What does feminism mean to you?

[lewis111]

There's loads of debates as to wether Courtney can be a feminist because she's a man that dresses as a woman
People think Ann saying women are equal already doesn't make her a feminist

And obviously Donal Trump recent stated he wasn't a feminist

So what does the word and movement mean to you, and by your definition are you a feminist?

[Ammi]

...for me it means equality../..equal free choices and opportunities etc for males and equal free choices and opportunities etc for females, regardless of gender...

[Greg!]

Equality!

[Firewire]

We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller
We say to girls: "You can have ambition, but not too much
You should aim to be successful, but not too successful
Otherwise, you will threaten the man"
Because I am female, I am expected to aspire to marriage
I am expected to make my life choices
Always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important
Now, marriage can be a source of joy and love and mutual support
But why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage
And we don't teach boys the same?
We raise girls to see each other as competitors
Not for jobs or for accomplishments, which I think can be a good thing
But for the attention of men
We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are
Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political
And economic equality of the sexes

[lewis111]

We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller
We say to girls: "You can have ambition, but not too much
You should aim to be successful, but not too successful
Otherwise, you will threaten the man"
Because I am female, I am expected to aspire to marriage
I am expected to make my life choices
Always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important
Now, marriage can be a source of joy and love and mutual support
But why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage
And we don't teach boys the same?
We raise girls to see each other as competitors
Not for jobs or for accomplishments, which I think can be a good thing
But for the attention of men
We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are
Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political
And economic equality of the sexes

:clap1:

[RileyH]

Equality!

.

[Crimson Dynamo]

We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller
We say to girls: "You can have ambition, but not too much
You should aim to be successful, but not too successful
Otherwise, you will threaten the man"
Because I am female, I am expected to aspire to marriage
I am expected to make my life choices
Always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important
Now, marriage can be a source of joy and love and mutual support
But why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage
And we don't teach boys the same?
We raise girls to see each other as competitors
Not for jobs or for accomplishments, which I think can be a good thing
But for the attention of men
We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are
Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political
And economic equality of the sexes

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/990500-we-teach-girls-to-shrink-themselves-to-make-themselves-smaller

[Crimson Dynamo]

Im with Donald

[Firewire]

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/990500-we-teach-girls-to-shrink-themselves-to-make-themselves-smaller

Thanks :shrug:

[Underscore]

We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller
We say to girls: "You can have ambition, but not too much
You should aim to be successful, but not too successful
Otherwise, you will threaten the man"
Because I am female, I am expected to aspire to marriage
I am expected to make my life choices
Always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important
Now, marriage can be a source of joy and love and mutual support
But why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage
And we don't teach boys the same?
We raise girls to see each other as competitors
Not for jobs or for accomplishments, which I think can be a good thing
But for the attention of men
We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are
Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political
And economic equality of the sexes

:clap1:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Thanks :shrug:

you did not provide a link to what you copied


:douf:

[Brillopad]

We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller
We say to girls: "You can have ambition, but not too much
You should aim to be successful, but not too successful
Otherwise, you will threaten the man"
Because I am female, I am expected to aspire to marriage
I am expected to make my life choices
Always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important
Now, marriage can be a source of joy and love and mutual support
But why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage
And we don't teach boys the same?
We raise girls to see each other as competitors
Not for jobs or for accomplishments, which I think can be a good thing
But for the attention of men
We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are
Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political
And economic equality of the sexes

Excellent FireWire. Very, very true!

[Firewire]

you did not provide a link to what you copied


:douf:

Is it necessary?

And besides you copied the wrong thing

[Firewire]

Excellent FireWire. Very, very true!

Don't thank me, thank Chimamanda.

[Vicky.]

We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller
We say to girls: "You can have ambition, but not too much
You should aim to be successful, but not too successful
Otherwise, you will threaten the man"
Because I am female, I am expected to aspire to marriage
I am expected to make my life choices
Always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important
Now, marriage can be a source of joy and love and mutual support
But why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage
And we don't teach boys the same?
We raise girls to see each other as competitors
Not for jobs or for accomplishments, which I think can be a good thing
But for the attention of men
We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are
Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political
And economic equality of the sexes

Beautiful :love:

Feminism to me is about liberating women from oppression tbh. I know many will scoff at that and say women are not oppressed but I disagree. Yes it is much better for female people in this country than it is elsewhere but not many people truly see men and women as equal, so many still see women as something thats just there for mens amusement. Also womens rights (that we currently have) are almost constantly under attack (a good recent example if this push to eliminate female only spaces and services and let people 'self identify' their sex), so those claiming feminism is no longer needed are wrong.

I do think part of womens oppression is based in nature though. We are the weaker sex, we will be dominated in certain areas of life and thats pretty impossible to prevent. But I feel a lot of the way a lot of men behave towards women is 'taught' and not nature. From the second it is announced 'its a girl/boy' the child is treat differently. This needs to stop really, else we will never get anywhere. I try to bring up my kids exactly the same but even though I am consciously trying to do this, I do slip up as the behaviour expected of males and females is so deeply ingrained...its hard to shift.

This went on a bit longer than I planned it too tbh, and possibly went offtopic too. Its hard to talk ab out feminism on here with so many people waiting to jump on you if you say the wrong thing. From all angles.

[Withano]

Equality!

.

[Brillopad]

Beautiful :love:

Feminism to me is about liberating women from oppression tbh. I know many will scoff at that and say women are not oppressed but I disagree. Yes it is much better for female people in this country than it is elsewhere but not many people truly see men and women as equal, so many still see women as something thats just there for mens amusement. Also womens rights (that we currently have) are almost constantly under attack (a good recent example if this push to eliminate female only spaces and services and let people 'self identify' their sex), so those claiming feminism is no longer needed are wrong.

I do think part of womens oppression is based in nature though. We are the weaker sex, we will be dominated in certain areas of life and thats pretty impossible to prevent. But I feel a lot of the way a lot of men behave towards women is 'taught' and not nature. From the second it is announced 'its a girl/boy' the child is treat differently. This needs to stop really, else we will never get anywhere. I try to bring up my kids exactly the same but even though I am consciously trying to do this, I do slip up as the behaviour expected of males and females is so deeply ingrained...its hard to shift.

This went on a bit longer than I planned it too tbh, and possibly went offtopic too. Its hard to talk ab out feminism on here with so many people waiting to jump on you if you say the wrong thing. From all angles.

I studied this a bit years ago in a nature nurture debate and babies are treated very differently from the moment they are born. There is no denying it. Parents don’t even know they are doing it. It’s so ingrained. The conditioning continues from then on in in our expectations of them, the toys we buy them etc. Men in particular have a tendency to treat their daughters differently especially when they reach the teenage years and it has always annoyed the heck out of me.

