posted
You know, Icky, I read your post. I'm flabbergasted that you won't buy the possibility that someone really has been able to live in dreamland.
If it makes you feel any better, I experienced conversations with folks who expected me to smile and nod my head while women were told off as baby-makers and good for cooking, cleaning (and sex). Period.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Well, feminazi is just another word for militant man-haters. If a woman is not a miliant man-hater, she probably isn't a feminazi. The people who use it to apply to all feminists are simply wrong. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:(She IS a militant man-hater. I use the word seperately from feminist.)
Yes, but the VAST majority of people who use that word mean it as equivalent to feminist, and to militant man-hater. They're all the same to the ditto-heads.
quote:I'm sorry. If it's that offensive to you, I'll just call her a militant man-hater. [Razz]
Actually, I find that to be far more descriptive.
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.
Icky, if I wanted to call someone vermin, I would say, "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There was an excuse when it was blatant that women had fewer rights than men. Today, that excuse no longer holds.
Don't reclaim feminism. Instead move on to a more complete philosophy, promoting the rights of both men and women. Call it humanism if you'd like - and recognize that domestic abuse, birth control, the equality of the sexes, and similar issues are not just concerns for women, but rather should be concerns for everyone.
If rights and perceptions truly were equal, I'd agree that there would be no need for feminism.
But it ain't so. Yes things are better than they were, but there are still too many who are stuck in sexist ruts. Feminism hasn't finished it's work until the sexes are treated equally and fairly. And though you may think we are there and no more needs to be done, I disagree with you. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it makes you feel any better, I experienced conversations with folks who expected me to smile and nod my head while women were told off as baby-makers and good for cooking, cleaning (and sex). Period.
I don't think I'm capable of smiling and nodding my head in such discussions. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but the VAST majority of people who use that word mean it as equivalent to feminist, and to militant man-hater. They're all the same to the ditto-heads.
Then they are stupid and not worth my time. That's all there is to it.
There is a world of difference between "feminist" and "feminazi".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: There was an excuse when it was blatant that women had fewer rights than men. Today, that excuse no longer holds.
Don't reclaim feminism. Instead move on to a more complete philosophy, promoting the rights of both men and women. Call it humanism if you'd like - and recognize that domestic abuse, birth control, the equality of the sexes, and similar issues are not just concerns for women, but rather should be concerns for everyone.
I hate this line of thought. It over-simplifies the problems by saying "Well, it happens to men too!". It ignores that a lot of these issues *are* gendered and when they happen to men (male rape in prison for instance) it's an issue of power and dominance, of submission and "feminising" a victim.
I don't see any value in statements like this, they won't help the problem and by refusing to see the gendered reality of the situation they make it even harder to work towards the end goal of equality.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I know I don't have much of a leg to stand on, but it is frustrating how feminists have "ownership" of issues such as rape, and all conversation about the topic assumes that all victims are females and that all perpetrators are males. Yes, I know, I know, this is because most of the victims are female, and most of the perpetrators are male. But it's frustrating nonetheless because there are exceptions, but the natural assumption is that a man wouldn't know anything about that.
posted
I don't think all victims are women. I agree that the perception you see exists, Icarus, and it is a problem. If it helps, a lot of contemporay feminist thought is focused on how not to be exclusionary about these issues.
But I think rape is a gendered crime, best understood by a power dominance/submssion model.
Unfortunately in our society, dominance is a male societal trait and submission is a female societal trait.* When a man is raped he is being feminised, and forced to relinquish his male power.
___
* Note - I say *societal* trait. This does not mean I think all men and dominant and all women are submissive.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually lost my virginity in a manner that might be considered rape. But I won't elaborate.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not disagreeing with you, I was just forestalling the use of that angle to dismiss my point. (Not that I have reason to believe that anybody would do that, just covering all my bases. )
EDIT TO ADD: But in that case, it certainly answers your question about whether females ever rape males.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I have heard of several cases of it happening. Not statistically significant, perhaps, but it does happen.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: That said, I am flabbergasted that the author of the statement quoted above has never encountered a "man-hater," or heard a woman denounce men. I most certainly have. In fact, when I was in college and grad school, it was the norm, and when it happened in a class, we male students were most emphatically expected to nod our heads.
This has been my experience as well.
As a general rule I refuse to call myself a feminist. I'm a woman, I agree with the feminist opinions you've mentioned here. If the majority of active feminists I'd met behaved as you do, I would have no problem with labeling myself a feminist.
