveleges to fulfill this role, and you're right the concept of a man being the primary caregiver is ridiculed.

There is a need for a paradigm shift in the way that men and women's roles are percieved in society, and I think that this needs to consider both genders.

I was talking last night to two of the people from my jujitsu class who are both teachers or involved in teaching. They said that in education the way boys and girls are treated is really different. If a girl freaks out in a class and causes a disruption then she is taken aside to talk about any problems she may be having. If a boy does the same thing he is punished. They have encountered situations where girls have beaten up boys and the boys can do nothing about it. One situation a boy was being picked on constantly by girls and he punched one of them. He's in big trouble. In the same school a different boy was teasing a girl and she hit him, he is in trouble for teasing her. And we're not talking about young men hitting smaller weaker women, we're talking 11 year old boys being picked on by much bigger girls. There is a sense in schools that feminism has gone too far, because boys are denied any chance of expressing themselves and girls are excepted from having to show self restraint.

I blame Freud.

[notmarcie]

My point was that one of the aims of feminism is to move away from the belief that women are the main care givers. To break down this seemingly concrete belief that women are naturally maternal, and men are men are not inclined to care for kids. I think that once this is broken down it is the next logical step to offer extended paternity leave to both parents.


As far as education goes. I hope that I will treat both sexes equally. I am applying for a post as an Education Welfare Officer and very much believe that both sexes should be encouraged to talk about their feelings as a root cause for truancy and classroom disruption.

In the examples you give, I would still argue that its because feminism hasn't gone far enough. I believe feminisms logical progression is to break down perceptions of assigned gender roles and gendered behaviours. In a situation where boys are not expected to deal with bullying and just get on with it 'like a man' they would be taken seriously when they told a teacher they were being bullied. Aping the worst aspects(such as using violence to get their own way) of what is traditionally seen as male behaviour is not feminism, its just degrading to everyone invovled.

Squeal have you read any third wave feminist texts ?I think you would find a lot in them that would surprise you. I can lend you a couple if you like

[squealpiggy]

Certainly, that would be good!

I will call round to yours after Ju Jitsu next week or something if you want!

[Fruiterian]

I'm too lazy to read this thread, so I'll just post my thoughts on the matter.

I'm female, first of all. w00t. Go females.

But in no way do I consider myself superior to anyone. I'm a bit of a pessimist, so I usually deem myself inferior, but that's not the point. Although the masculine and feminine minds work in different ways, that does not mean that either sex can be more or less intelligent than the other. There are smart people, and there are not so smart people. There are good workers, and not so good workers. There are good students, and not so good students. There are good engineers, scientists, writers, et cetera, and there are those who aren't very good at it. There are the superior and the inferior. Very little of that has to do with your gender, beyond the way males and females think.

Even with the masculine and feminine minds there are discrepancies.

Take, for example, organic chemistry. This is something I am moderately interested in. Now, statistically, more males do well in organic chem than females because of the way their minds work, in a more visual sense. Last year in chem, we did a brief overview of organic chemistry. Many of the other girls in my class struggled, but I managed quite well, I would've taken organic chem I if my schedule had allowed for it.

But in the same way that males excel in mathematics and more visual modes of thought, in general, females are more into literature and stuff like that. If you want to meet chicks, join a lit class. If you want to meet guys, join an economics class.

However, there are still exceptions to the rule. There is one guy in my literature class who is an amazing writer, and truly seems to enjoy reading and things like that. He can bullshit an essay past one of the hardest, if not THE hardest, lit teachers in the school. I had to work from noon to 1 in the morning to write an essay, and I got an 85. Far better than the previous grades than 65 and 68 though. He did his in 40 minutes and got a 92. Eh?

There are many females pushing for other females to go into engineering and science professions, but looking at what science requires (chem and physics requires some visual skill, both subjects I am doing well in compared to nearly every other course I'm taking, bio less so but biochemistry is still an important component in many, if not all forms of biology) and other professions, many of which require speaking and social skills, more writing skills (though if you're going to be a full-blown scientist writing papers, that's a different story) both of which the female mind are more fitted to do than the masculine one.

Stuff like this also fits into speech and language disorders: I was affected by a disorder called Developmental Verbal Dyspraxia when I was younger, otherwise known as Verbal Apraxia, and I recall that I was pretty much the only girl in the few years of special ed classes that I took for the speech therapy.

We're never going to be equal in the broadest sense, as in biological processes, men can't have babies, men have to impregnate women, et cetera. But neither of us are superior, each has its pros and cons, sorry if that comes out funny.

If you were to look at this from a biological point of view, both the male and female play parts in providing for the family. Most of the time the mother is the caregiver, sometimes the male brings food back, sometimes the female brings the food, then there are the really fucked up configurations like when the male seahorse gives birth.