I had no end of falling-outs with my mother over this, she was more old-school, but always stuck to my guns and would not be told how to live my life. When I had children I only had boys and always felt quite protective of them but can’t imagine treating them any different from a daughter. I would have the same dreams and expectations for both and hope they did things their way.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Is it necessary?

And besides you copied the wrong thing

yes its forum decorum to link to anything you cut and paste so that people are not confused between your own posts and that of others


as you already know

[Oliver_W]

I wouldn't call myself a feminist by "today's standards". I mean, of course I believe in equality for both genders, but when Modern Feminism(tm) thinks equally qualified men and women get paid differently for doing the same work+same hours, focus on issues which don't matter like how men sit instead of real issues, and ally themselves with islam, it's hard to take it seriously.

[Crimson Dynamo]

and they say in Scotland

A man is not a man until he has a daughter

[Firewire]

yes its forum decorum to link to anything you cut and paste so that people are not confused between your own posts and that of others


as you already know

I would like to think people aren't that stupid

[Crimson Dynamo]

I would like to think people aren't that stupid

or that posters are trying to pass off other peoples work

[user104658]

I wouldn't call myself a feminist by "today's standards". I mean, of course I believe in equality for both genders, but when Modern Feminism(tm) thinks equally qualified men and women get paid differently for doing the same work+same hours, focus on issues which don't matter like how men sit instead of real issues, and ally themselves with islam, it's hard to take it seriously.

I agree with this; I have little time for "popular modern-day feminism" because it's reactionary and not evidence-based... it's a lot of people jabbering about things they've heard other people say as if it's hard fact. Which makes it pretty worthless.

"Women get paid 9% less than men for the same job!!"
"How do you know?"
"I read it on Facebook yesterday."
"Do you have a link to ANY actual official stats that back up this claim?"
"NO and you are SEXIST for even asking."


It drives me nuts. Give me a topic that can actually be debated, a problem that can actually be studied and addressed, and I'm all for it. If you've got little more than "Stuff is bad and it's bad that stuff is bad, and it's even worse that you won't join me in complaining about the bad stuff!!" then I just... can't.

Have a real, tangible, evidence based issue and want to find ways to address that issue? Great!

Just feeling peeved and want to rant and everyone to feel angry and / or guilty along with you but with no actual utility or positive end goal? No I'm not really interested I'm afraid.

[Ammi]

Beautiful :love:

Feminism to me is about liberating women from oppression tbh. I know many will scoff at that and say women are not oppressed but I disagree. Yes it is much better for female people in this country than it is elsewhere but not many people truly see men and women as equal, so many still see women as something thats just there for mens amusement. Also womens rights (that we currently have) are almost constantly under attack (a good recent example if this push to eliminate female only spaces and services and let people 'self identify' their sex), so those claiming feminism is no longer needed are wrong.

I do think part of womens oppression is based in nature though. We are the weaker sex, we will be dominated in certain areas of life and thats pretty impossible to prevent. But I feel a lot of the way a lot of men behave towards women is 'taught' and not nature. From the second it is announced 'its a girl/boy' the child is treat differently. This needs to stop really, else we will never get anywhere. I try to bring up my kids exactly the same but even though I am consciously trying to do this, I do slip up as the behaviour expected of males and females is so deeply ingrained...its hard to shift.

This went on a bit longer than I planned it too tbh, and possibly went offtopic too. Its hard to talk ab out feminism on here with so many people waiting to jump on you if you say the wrong thing. From all angles.

...I’m not scoffing, Vicky...I promise you I’m not but I do think it’s sometimes tricky to define oppression because surely in some cultures for instance...we may feel we see oppression but that female doesn’t necessarily feel oppression because they feel they’re making their own choices within their own culture and beliefs ...so we have to respect that also otherwise, we would become the oppressors ourselves, if that makes sense...that doesn’t mean there aren’t some things though that protection against isn’t needed with our laws etc...hmmm, I’m also not sure I agree with ‘so many still see women there as men’s amusement’...yes there are some obviously who do have that mindset and there are laws to protect also..but I don’t think it’s a ‘many’ thing, and a more generalised and extensive thing for the male mindset today...and that then also risks taking back feminism a little as well because it could be perceived as indicating a low opinion of males felt by ‘the feminist females’...so then things start to hinder rather than progress forward because it could create a resistance to femism...

[Smithy]

Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political
And economic equality of the sexes

I was just gonna post this bit :joker:

[Vicky.]

...I’m not scoffing, Vicky...I promise you I’m not but I do think it’s sometimes tricky to define oppression because surely in some cultures for instance...we may feel we see oppression but that female doesn’t necessarily feel oppression because they feel they’re making their own choices within their own culture and beliefs ...so we have to respect that also otherwise, we would become the oppressors ourselves, if that makes sense...that doesn’t mean there aren’t some things though that protection against isn’t needed with our laws etc...hmmm, I’m also not sure I agree with ‘so many still see women there as men’s amusement’...yes there are some obviously who do have that mindset and there are laws to protect also..but I don’t think it’s a ‘many’ thing, and a more generalised and extensive thing for the male mindset today...and that then also risks taking back feminism a little as well because it could be perceived as indicating a low opinion of males felt by ‘the feminist females’...so then things start to hinder rather than progress forward because it could create a resistance to femism...
There has always been, and there always will be, resistance to feminism. Especially when papers such as the mail make out that all feminists are hairy ugly fat man haters. And people eat that up.

[user104658]

Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political
And economic equality of the sexes

This is currently a wildly inaccurate definition.

[Smithy]

This is currently a wildly inaccurate definition.

Ok then so what does it mean

[Ammi]

There has always been, and there always will be, resistance to feminism. Especially when papers such as the mail make out that all feminists are hairy ugly fat man haters. And people eat that up.

...well various media demonisation of many, many things is all of our ‘daily fight’, I guess we could say..:laugh:...

[user104658]

There has always been, and there always will be, resistance to feminism. Especially when papers such as the mail make out that all feminists are hairy ugly fat man haters. And people eat that up.

There is a very real and present backlash against modern feminism because modern feminism is more based in anger and retribution than in progression or finding solutions; partly because people feel duty-bound to engage in something that they don't have the time nor inclination to actually try to understand in anything but the most superficial depth, and partly due to being hijacked by individuals who, frankly, just enjoy being combative activists and would actually be completely lost if true equality was achieved and they no longer had "their defining cause".

Pretending that backlash doesn't exist, or that it is baseless, is dangerous and will erode any progress towards actual diversity. When people quite brazenly "don't care" about that and reserve the right to "be angry and rant" - I have to question whether their motivation really is equality at all, or if the kick they get from the rant itself is somehow more important.

[user104658]

Ok then so what does it mean

Modern feminism? It doesn't have a fixed definition; and that's 90% of the problem.

[Vicky.]