HOWEVER, the vast majority of women I know who primarily self-define themselves as feminists I find far too extreme to want to ever be connected with them. I'm pro-life, most of the feminists I've met would say that disqualifies me right there. I intend to stay at home with my children when I have them. I shave my legs, which many feminists seem to view as almost as important an issue as domestic abuse. I don't think only of my own pleasure in my relationship. My boyfriend and I compromise, I don't simply expect him to do things my way. All of these are things which I have been chastised for, sometimes by individuals, sometimes by groups. I've seen it occur too often to want to ally myself with a group that is so antithetical to my beliefs.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Interesting that she blames men for reshaping the word, rather than the militant feminists who really did give it a bad name. Or do/did they just not exist?
Do they? I know a lot of women who would consider themselves feminist, but none of them would I consider "militant". Are there any in numbers significant enough to change the definition? I think if the definition has come to really imply "militant" then it largely is due to loud stereotyping by those opposed to the movement. (which isn't all male, btw.)
I think this is a pretty effective tactic, though it is one I abhor. Namely, picking the fringe minority of a movement and talking as if they define the whole. This has worked to largely tarnish the words "Liberal", and "Environmentalist", too. I'm sure there are others.
The value to the opposition in doing this is to make normal people afraid to identify with the good things in the movement for fear of being lumped into the fringe. It's pretty effective actually.
Yeah, but militant feminists didn't just upset men. I believe in equal rights etc for women, but don't stick the word feminist on me. I've had too many of them tell me that if I choose to be a stay at home mother when the time comes, I'll be setting the movement back 20 years. Gee, I thought the whole point was that I ought to be allowed to do whatever I want.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Two strong witnesses to the "feminazi" movement. It's real, it's out there. It is a shame that they give feminism a bad name to the point that so many women hesitate to be associated with that name.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's exactly it. I'm a feminist. I believe in women's rights and free choice for everyone, male and female. But. I won't self-identify as "feminist" in public, because people get the wrong idea.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I´m a feminist, and will self-identify as such.
I´m much less strident now than I was as a teenager because my immediate surroundings have given me much less to fight.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That said, I am flabbergasted that the author of the statement quoted above has never encountered a "man-hater," or heard a woman denounce men. I most certainly have. In fact, when I was in college and grad school, it was the norm, and when it happened in a class, we male students were most emphatically expected to nod our heads.
My first thought on reading that was "Well, they must not have gone to college then."
quote:Yeah, but militant feminists didn't just upset men. I believe in equal rights etc for women, but don't stick the word feminist on me. I've had too many of them tell me that if I choose to be a stay at home mother when the time comes, I'll be setting the movement back 20 years. Gee, I thought the whole point was that I ought to be allowed to do whatever I want.
Yep, I agree. One other reason I don't self-identify as a feminist is that is the strong association between feminists and abortion. As a strident, emphatic believer in the right to life for unborn children, I won't take that label as long as the two are linked.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Feminist" isn't the only word to have been appropriated by a group. It got taken by the pro-abortion, anti-man crowd; earlier this century, "liberal," which used to mean something like "preferring limited government," got appropriated by FDR to mean "statist" (!). "Gay" wasn't as big a loss, since we have "happy," "gleeful," and "cheerful" still. I am sure there are others.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hate this line of thought. It over-simplifies the problems by saying "Well, it happens to men too!". It ignores that a lot of these issues *are* gendered and when they happen to men (male rape in prison for instance) it's an issue of power and dominance, of submission and "feminising" a victim.
Yet it is feminism that oversimplifies - by failing to note the difference between "gendered issues" and "women's issues". Feminism, by definition, casts aside the gendered issues that effect men. For instance, enrollments in college show a strong bias towards women - suggesting a major crisis for young men in the area of education. Or consider the many female-dominated careers (nursing, teaching, stay-at-home parenting, etc.) that remain taboo for males, even as male-dominated careers have become largely open to females. These too are gendered problems, but by advocating women's rights rather than rights in general, feminism implies that they are not important problems - that the important problems are only those hurting women.
quote:If rights and perceptions truly were equal, I'd agree that there would be no need for feminism.
This may be true, but is it men or women who are now at the disadvantage? The answer is no longer obvious - and will change depending on what you consider to be important. Feminism is not about ensuring rights and perceptions are equal - it's about ensuring that rights and perceptions for women are fair. What we need is a philosophy that attempts to ensure that rights and perceptions for everyone are fair.
Feminism is an approach to social change - but why would you want to choose such an approach that only pays attention to half the problem, when you can just as easy take an approach that pays attention to the whole problem? The only way for feminism to survive is to become that complete approach - but if it does, why would we still want to call it feminism?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my late teens and early 20s, I met a large group of strident people. Mostly also in their late teen's/early 20s. This group of people change in specific rallying cries, faces, and names - but tactics don't seem to change.