In a far earlier age, our roles were most likely far more divided by gender. There were loose groups to provide socialization (with the women, presumably, would explain why girls are so damn social) and support for each other. Men would go out and provide. From a feminist point of view, it sucks. Simply, sucks.

Our technology has evolved so far that gender divides are more blurred in terms of taking care of a family. Women nowadays want to provide their family the way males did ages ago, bringing in the money, but they want a family and a career. You can't have both. It's ancient instincts or modern tradition. Simple as that.

I've never been a romantic myself, however. Somehow I don't think I'll get married. But that will most probably change.

But, if a woman prefers a career over a more traditional family life, she should be given an equal opportunity to do so. Equal wages, everything like that. For pregnancies and such? Accomodate it as best you can, but if I was in charge of a company with a pregnant woman, I would tell her to go home and take care of her kids if she really wants that. Especially if her husband's working too. I'm not saying that the husband shouldn't play a part in this either, I'm just saying if a working woman has kids schedule her less so that she would actually have a chance to share a mother's joy. You know?

...

I'm not quite sure what was the point of that essay.

-this is a sort of paid advertisement-

want similar rants that go into random topics from a really messed up teenage girl? go to http://www.xanga.com/fruiterian.

-thank you and now back to scheduled programming-

Yes. Whatever. Comment. Looking over previous replies, I see I wasn't horribly off topic from the discussion.

[donkey_pie]

I am not feminist, but will go crazy if someone is openly sexist towards me...

yeah.. is it just my computer which is randomly linking the >> next to the page 1 2 3 '>>' page selector to porn...? just out of interest, cus I've just got broadband and my comp is going crazy (PM me, don't mess this up) :confused:

[notmarcie]

But why does sexism annoy you ? Is it because it makes assumptions about what you should do based on your gender ? You might not regard yourself as a feminist or call yourelf one, but if somebody makes an judgement about you based on the fact you are a woman and it ticks you off, well its one of the things feminism is about.

Fruiterian is hung up on feminists trying to make men and women the same. There is a difference between equal and same. I could have money to the value of £1 in each of my coat pockets, In one I have 5 20ps and in the other I have 2 50p coins. They are equal but not the same.

Men tend to have better visual spatial reasoning than women, men and women think with differne tparts of their brains and problem solve in different ways. Nobody is saying it should be made easier for women to be chemists than it is for a man. What is said is that women should be encouraged to explore science rather than just thinking 'oh i am female i must be rubbish at it'
As for men excelling in maths beyond women, I suggest you check some recent figures on exma passes broken down by sex. There is a school of thought that the reason men excel is down to socialosation at a young age where they are encouraged to play with toys which encourage development of 3d thinking etc. I am very able at science and at maths with stats and mechanics. I prefer Arts subjects though because I like never having a fixed answer and being able to discuss and debate.


And now for my final trick I will leave you with the words of my favourite feminist , bell hooks

Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression....Practically, it is a definition which implies that all sexist thinking and action is the problem, whether those who perpetuate it are female or male, child or adult. It is also broad enough to include an understanding of systemic institutionalized sexism
Feminism is not about women fighting men its about fighting sexist thought . There is a huge difference

[Fruiterian]

Well, truthfully, I had no idea of what I was saying at the time. It was late at night... I was tired, yes... and feminism has never really bothered me, it's never been important to me, et cetera. As for judging if someone is a woman or a man, that doesn't really bother me all the time, it might bother some other people but it doesn't bother me so much. I don't know much about the feminist movement, I kind of regret getting involved in this topic in the first place, but whatever.

The only somewhat feminist view I have is against popular rap music, degrading females into sex objects, and many other forms of pop. Not every girl is like that. I tend to avoid people who listen to that sort of thing too much. Otherwise, I really don't care... probably a naive view to take since I am female myself...

[b_em]

Just because you haven't got a PhD in women's studies, it doesn't mean you're not able to debate it!!

There is research which shows that men are indeed more able to think in spatial terms, and have better visualisation of objects say, turned at 120 degrees. Apparently their brains are actually more developed in that region. But as has been said here, that doesnt automatically qualify ALL men for engineering (for example) and it also doesnt disqualify women.

I had a wonderful argument with an arrogant prick of a doctor on Harley Street when I was in London in 2002. Having told him I intended to study engineering, he went into a splendid soliloquy about why my brain was not equipped to handle such a task and therefore I would surely fail. I pointed out to him that after studying Maths (Mechanics) , Physics and Chemistry at High School, I felt well equipped. He told me about the spatial reasoning and orientation, I countered with the fact that I have to visualise something to understand it. I'm comfortable with spatial reasoning, I'm good with logic. I'm just shit at arts.