'Modern feminism'..can you define what that is to you please? I know you say it has no fixed definition, but can you give an example beyond the gender pay gap (which I am not sure exists in reality)

Modern feminism to me is all this sex positive liberal feminism stuff...and I would agree that thats mainly bull****.

Second wave is where its at, for me. 'Radical feminism' (which does not mean extremist like I thought it did until recently)..actually about womens rights and liberation. None of this ridiculous identity politics post modern bollocks.

[Smithy]

Modern feminism? It doesn't have a fixed definition; and that's 90% of the problem.

There’s no such thing as “modern feminism”

Feminism is what Jonathan posted, the issue you have is with SJW who take things to the extreme, label it as feminism and then people begin to resent what feminism actually is

[lewis111]

Radical feminism is such a small part of feminism yet does seem to have become the most vocal and a reason why people distance themselves from the word and words like "Feminazi" come about

[Ammi]

...it’s just odd really with the F1 grid girl thing atm as well...and we’re defining femism as equal choice which obviously it is...but then when that choice is given, which it is to the grid girls..we’re saying no, we need to ban that, you can’t do it ...and why do we want it banned, well it’s not you actually, it’s those awful men so blame them for banning you and taking away your choice of that unique experience...

[Vicky.]

Radical feminism is such a small part of feminism yet does seem to have become the most vocal and a reason why people distance themselves from the word and words like "Feminazi" come about

Nah. Thats because of what smithy said. Some people being loudmouths and blaming it on feminism tbh. Nothing wrong with radical feminism as its actually supposed to be.

The radical feminism you seem to have in mind is

SJW who take things to the extreme, label it as feminism and then people begin to resent what feminism actually is

[smudgie]

What is wrong with just being an individualist, if we have to be tagged with any label at all.
I am just me.

[Ammi]

What is wrong with just being an individualist, if we have to be tagged with any label at all.
I am just me.

...I’m going to start promoting smudgism as a thing actually...we should all be more smudgie..:lovedup:..

[Withano]

...I’m going to start promoting smudgism as a thing actually...we should all be more smudgie..:lovedup:..

How is Smudgie supposed to be an individualist if we all turn more Smudgie? :think:

[Ammi]

How is Smudgie supposed to be an individualist if we all turn more Smudgie? :think:

...we’re going to foil her plans, Withano...shhhhh, I thought that one had slipped by without her noticing...

[Withano]

...we’re going to foil her plans, Withano...shhhhh, I thought that one had slipped by without her noticing...

I'll distract her

:elephant::elephant:

[Vicky.]

I think thats the first time I have seen that elephant used in over 3 years :laugh:

[Brillopad]

What is wrong with just being an individualist, if we have to be tagged with any label at all.
I am just me.

Unfortunately individuals and individual thinking are not fashionable - group thinking seems more in keeping with the times. Not for me though!

[Withano]

I think thats the first time I have seen that elephant used in over 3 years :laugh:

My distraction plan is totally working, Ammi

:elephant:

[Ammi]

I think thats the first time I have seen that elephant used in over 3 years :laugh:

My distraction plan is totally working, Ammi

:elephant:

...:laugh:...


...(...you can start that elephant movement now, Withano...I think it’s time..)...

[user104658]

...it’s just odd really with the F1 grid girl thing atm as well...and we’re defining femism as equal choice which obviously it is...but then when that choice is given, which it is to the grid girls..we’re saying no, we need to ban that, you can’t do it ...and why do we want it banned, well it’s not you actually, it’s those awful men so blame them for banning you and taking away your choice of that unique experience...It's essentially an attempt at a form of "social engineering" with the aim being to force equality of outcome "as soon as possible" instead of providing legal equality and equality of opportunity and accepting that equality of outcome will take time to come to fruition.

And its not even that I don't understand the desire to "make it happen quickly, make it happen now" or the frustration in realising that "this stuff takes time" ... It's just that these forms of forced social engineering through dictating what people can and cannot do "because of the message it sends" simply don't work and actually, no matter how well meaning they are, generate an inevitable backlash that sets back real progress years, maybe decades, maybe halts or reverses it completely.

In short, I find modern feminism to be more about identifying "how things should be ideally" and screaming "IT MUST BE THAT WAY RIGHT NOW EVERYONE DO WHAT WE SAY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN", instead of actually engaging in the - yes, unfortunately, sometimes frustratingly slow - pursuit of freedoms for all that contribute to ever-increasing equality as a simple natural consequence of progress, and not because a square peg has been battered into a round hole.

Put more succinctly - I think the thought process is too often "this is how I want things to be right now, for me" instead of "these are the goals we need to seek for tomorrow, for everyone".

With specific regard to the F1 situation; I fully believe that if society continues on a positive, progressive, non-combative trajectory of true inclusion and equality, then the "girls in tight dresses" will naturally die off, so to speak, as they become outdated and attitudes change. This is in contrast to to current urge to FORCE such changes with the idea that doing so will somehow change attitudes. It won't. It might bury them, it might tempt people to hide them, it will not change them, and if the last two or three years have taught us anything at all it should be that attempting to force rapid change through repression just creates a resentment bubble, one that invariably bursts, and then you get Brexit, and Trump, and EMBOLDENED sexism and racism rather than less of it.


Tl;Dr - the key to equality of outcome is maintenance of equality of opportunity + patience. People lack patience and want to force FALSE equality of outcome through legislation and positive discrimination. The bulk of modern feminism falls into the latter category.

[lewis111]

Nah. Thats because of what smithy said. Some people being loudmouths and blaming it on feminism tbh. Nothing wrong with radical feminism as its actually supposed to be.

The radical feminism you seem to have in mind is

Idk some people are very easily triggered by feminism or even the mention of it, it's sort of like veganism - there is literally nothing wrong with it its people protecting animals yet so many people despise vegans :laugh:

It's just ignorance a lack of education though surely, if people knew feminism was just purely wanting equality then they'd be awful not to support it

[Vicky.]

Well explained TS. I agree with most points you just made. I think the frustration is understandable though, we have been fighting to be equal for a hundred years and are still not there. By law, yes, but in reality no. I understand the urge to essentially...force change rather than let it happen naturally. As waiting for it to just happen does not seem to be working and things are already starting to go backwards. If we just wait and see..chances are evertything will just go way back, and then the same work that has already been done, will need to be done again. if that makes sense.

In short, I understand where you are coming from totally...but at the same time I just cannot see how just waiting for change will help anything.

[Ammi]

It's essentially an attempt at a form of "social engineering" with the aim being to force equality of outcome "as soon as possible" instead of providing legal equality and equality of opportunity and accepting that equality of outcome will take time to come to fruition.

And its not even that I don't understand the desire to "make it happen quickly, make it happen now" or the frustration in realising that "this stuff takes time" ... It's just that these forms of forced social engineering through dictating what people can and cannot do "because of the message it sends" simply don't work and actually, no matter how well meaning they are, generate an inevitable backlash that sets back real progress years, maybe decades, maybe halts or reverses it completely.