That said - this is also the group of people that rally the homeless to protest when the city locks the public bathroom doors; mobilize lots of time and energy for cleaning the city before Earth Day celebrations (picking up litter, scrubbing off and painting over gang-signs); keep the public walks and trails in good condition; help out in businesses, schools, daycares, prisons, treatment centers, hospitals, etc., as they work their internships - and the list goes on.
So, yeah, they do some good things - AND they can make it really difficult for us more moderate thinkers (and do-ers, dare I say) to put forth opposing ideas and viewpoints.
How? Anyone who disagreed with anything they said, did, or believed was dead wrong. The best way to prove it was by shouting over and "ganging up" on the disagree-er. If you bucked the status quo more than once, you were henceforth a suspicious entity. Twice, and you were perpetually outcast.
This has the rather deleterious effect of putting quite a period to any conversation - and then paints with a broad brush any others who opinions/beliefs which may move along similar lines.
They all (MEN and WOMEN) seemed to stand upon a very large soapbox that included numerous political and social beliefs along the lines of:
Abortion is a right and a choice. The death penalty for anyone is bad - no matter the crime.
Shaving your legs and armpits is bad - however, so is washing or cutting your hair. Or wearing tidy, clean clothes. Or . . .
Men have been very naughty throughout the ages to women, and women have every right -nay! the obligation! - to be loud and critical now to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
There is no God. Star Trek proves it.
We called 'em "trust-fund" hippies, as they tended to be better off than your average student, didn't need to work to get themselves through college (although they did a lot of college projects which involved experiencing the effects of poverty by being sent out on the streets to beg for a week or two by their professors ), and didn't appear to study a whole lot, but did spend significant amounts of time doing community-based work (as described above), and in engaging in creating shock-based political commentary on whatever the issue of the day happened to be.
My interactions with them were no less loud than with the (here comes another generalization) red-neck, right-wing, fascist-style christian that insisted that women and children were nothing more than chattel. (And no opposing viewpoints were allowed to be heard on that matter, either.)
Loud? Loud because they yelled and were intense, and loud because I am no less so at times - even though trying to argue for a middle ground in both cases.
All right - what's the point? Painting individuals with a broad tarring brush is wrong. Period. End of discussion.
posted
" Or consider the many female-dominated careers (nursing, teaching, stay-at-home parenting, etc.) that remain taboo for males, even as male-dominated careers have become largely open to females. "
Except that nursing care in retirment centers, teaching careers at the pre-K/child care level, and a whole host of other "female-dominated careers" are not SOUGHT by men because the pay is pathetic.
I made (in my early college days) FAR more money doing the following jobs (many of them traditionally male):
*Tear-off/clean-up crew for a roofing company ($7.00/hour versus fast-food work at $5.15/hour) *Restaurant dishwashing/bussing in the college I went to ($6.07/hour compared to TAing in childcare at $5.15/hour) *Working for moving companies ($10.00/hour compared to data entry for gov't at $8.92/hour) *Swing-shift custodial ($9.18/hour compared to private day camp dishwashing at $5.50/hr)
Men don't seem to WANT to work for those wages. Gee - wonder why . . .
Perhaps we'd find more stay-at-home dads if more women had access to living wage jobs?
Just saying, mind . . .
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then why do women take those jobs? It's not because women don't have access to living wage jobs - you don't spend the time and effort to get a degree in nursing or get your teaching degree because those are the only jobs you could possibly get.
I suspect it is because they want those jobs, although you could ask women at Hatrack who are in female-dominated careers.
The question then is, why do you think men should care more about pay than women? There may be an even more significant piece of discrimination coming from society's expections right there - and it is probably at least as harmful to men as it is to women.
quote:It's not because women don't have access to living wage jobs
There are other, undegreed jobs that women are traditionally dominant in, that women take becuase either they can watch their children while doing them or they allow women to work only while their children are in school.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But still the question remains, why should we expect only women to want to watch their children or be home when their children are back from school?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that's the million dollar question. If more men were around and willing and able to take care of their children, it wouldn't happen. But either men are absent from the households for whatever reason, or they have to work long hours at jobs that don't accomodate caring for their children to survive, or they just won't.
(I heard a couple fighting in the complex next to us the other day: "Why are you punishing me?" "Staying with the kids for a few hours while I run errands is not punishment!" "Yes it is, you're punishing me for something!" It then devolved into swearing at each other, very loudly. )
Edit: I would like to add at this point how much I appreciate my husband, and all you other good husbands and fathers out there who love your wives and kids and don't think spending time with the kids while your wife has a little time to get things done or just be alone is "punishment."
posted
FGM... is that female circumsicion? Horrible, absolutely horrible. And wasteful. The goal of lovemaking as someone once pointed out was to give pleasure.