Despite all of this, and despite the fact that there's always borderline cases, women who think 'like men' and vice versa, the dear doctor couldn't quite bring himself to understand that maybe, he might be wrong.

I worry that maybe there's women in the world who listen to men like that.

[Fruiterian]

I'm surprised at how many engineering people are on here.

I hate engineering, personally. Not because it's difficult, because it just isn't something I enjoy. It's just... eh. I hate Inventor. I <3 Photoshop. I'm probably going to end up in graphic design, which is something I LOVE, as a very awexome tech teacher said of me last year. Need to actually start drawing more. I have no confidence in my art as much as I love it.

Ha, we had to make a desk organizer for a mini-project-type thing. I had no clue what I was doing. I made something to present to him in 5 minutes. It sucked. Everyone said it was good, creative, and modernish.

Oughta get a screen shot of it up. It's really fucked up, trust me.

And simply because you might not have the best thought patterns for a profession, if you have the determination, you can do it. As far as my thought patterns go, it's probably along the lines of a mix of logic/art. I could do well in my math classes. If I tried. I'm studying a shitload of sciences too... it isn't that bad however. I like chem a LOT better than physics, though I'm probably better at the latter.

That was rather pointless.

[squealpiggy]

There is a growing field of thought that suggests that it is nurture and not nature that is responsible for men having better spatial awareness, and the fact that boys are better is a result of them being encouraged to do different things as children. I do think that boys are naturally more competitive, and compete for one-upmanship rather than for the rewars of success.

[El_MUERkO]

I'm all for equality but not the reversal of an -ism.

I agree women should be treated as equals but they shouldnt get special treament because they're women, the same goes for any minority.

As a single white male its hard not to feel blamed for all societies ill's, not only that its hard not to feel punished for past inequalites unjustly.

I wrote a much bigger post than this but I cut it down so I wont be accused of an -ism for some kind.

[Dude]

What I hate, is being a 14 year old boy, when ever i walk into a shop, the people always give you an evil eye. Does anyone else have this problem?

I think the problem all began with football (english not american)

I say it is the root of all evil. You see riots on T.V with teenage boys involved. This gives the rest of us a bad name, or it could just be the way I dress. who knows..?..who cares....?....

[squealpiggy]

I have never ever seen any 14 year old boys in soccer riots. Most hooligans are middle aged and middle class, maybe as young as in their twenties. Some are younger but not really anything to do with the reasons you get the evil eye. You get the evil eye in shops because there are a lot of petty thefts committed by teenage boys. It's totally unfair but you get tarred with the same brush as the minority.

[notmarcie]

I can lend you some books on hooliganism too ! As well as a very funny 80s documentary on it. Most hooligans in the UK are drawn from working class background, which leads to some very dull debates on them looking for social standing through being the best fighter rather than a job.

Not sure what this has to do with feminism, but as I did my dissertation on football hooligans I can talk about this too. !Anyone need the hind leg removing from a donkey ?

[Dude]

Well.... I was trying to make a point about why people give us boys the evil eye and not girls, the football thing was me just venting my anger. kappesh?

[b_em]

A good point. I reckon it's probably statistical though why lads are considered guilty of wrong doing rather than girls.

Without stats, allow me to presume. Shoplifting / vandalism / violence are general male dominated crimes and I'd imagine are mainly attributed to the young male generation. Hence the evil eye ;)

It's wrong to therefore assume that all lads might be criminals, but there is at least statistical basis behind the thinking.

What is worse is assuming all women are bad drivers...when the majority of accidents are actually reported as being caused by men. That's why it's more expensive to insure a young man as a driver than to ensure a woman of the same age and driving experience.

[squealpiggy]

A higher incidence of accidents among men does not mean that women are better drivers. Men are more aggressive drivers on the whole but that is rapidly changing and women are catching up!

As for football hooliganism, you're right to a degree about working class but there is a strong section of lower middle class workers that engage in violence to attempt to escape the drudgery of their safe little lives. Working class people are more likely to get into serious trouble however and are more likely to be reported on due to the nature of the media.

[Fruiterian]

Hm. Over here in the states insurance costs lest for females. O_o

'course, there are a shitload of other factors, too.

[Dude]

Im no where near a city, and still, i get the evil eye, anyhoo, I also think that girls can get away with a lot more things than boys can, E.g domestic violence.

[squealpiggy]

Boys in general cause more trouble than girls, that's why you are watched.

And more men get away with domestic violence than women.

[Fruiterian]

There's still double standards when it comes to men and women behaving, though.