In short, I find modern feminism to be more about identifying "how things should be ideally" and screaming "IT MUST BE THAT WAY RIGHT NOW EVERYONE DO WHAT WE SAY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN", instead of actually engaging in the - yes, unfortunately, sometimes frustratingly slow - pursuit of freedoms for all that contribute to ever-increasing equality as a simple natural consequence of progress, and not because a square peg has been battered into a round hole.

Put more succinctly - I think the thought process is too often "this is how I want things to be right now, for me" instead of "these are the goals we need to seek for tomorrow, for everyone".

With specific regard to the F1 situation; I fully believe that if society continues on a positive, progressive, non-combative trajectory of true inclusion and equality, then the "girls in tight dresses" will naturally die off, so to speak, as they become outdated and attitudes change. This is in contrast to to current urge to FORCE such changes with the idea that doing so will somehow change attitudes. It won't. It might bury them, it might tempt people to hide them, it will not change them, and if the last two or three years have taught us anything at all it should be that attempting to force rapid change through repression just creates a resentment bubble, one that invariably bursts, and then you get Brexit, and Trump, and EMBOLDENED sexism and racism rather than less of it.


Tl;Dr - the key to equality of outcome is maintenance of equality of opportunity + patience. People lack patience and want to force FALSE equality of outcome through legislation and positive discrimination. The bulk of modern feminism falls into the latter category.

...sorry, it’ll just have to be a quick reply because I need to eat...but with regard to the F1 grid girls, yeah I agree, I think some types of representations will just die off naturally...but for the times they have been a part of it F1..?...I think the opportunity for the girls has probably been quite important to them in terms of experience and also probably seen as a ‘priveledge’...just slightly off topic, one of my nieces...which is the closest I have to a daughter...?...through her teens, she did some modelling, waitressing and also a bit of acting ...she was an extra in a Harry Potter...some people, did actually say to her...oh, I don’t know, be careful with the modelling because MEN and exploitation and such the like...anyway, that’s all you can do, advise really and some of her friends did...but she did it all as part of her life expanding experiences...and now she practises law in France...I think what I’m trying to say is that these experiences like being grid girls etc...are not necessarily aspirations either, they’re just experiences on a journey and I would think, are probably very positive ones to have...

...and I do totally agree about ‘backlash’ as well, no matter how well meaning etc..?...I mean we could say that Brexit/the result, was partly backlash as well for some...(..not all obviously..)...things that are meant to feel progressive can often be quite the opposite and be very hindering...anyways, have to go..:love:...

[bots]

The way i see it, there is proactive feminism and reactive feminism. By this point we shouldn't be needing to deal with reactive feminism, it should all be proactive. If people aren't complying with the proactive measures now in place they should be hauled up for it. To me, people still raising points under the reactive banner are the ones doing feminism the greatest disservice.

[Beso]

or that posters are trying to pass off other peoples work

Slay:shrug:

[user104658]

Well explained TS. I agree with most points you just made. I think the frustration is understandable though, we have been fighting to be equal for a hundred years and are still not there. By law, yes, but in reality no. I understand the urge to essentially...force change rather than let it happen naturally. As waiting for it to just happen does not seem to be working and things are already starting to go backwards. If we just wait and see..chances are evertything will just go way back, and then the same work that has already been done, will need to be done again. if that makes sense.

In short, I understand where you are coming from totally...but at the same time I just cannot see how just waiting for change will help anything.That's my point though; what I would call "real" equality, in terms of generally changing mindsets etc, have been around for a few decades and while that might seem like a long time... It isn't. Measures that are already in place will take entire generations to be fully realised. I fully 100% believe that if you could fast forward to today's 20 year olds being OAP's then you would see the type of equality that's being sought, no further "pushing" required, just simple maintenance to ensure things don't go backwards. Pushing too hard runs the risk of utterly wrecking everything that HAS been achieved. In fact I think that's already happening.

But people don't want to wait generations, people for some reason believe that a decade represents "a long time"... In a human civilization that stretches back thousands of years. Progress is slow, progress takes time, progress might never directly benefit you at all, but benefit your children and grandchildren... failure to accept that and trying to make it "instant" is a massive, massive mistake; but a common feature of modern society.

People are quick to point out the "gaps" as if they can be instantly and permanently closed by "doing some sort of a thing I dunno what but someone has to do it". People want a 9% pay gap to be 0%, tomorrow. When the fact is, it doesn't matter if its 9%, so long as it's 8% in two years time, and so long as it doesn't slide to 10%. So long as the trajectory is right, trying to force it to speed up is a gamble.

[Vicky.]

That's my point though; what I would call "real" equality, in terms of generally changing mindsets etc, have been around for a few decades and while that might seem like a long time... It isn't. Measures that are already in place will take entire generations to be fully realised. I fully 100% believe that if you could fast forward to today's 20 year olds being OAP's then you would see the type of equality that's being sought, no further "pushing" required, just simple maintenance to ensure things don't go backwards. Pushing too hard runs the risk of utterly wrecking everything that HAS been achieved. In fact I think that's already happening.

But people don't want to wait generations, people for some reason believe that a decade represents "a long time"... In a human civilization that stretches back thousands of years. Progress is slow, progress takes time, progress might never directly benefit you at all, but benefit your children and grandchildren... failure to accept that and trying to make it "instant" is a massive, massive mistake; but a common feature of modern society.

People are quick to point out the "gaps" as if they can be instantly and permanently closed by "doing some sort of a thing I dunno what but someone has to do it". People want a 9% pay gap to be 0%, tomorrow. When the fact is, it doesn't matter if its 9%, so long as it's 8% in two years time, and so long as it doesn't slide to 10%. So long as the trajectory is right, trying to force it to speed up is a gamble.

I completely disagree with that with how things are going today. I am a bit of a broken record on this subject but whilst activists are fighting to change the meaning of the word woman (whilst refusing to define what the new definition is meant to be) and things such as single sex spaces (men need their privacy from women also) are under attack. Apparently male and female are not real measurable things and people are fighting to change the law so that male people can just say they are female and thats that, and vice versa. Its taken so long to get to where we are, and it could be taken away in a second, and thats ****ing scary to me.

I think if things had remained along the trajectory they were on then this may have happened. Things did seem to be getting better and with time it would probably have continued that way. As more and more people bring up their kids to be respectful of the other sex (an d their own sex) and stuff. yes there would still be bad apples, there always are but it would have got better.

But this identity politics nonsense and pomo queer theory is a huge threat to womens (and mens to a lesser extent) rights. I do believe biology is important in certain areas of life and that we cannot ignore that.

The F1 girls stuff..I understand how that could benefit women in the long term (stopping the objectification of women is surely a good thing) but at the same time , if society just became less sexist then yes, this kind of thing would die out on its own. Issue is, if we are supposed to not 'see sex' (comes across very much like the 'I dont see colour' racists tbh) then we cannot see sexism, or fight it.