At least there are societies in polynesia have veeeeeeery open sexual practices. Where the couple will have xxx about 4-6 times a day everyday until your 40, where you may refuse 1-2 times a day.
IP: Logged |
quote: Where the couple will have xxx about 4-6 times a day everyday until your 40, where you may refuse 1-2 times a day.
Hmmm, a culture where the husband is perpetually too exhausted to ever even consider cheating on his wife?
quote:The goal of lovemaking as someone once pointed out was to give pleasure.
Apparently it isn't in that culture. Part of why I find the practice so disgusting. What does this sort of thinking do to the male psyche?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If more men were around and willing and able to take care of their children, it wouldn't happen. But either men are absent from the households for whatever reason, or they have to work long hours at jobs that don't accomodate caring for their children to survive, or they just won't.
And this, getting back to the original point, is a big part of why promoting women's issues but not men's issues is a mistake. Our society discriminates against men, expecting them to choose certain forms of work over family and more family-oriented work in the same way that it simultaneously expects women to do the reverse. It places pressure on anyone who bucks those norms. To try and alleviate that pressure from women without alleviating it for men is not only unfair to one half of the population, but also ineffective, because one attitude reenforces the other. The attitude that men must be breadwinners effectively forces women more into a role of homemaker, even after the social expectation that they do so is lifted.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's irrelevant when the man is absent or unwilling. I absolutely agree in the case of men who wish to stay home and women who wish to work, but we also need to provide better and affordable child care for women who don't have that option.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think many people have stopped focusing fighting sexism in the US because it is not as obvious here. Women get paid less then men in every profession and most of the higher paying jobs are held by men. It is hard to change this because this is not usually caused by employers conciously trying to hire more men or wanting to pay men more. It is often caused by prejudices that people do not even know that they have. An employer may give more or bigger raises to men or hire more men without realizing that they are doing it.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I deliberately call myself a feminist because I think that's the only way we will get around the stereotypes surrouding feminism. Sure, there are plenty of man-hating women out there. But I think there are many women who simply want as much equality between the sexes as possible. And yes, that does mean equality for men, too. I think that the right of men to care for their children and spend time with their family is as much a part of feminism as the right of women to have careers. Career and family are both important, and ought to be equally available to both sexes.
I do think that things have definitely gotten better here in the United States. I don't run across conscious discrimination. But I also notice that most of the instructors I've had in college have been men. The number of TAs has been about equally men and women. The five women professors/instructors I've had taught lower-level courses. I don't think any of this is deliberate. But it's definitely a significant difference in the numbers of men and women. I wonder what sort of effect this might have on the students.
I also find it interesting that some of my male friends insult each other by implying that the other is feminine in some way. This annoys me, because it sort of implies that women are inferior. I guess it could be that they consider violation of gender roles a bad thing, but that isn't a good attitude to have either, and I've never seen one of my friends (male or female) insult another by calling her too masculine.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The attitude that men must be breadwinners effectively forces women more into a role of homemaker, even after the social expectation that they do so is lifted."
I don't think the social expectation HAS lifted, actually - either for men or women. Mostly, it's just expanded for women to do both roles to the same degree they might do one or the other.
posted
Keep in mind that only women CAN have a baby, at least for now. . .
A lot of the people you saw in thiose equal positions leave to have kids, where since the man can't actually do that he continues on and contributes how he can....financially. That is particularly important while the woman is recovering from giving birth, as she is uaually not able to work at that point, and for some time after.
That alone would describe a reason, but erhaps not the only reason, why the ineuality seems to grow greater with distance from being a student.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but the VAST majority of people who use that word mean it as equivalent to feminist, and to militant man-hater. They're all the same to the ditto-heads.
So you don't like people making statements about the vast majority of feminists but you feel qualified to make statements about the vast majority of people who use a particular word?
I have heard many people use that word precisely because they want the word feminist to apply to themselves and don't want the militant man-haters being called feminists.
I've also been personally threatened with honor charges (an offense that carries expulsion as the only penalty) for advertising a speech by a pro-life feminist as "A Feminist Perspective on Abortion," a title selected by the person giving the speech. There is a serious problem with the word "feminist" being coopted by a particular view of feminism, and many people react strongly to it.
posted
Agreed. I am a feminist, because I believe all the opportunities in the world should be available for anyone who wishes to do the work it takes to make those dreams come true, and I believe that people should be treated fairly as they work for them. They should be rewarded for their production, instead of their class or gender or station. For the majority of human history, women haven't had a level playing field. Not only does it need to be possible, it needs to be possible for more than just the extraordinary.
Feminist is my word, as much as anyone else's. I'm not giving it up.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It's real, it's out there. It is a shame that they give feminism a bad name to the point that so many women hesitate to be associated with that name.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