In eighth grade, I did very little work, and so did a bunch of guys in my class, they were the ones who got in trouble. 'course, somehow I managed to get A's on the tests too. O_o

[notmarcie]

You can't really make generalisation about whether boys or girls get away with more 'stuff' based soley on your experience. As a friend of mine says 'anecdotal evidence is not statistical evidence'

Boys meay be treated with more suspicion than girls because boys are generally regarded as trouble makers due to the fact they are more likely to be deliquent. Crime stats show that more boys than girls are likely to be caught and sentenced for criminal acts. Of course this brings in about a billion other issues with regard to the law and females andthe chivalry effect and expectations of females. Which is turn brings in issues of sexism, concepts of gender and thus feminism.

Boys are actually more likey to get away with aggressive behaviour than girls, from a very early age.. A study was done with 8 month old babies who were dressed first in pink, then in white and then in blue. When the babies were in pink, the observers made comments that were disparaging about the behaviour of what they thought were girls, commenting on how they were loud and attention grabbing. When the observers couldn't tell what sex the babies were they made no comments on the babies behaviour, and when they thought the babies were male, they comment on how robust the babies were. Similar studies have been conducted on toddlers and 5 year olds, although not dressing them in different colous. When boys were playing together agressive bahviour such as snatching toys and cheating in games was applauded and even encouraged as they asserted their 'rights' and were showing dominance. When little girls showed the same sort of behaviour, they were told it wasn't ladylike and that they should stop being mean, and share.

[almighty_bob]

No offence, but I havent time to read the above...

instead i will just state my opinion;

feminists do not ask for equality; they ask to be superior...
if you care for me to elaborate, i will be back to edit this laters....

[squealpiggy]

It would be a good idea to read the topic first, one of the points that notmarcie makes is that true feminists do not want superiority, and the cause has been hijacked by extremists in the past.

[almighty_bob]

mmmm...
has anyone heard of;

neo-traditional christian feminism???

[crazy mofo]

No, wazzat?


(And i dont give two shits neways about 'Feminism'. Again, like other stuff in life; it too, is bull :P it all seems very dated. But the bottom line to me is: Who gives a shit? I meen: Oh my God some woman is unhappy with her life! SUE! SUE! YOUR BEING SEXIST! NAZI!! NAZIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!! WOMAN R BETTER THAN J00000!!!!!!!!!1111ONEONE. *ahem* Ill let my text speak for itself...

[PoofBird]

Originally posted by crazy mofo
*ahem* Ill let my text speak for itself...

quite.

If you don't have a point to make, don't come to debates.

[crazy mofo]

Well yeah i made a point: Its all bull.

Didnt i make that clear enough? :P

[notmarcie]

Now you see, I could say that feminists don't need laws to make them superior to people like crazy mofo. Its just naturally occurs.


The fact that crazy mofo cannot comprehend why people, specifically women need to actively challenge sexism is proof indeed of why feminism is still relevant.

So although he may be an idiot, he supported my views in a roundabout way

[Amazing Morris]

The original feminists the Suffragists were campaigning for equality and they did this by non-violent protest but got very little attention from the public and no-one really gave a toss. Many of these women then left to form a new group called the Suffragets who did all the hunger strikes and vandalism to get the vote. It wasn't until women had proved themselves as skilled workers during WW1 that they were allowed to vote but even then they expected to vote the same way as their husbands.

[notmarcie]

Would you class Mary Woollstencraft amongst these. She wrote and believed pasisonaltely in the emancipation of women, and this was in the mid 18th century, a long time before the idea of female suffrage was being propagated by Pankhurst et al. Non violent protest had not worked for a long long time before Emily Davies threw herself under the Kings Horse

[Amazing Morris]

Well Mary Woolstencraft was pretty radical but then it kind of fizzled out. If you meant Mary Shelly then her work was quite contrevecial because Frankenstein did express elements of female insecurity about having children which had never been done before. It can also be inturpretted as some kind gay ideal but that's what you get when you hang around with Lord "I've fucked my own sister" Byron.

[squealpiggy]

You fucked Lord Byron's sister!? How rare!

[notmarcie]

I meant Mary Woollstencroft, not Mary Shelley nee Godwin. I must interject to say I despise Frankenstein, although the theory of it as an analogy for the dangers of masturbation are hilarious.

[almighty_bob]

Originally posted by Amazing Morris
The original feminists the Suffragists were campaigning for equality and they did this by non-violent protest but got very little attention from the public and no-one really gave a toss. Many of these women then left to form a new group called the Suffragets who did all the hunger strikes and vandalism to get the vote. It wasn't until women had proved themselves as skilled workers during WW1 that they were allowed to vote but even then they expected to vote the same way as their husbands.

Suffragettes I think you may find, and they were terrorists!!!

this group was started early 20th century
the suffragists having been established many years previous...