Not sure if I am on topic anymore here. But again, I do agree that things will get better in time. But only IF this pomo nonsense disappears. if it keeps being pushed so aggressively, then we will go backwards, and very fast. Hence this is the most important thing to me at the moment, pushing back against the nonsense. It does scare me. I may be a bit obsessed. But the logical conclusion of this 'sex is meaningless and not a real measureable thing that matters sometimes' stuff is that womens rights will disappear completely. Men will be affected by it all too, but to a much lesser extent.

[Redway]

Like someone else said first and second wave’s where it’s it.

As for me personally I’m more interested in seeing the subtle idea that a woman marries into a man’s family die out completely. That and the surname tho t. Patriarchy in the context of marriage and family.

[Marches]

Feminism is an outdated movement that has lost its meaning through some of the rediculous claims by the most vocal third wave feminists

We don’t need to have groups or movements like this anymore just advocate for rights and equal treatment of ALL people anyway I don’t see what’s wrong with that

[smudgie]

...I’m going to start promoting smudgism as a thing actually...we should all be more smudgie..:lovedup:..

How is Smudgie supposed to be an individualist if we all turn more Smudgie? :think:

...we’re going to foil her plans, Withano...shhhhh, I thought that one had slipped by without her noticing...

I'll distract her

:elephant::elephant:

My distraction plan is totally working, Ammi

:elephant:

:elephant: :elephant: :elephant:

Got my eye on you two. :eyes:

[Marches]

Beautiful :love:

Feminism to me is about liberating women from oppression tbh. I know many will scoff at that and say women are not oppressed but I disagree. Yes it is much better for female people in this country than it is elsewhere but not many people truly see men and women as equal, so many still see women as something thats just there for mens amusement. Also womens rights (that we currently have) are almost constantly under attack (a good recent example if this push to eliminate female only spaces and services and let people 'self identify' their sex), so those claiming feminism is no longer needed are wrong.

I do think part of womens oppression is based in nature though. We are the weaker sex, we will be dominated in certain areas of life and thats pretty impossible to prevent. But I feel a lot of the way a lot of men behave towards women is 'taught' and not nature. From the second it is announced 'its a girl/boy' the child is treat differently. This needs to stop really, else we will never get anywhere. I try to bring up my kids exactly the same but even though I am consciously trying to do this, I do slip up as the behaviour expected of males and females is so deeply ingrained...its hard to shift.

This went on a bit longer than I planned it too tbh, and possibly went offtopic too. Its hard to talk ab out feminism on here with so many people waiting to jump on you if you say the wrong thing. From all angles.

Yeah people don’t see men and woman as equal, women are generally more protected and valued in society and actually quite a few ‘rights’ that men don’t have

But feminism won’t do anything about that despite saying they’re about equality, which baffles me as to why everyone campaigning for equality can’t all just like not label themselves and work together to make every human being truly equal

[MTVN]

I know the dictionary definition of feminism is just equality of the sexes but in practice it's now associated with a militancy that puts me off. I do find that hardcore feminists can be intolerant of other people's views on gender and they dont make it an inclusive movement. People get criticised for saying they are not feminists but if someone who's right of centre identifies as a feminist they'll often be told that they're not by feminist groups and that their politics are incompatible with it

[ethanjames]

for me feminism is equal rights whatever the gender identity!!!

[Smithy]

I know the dictionary definition of feminism is just equality of the sexes but in practice it's now associated with a militancy that puts me off. I do find that hardcore feminists can be intolerant of other people's views on gender and they dont make it an inclusive movement. People get criticised for saying they are not feminists but if someone who's right of centre identifies as a feminist they'll often be told that they're not by feminist groups and that their politics are incompatible with it

When I see posts like this It just reminds me of Muslims and ISIS, like Muslims are one thing, it’s a defined religion, just because ISIS say they are Muslims doesn’t mean they are when they act in the complete opposite way that Islam teaches

[MTVN]

When I see posts like this It just reminds me of Muslims and ISIS, like Muslims are one thing, it’s a defined religion, just because ISIS say they are Muslims doesn’t mean they are when they act in the complete opposite way that Islam teaches

I suppose that's true but someone can still support equality of the sexes without identifying as a feminist whereas you can't follow Islam and not identify as a Muslim. 'Feminism' is just a word in this sense really that some people are happy to identify as and some people are not, it's not as powerful as someone's religion

[MTVN]

Admittedly this is quite an extreme example but it was a story this week, if I tried to tell this lot 'Oh yeah I'm a feminist too' I'd probably be met with a roundhouse kick

https://order-order.com/2018/01/29/feminist-fight-club-vows-destroy-tories-smash-patriarchy/

Queer feminist fight club Femme Feral offers women and femme-identifying people a place to express their rage about the Conservative government through body-slams and dropkicks.”

[Alf]

It means hair dye and tattoos

[bots]

Admittedly this is quite an extreme example but it was a story this week, if I tried to tell this lot 'Oh yeah I'm a feminist too' I'd probably be met with a roundhouse kick

https://order-order.com/2018/01/29/feminist-fight-club-vows-destroy-tories-smash-patriarchy/

ha ha :laugh:

[Vicky.]

Admittedly this is quite an extreme example but it was a story this week, if I tried to tell this lot 'Oh yeah I'm a feminist too' I'd probably be met with a roundhouse kick

https://order-order.com/2018/01/29/feminist-fight-club-vows-destroy-tories-smash-patriarchy/

Well yes, these seem to be extremest nutters. Using feminism as an excuse for violence and being a dickhead. I would not say these people are feminists in any sense of the word tbh, though its not really my place to tell people they are not feminists I guess.

This to me comes across as quite similar to the religious extremists who use religion as an excuse for violence.

We (or normal people would not) would not judge an entire religion because of a few nutters surely. So the people who reckon feminists are all man hating loons who want women to rule the world and men eradicated completely...well those people are quite silly and tbh it sounds like they are just looking for an excuse to hate feminism in general.

[Smithy]

Well yes, these seem to be extremest nutters. Using feminism as an excuse for violence and being a dickhead. I would not say these people are feminists in any sense of the word tbh, though its not really my place to tell people they are not feminists I guess.

This to me comes across as quite similar to the religious extremists who use religion as an excuse for violence.

We (or normal people would not) would not judge an entire religion because of a few nutters surely. So the people who reckon feminists are all man hating loons who want women to rule the world and men eradicated completely...well those people are quite silly and tbh it sounds like they are just looking for an excuse to hate feminism in general.

Did I not just say this :nono:

[Vicky.]

Did I not just say this :nono:

Heh. Yes you did, sorry. I just waffled on in more words about it :laugh:

[waterhog]

There's loads of debates as to wether Courtney can be a feminist because she's a man that dresses as a woman
People think Ann saying women are equal already doesn't make her a feminist

And obviously Donal Trump recent stated he wasn't a feminist

So what does the word and movement mean to you, and by your definition are you a feminist?

I am disappointed - if you was a true feminist - you would have let me go first lewis - chivalry is dead. :joker:

[Maru]

It means equal opportunity for women, but still not forgetting what it means to be a woman...

But if I'm honest, I'm not a fan of these labels and I feel like group identity should really be a thing of the past. Being proud of being a woman as an individual though is different because it's a descriptor, but I just don't think that we should be wearing labels as a badge to be included in "communities", etc... I used to think that was such a great thing, a great way to make your voice heard. However, that thinking actually leads to people being sheltered from the issues since once you are apart of the group, you have to "subscribe" to it's views... therefore if you go out of your way to make issues known within the group, your "card" can be pulled and it becomes taboo. It's just hegemony disguised as "equal rights"...

I think that's such an outdated way of doing things. It's just weird to me... that in the 90's, it was all about non-conformity, shedding stereotypes and getting rid of group think and eschewing labels... and now where we are in 2018, trying to get back into group-think and wearing labels and it's just such a huge step backwards imho. It seems like individualism is understanding a re-evaluation in our culture...

[Oliver_W]

Like someone else said first and second wave’s where it’s it.

As for me personally I’m more interested in seeing the subtle idea that a woman marries into a man’s family die out completely. That and the surname tho t. Patriarchy in the context of marriage and family.

In most marriages I know, it seems more like the man joins the woman's family, than the other way around.

[user104658]

It means equal opportunity for women, but still not forgetting what it means to be a woman...

But if I'm honest, I'm not a fan of these labels and I feel like group identity should really be a thing of the past. Being proud of being a woman as an individual though is different because it's a descriptor, but I just don't think that we should be wearing labels as a badge to be included in "communities", etc... I used to think that was such a great thing, a great way to make your voice heard. However, that thinking actually leads to people being sheltered from the issues since once you are apart of the group, you have to "subscribe" to it's views... therefore if you go out of your way to make issues known within the group, your "card" can be pulled and it becomes taboo. It's just hegemony disguised as "equal rights"...

I think that's such an outdated way of doing things. It's just weird to me... that in the 90's, it was all about non-conformity, shedding stereotypes and getting rid of group think and eschewing labels... and now where we are in 2018, trying to get back into group-think and wearing labels and it's just such a huge step backwards imho. It seems like individualism is understanding a re-evaluation in our culture...I agree Maru, I'd much rather be part of a community of a thousand different nuanced and personally considered views where everyone respectfully (or even non-respectfully!) shares them... Than one where everyone sings from the same hymn sheet and pats each other on the back for how correct they are.

That's one of my main gripes with these movements... You hear exactly the same buzzwords and phrases, said in the same way, in the same context, but coming from different people and I just think... How much of this is just echoed from the last thing you read on the topic? Are any of these your own words? Have you even really given it all that much thought?

[Cherie]

;9849027]I agree Maru, I'd much rather be part of a community of a thousand different nuanced and personally considered views where everyone respectfully (or even non-respectfully!) shares them... Than one where everyone sings from the same hymn sheet and pats each other on the back for how correct they are.[/B]

That's one of my main gripes with these movements... You hear exactly the same buzzwords and phrases, said in the same way, in the same context, but coming from different people and I just think... How much of this is just echoed from the last thing you read on the topic? Are any of these your own words? Have you even really given it all that much thought?

Perfectly put

[Brillopad]

It means equal opportunity for women, but still not forgetting what it means to be a woman...

But if I'm honest, I'm not a fan of these labels and I feel like group identity should really be a thing of the past. Being proud of being a woman as an individual though is different because it's a descriptor, but I just don't think that we should be wearing labels as a badge to be included in "communities", etc... I used to think that was such a great thing, a great way to make your voice heard. However, that thinking actually leads to people being sheltered from the issues since once you are apart of the group, you have to "subscribe" to it's views... therefore if you go out of your way to make issues known within the group, your "card" can be pulled and it becomes taboo. It's just hegemony disguised as "equal rights"...

I think that's such an outdated way of doing things. It's just weird to me... that in the 90's, it was all about non-conformity, shedding stereotypes and getting rid of group think and eschewing labels... and now where we are in 2018, trying to get back into group-think and wearing labels and it's just such a huge step backwards imho. It seems like individualism is understanding a re-evaluation in our culture...

Completely agree Maru. A big step backwards. Regressive - not ‘progressive’.

[Gstar]

We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller
We say to girls: "You can have ambition, but not too much
You should aim to be successful, but not too successful
Otherwise, you will threaten the man"
Because I am female, I am expected to aspire to marriage
I am expected to make my life choices
Always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important
Now, marriage can be a source of joy and love and mutual support
But why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage
And we don't teach boys the same?
We raise girls to see each other as competitors
Not for jobs or for accomplishments, which I think can be a good thing
But for the attention of men
We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are
Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political
And economic equality of the sexes

:laugh:

[Livia]

I just watched The Big Question on TV, and one of the discussions was about feminism. And what struck me was this: Women have been oppressed by men for millennia. Things are changing now... we've come an awful long way. And now... men want to join in the discussion. Not just join in, they want to lead the discussion. While I watched the men on the show tell women what feminism is and how they should deal with it, I wondered what would happen if it was a discussion about racial oppression, and there were a bunch of white males in the front row saying, look, we understand your feelings of oppression... We know how that feels... we're going to help... and this is what we're going to do...

[Underscore]

I am an intersectional feminist and believe that feminism is more than just gender equality. It's using equity to achieve equality too.

[Niamh.]

I just watched The Big Question on TV, and one of the discussions was about feminism. And what struck me was this: Women have been oppressed by men for millennia. Things are changing now... we've come an awful long way. And now... men want to join in the discussion. Not just join in, they want to lead the discussion. While I watched the men on the show tell women what feminism is and how they should deal with it, I wondered what would happen if it was a discussion about racial oppression, and there were a bunch of white males in the front row saying, look, we understand your feelings of oppression... We know how that feels... we're going to help... and this is what we're going to do...

yep

[bots]

I just watched The Big Question on TV, and one of the discussions was about feminism. And what struck me was this: Women have been oppressed by men for millennia. Things are changing now... we've come an awful long way. And now... men want to join in the discussion. Not just join in, they want to lead the discussion. While I watched the men on the show tell women what feminism is and how they should deal with it, I wondered what would happen if it was a discussion about racial oppression, and there were a bunch of white males in the front row saying, look, we understand your feelings of oppression... We know how that feels... we're going to help... and this is what we're going to do...

it makes a lot of sense for men to control what equality means to a women :laugh:

[BBUK-Fan]

Feminism is a load of women that take things too far and try to trash men. Feminists are just a hate group really and say it's all equality but it's trashing men

[Underscore]

Feminism is a load of women that take things too far and try to trash men. Feminists are just a hate group really and say it's all equality but it's trashing men

men are trash

[Brillopad]

Feminism is a load of women that take things too far and try to trash men. Feminists are just a hate group really and say it's all equality but it's trashing men

That sounds distinctly sexist. Sounds rather like LBTG groups who take things too far and try to trash women and their rights and other anti-discrimination groups who take things too far and try to trash the opinions of others to me. You can’t logically single out feminist groups over other such groups.

[Withano]

That sounds distinctly sexist. Sounds rather like LBTG groups who take things too far and try to trash women and their rights and other anti-discrimination groups who take things too far and try to trash the opinions of others to me. You can’t logically single out feminist groups over other such groups.

Basically "you cant hate feminists, other anti-discrimation groups are worse"

Youre both as clueless as each other.

[Underscore]

Basically "you cant hate feminists, other anti-discrimation groups are worse"

Youre both as clueless as each other.

.

[Brillopad]

Basically "you cant hate feminists, other anti-discrimation groups are worse"

Youre both as clueless as each other.

Yes you are if you can’t see that such extremism applies to all.

You can’t single out one and not another, not hate, why do some love to label that way, but not all only some. I smell a rat.

[Niamh.]

It feels like some men, alot of men actually, are scared of women becoming "too equal" men I never would have thought would act like that as well. I'm not quite sure where that fear comes from or what they're afraid of though? I do understand though in some situations balancing things on one side can make things unbalanced on the other. Like fathers rights for example, that's certainly a place where men(fathers) are unequal and that needs addressing. I consider myself to be a feminist and tackling Fathers rights (or lack of them) would also fall under feminism imo

[Alf]

Why don't we settle this with a good old fashioned scrap?

We'd batter you!

[Niamh.]

Why don't we settle this with a good old fashioned scrap?

We'd batter you!

Settle what? Actually, you've just shown how alot of people view feminism, like it's some sort of battle for top spot.....instead of just wanting equality. This is the type of attitude that women face everyday but are told we're imagining it, we are equal now get back in your box and shut up

[Alf]

Settle what? Actually, you've just shown how alot of people view feminism, like it's some sort of battle for top spot.....instead of just wanting equality. This is the type of attitude that women face everyday but are told we're imagining it, we are equal now get back in your box and shut upPut em up, I'll take you with one arm behind my back.

[Niamh.]

Put em up, I'll take you with one arm behind my back.

:rolleyes:

[ethanjames]

Feminism is a load of women that take things too far and try to trash men. Feminists are just a hate group really and say it's all equality but it's trashing men

when you clearly no nothing about feminism

[Alf]

Maybe the men haters choose the wrong men in life? You always see women judging men on looks alone, and hear many of them say, "I like a bad boy" And women seem creeped out by shy quiet boys.

[Niamh.]

Maybe the men haters choose the wrong men in life? You always see women judging men on looks alone, and hear many of them say, "I like a bad boy" And women seem creeped out by shy quiet boys.

again, displaying the very very common attitude that people (mostly men but not all men thankfully) have of women who point out inequality between the sexes. I am a feminist and I have fantastic men in my life tyvm, 3 brothers, a husband and a son :love:

Thanks Alf though for the demonstrations, I'm waiting for example number 3 : The feminazis are fat ugly lesbians who are just mad cos no one fancies them :laugh:

[Alf]

again, displaying the very very common attitude that people (mostly men but not all men thankfully) have of women who point out inequality between the sexes. I am a feminist and I have fantastic men in my life tyvm, 3 brothers, a husband and a son :love:

Thanks Alf though for the demonstrations, I'm waiting for example number 3 : The feminazis are fat ugly lesbians who are just mad cos no one fancies them :laugh:You see, you don't need me to tell you that, you know it yourself.

[Vicky.]

again, displaying the very very common attitude that people (mostly men but not all men thankfully) have of women who point out inequality between the sexes. I am a feminist and I have fantastic men in my life tyvm, 3 brothers, a husband and a son :love:

Thanks Alf though for the demonstrations, I'm waiting for example number 3 : The feminazis are fat ugly lesbians who are just mad cos no one fancies them :laugh:

We already had this a few days back

Because fat ugly feminist are jealous of them.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/42841620


:hehe:

[Tom4784]

It's a common theme when it comes to certain people in most majorities that they misunderstand equality for dominance, you'll find people like that in every majority. It's just a complete and utter lack of understanding and empathy, essentially because they've deluded themselves into thinking that equality is a thing because they don't suffer any kind of discrimination so it's not a thing for anyone else either. They'll look at things like Feminism, pride and LGBT, Black Lives Matters etc as tipping the scales against them because they just don't understand discrimination because they have never experienced it.

Their idea of equality for those kinds of people is having a majorityand them being that majority so they find the idea of actual equality to be nothing more than an attack on them when it's just balancing the scales that have always been tipped in their favour.

[Niamh.]

You see, you don't need me to tell you that, you know it yourself.

Game, set and match Alf :hehe:

We already had this a few days back




:hehe:

Ha, must be psychic :laugh:

[Tom4784]

Alf, your posts in this thread are the ultimate proof of how fragile a man's sense of masculinity is and how easily it's threatened.

[user104658]

I just watched The Big Question on TV, and one of the discussions was about feminism. And what struck me was this: Women have been oppressed by men for millennia. Things are changing now... we've come an awful long way. And now... men want to join in the discussion. Not just join in, they want to lead the discussion. While I watched the men on the show tell women what feminism is and how they should deal with it, I wondered what would happen if it was a discussion about racial oppression, and there were a bunch of white males in the front row saying, look, we understand your feelings of oppression... We know how that feels... we're going to help... and this is what we're going to do...Have the women who are part of the discussion today been oppressed by the men who are part of the discussion today for millenia? This part always confuses me; this idea that "women" and "men" are some sort of cohesive sentient entity with a memory stretching back beyond the lifespan of the individual. It doesn't really make sense.

That's not to say the millenia of oppression doesn't still affect society today; it does in many ways and that's something that society as a whole needs to address. But the fact is, many (most) of the men who are part of the discussion today have never oppressed anyone in any way, and so the idea that they should be excluded from the discussion of achieving equality is ludicrous and entirely misses the point. Of course men shouldn't lead or dominate the discussion, but nor should women lead or dominate the discussion... And anyone who thinks they should, frankly, is not seeking equality.

[Brillopad]

It's a common theme when it comes to certain people in most majorities that they misunderstand equality for dominance, you'll find people like that in every majority. It's just a complete and utter lack of understanding and empathy, essentially because they've deluded themselves into thinking that equality is a thing because they don't suffer any kind of discrimination so it's not a thing for anyone else either. They'll look at things like Feminism, pride and LGBT, Black Lives Matters etc as tipping the scales against them because they just don't understand discrimination because they have never experienced it.

Their idea of equality for those kinds of people is having a majorityand them being that majority so they find the idea of actual equality to be nothing more than an attack on them when it's just balancing the scales that have always been tipped in their favour.

You think most women haven’t experienced discrimination - I have on several occasions. It always has been and still is to a degree a part of every woman’s life. Discrimination is not exclusive to minority groups. It shows how much you know if that is what you are trying to say.

[Livia]

Have the women who are part of the discussion today been oppressed by the men who are part of the discussion today for millenia? This part always confuses me; this idea that "women" and "men" are some sort of cohesive sentient entity with a memory stretching back beyond the lifespan of the individual. It doesn't really make sense.

That's not to say the millenia of oppression doesn't still affect society today; it does in many ways and that's something that society as a whole needs to address. But the fact is, many (most) of the men who are part of the discussion today have never oppressed anyone in any way, and so the idea that they should be excluded from the discussion of achieving equality is ludicrous and entirely misses the point. Of course men shouldn't lead or dominate the discussion, but nor should women lead or dominate the discussion... And anyone who thinks they should, frankly, is not seeking equality.

Well... firstly, no, they were not the same men that have oppressed women over millennia. In much the same way that Britain is no longer an Empire, oppressing other countries but we're constantly reminded of our input... You only have to have a glance through Serious Debates to know that Britain is STILL accused of all kinds of stuff that happened before any of us was born... what we did in the Raj... what we did in Africa.... etc. etc. I don't see how it's different, really. People IN those countries don't want British people involved in affairs affecting their country. And in much the same way, although the men alive now have not oppressed women over millennia, I for one don't want men to be leading a discussion about feminism.

Of course, that doesn't mean I think men should not be involved in the discussion. We need men on board... but this is about women. And while most men are very supportive and thoughtful... you've only got to look at some of the aggression that surfaces, from some men, whenever there's a discussion about feminism and women's rights.

[Brillopad]

Maybe the men haters choose the wrong men in life? You always see women judging men on looks alone, and hear many of them say, "I like a bad boy" And women seem creeped out by shy quiet boys.

Alf, men have always been the worst for judging potential partners on looks - that is far more a male trait than a female one. I do agree on the bad boy thing though - some women are their own worst enemy.

[Niamh.]

Have the women who are part of the discussion today been oppressed by the men who are part of the discussion today for millenia? This part always confuses me; this idea that "women" and "men" are some sort of cohesive sentient entity with a memory stretching back beyond the lifespan of the individual. It doesn't really make sense.

That's not to say the millenia of oppression doesn't still affect society today; it does in many ways and that's something that society as a whole needs to address. But the fact is, many (most) of the men who are part of the discussion today have never oppressed anyone in any way, and so the idea that they should be excluded from the discussion of achieving equality is ludicrous and entirely misses the point. Of course men shouldn't lead or dominate the discussion, but nor should women lead or dominate the discussion... And anyone who thinks they should, frankly, is not seeking equality.

Clearly we have come a very long way although still some parts of the world have not and are a reminder of what life would have been like for a woman years ago.

But it's almost like some peoples attitudes are, well you can vote and drive now so shut up. Women face sexism and are treated like we are less than men every bloody day, alot of men do this, probably without even realising most of the time, going to buy a car and the salesman speaks to your husband rather than you eventhough you're the one buying the car, always being asked to make the coffee over male co-workers, as a teenager being warned against having boyfriends when boys your age are encouraged and lauded for the same thing, the list goes on. It's so ingrained in peoples heads they don't even realise they're doing it most of the time and these examples seem small and stupid but they all add up and over time are so ****ing belittling and infuriating. Maybe you've never done any of those things which is great but that doesn't mean they don't happen everyday.

[Vicky.]

Well... firstly, no, they were not the same men that have oppressed women over millennia. In much the same way that Britain is no longer an Empire, oppressing other countries but we're constantly reminded of our input... You only have to have a glance through Serious Debates to know that Britain is STILL accused of all kinds of stuff that happened before any of us was born... what we did in the Raj... what we did in Africa.... etc. etc. I don't see how it's different, really. People IN those countries don't want British people involved in affairs affecting their country. And in much the same way, although the men alive now have not oppressed women over millennia, I for one don't want men to be leading a discussion about feminism.

Of course, that doesn't mean I think men should not be involved in the discussion. We need men on board... but this is about women. And while most men are very supportive and thoughtful... you've only got to look at some of the aggression that surfaces, from some men, whenever there's a discussion about feminism and women's rights.

Very well said Livia.

Of course male allys is a good thing. But men trying to basically...take over and tell women they are doing feminism wrong, well...thats a bit not good.

And so many men cannot help but dominate a conversation. Its socialized into them. Thats not an insult as socialization is extremely hard to fight (I have tried and failed many many times) so men being socialized to dominate and be strong, while women are socialized to be 'nice' and put others first..well its not a good combination is it...

[Vicky.]

Clearly we have come a very long way although still some parts of the world have not and are a reminder of what life would have been like for a woman years ago.

But it's almost like some peoples attitudes are, well you can vote and drive now so shut up. Women face sexism and are treated like we are less than men every bloody day, alot of men do this, probably without even realising most of the time, going to buy a car and the salesman speaks to your husband rather than you eventhough you're the one buying the car, always being asked to make the coffee over male co-workers, as a teenager being warned against having boyfriends when boys your age are encouraged and lauded for the same thing, the list goes on. It's so ingrained in peoples heads they don't even realise they're doing it most of the time and these examples seem small and stupid but they all add up and over time are so ****ing belittling and infuriating. Maybe you've never done any of those things which is great but that doesn't mean they don't happen everyday.
Also a great post.

You two can put my thoughts so much better than I can :laugh:

Definitely yes to the 'the law is equal, shut up, we are equal now' stuff. Yes the law is equal. treatment however, is not and much discrimination still exists...every day.

[Tom4784]

You think most women haven’t experienced discrimination - I have on several occasions. It always has been and still is to a degree a part of every woman’s life. Discrimination is not exclusive to minority groups. It shows how much you know if that is what you are trying to say.

Okay, you haven't read my post at all, have you?

I'm saying that the idea of men seeing gender equality as an attack on themselves is something that is common to certain people in all majorities because the idea of equality those people have are warped. I'm not saying that women haven't faced discrimination.

Jesus Christ, Brillo. Please at least to attempt to read a post before you respond to it because nothing you have said has any relevance on what I have said at all.

[user104658]

Well... firstly, no, they were not the same men that have oppressed women over millennia. In much the same way that Britain is no longer an Empire, oppressing other countries but we're constantly reminded of our input... You only have to have a glance through Serious Debates to know that Britain is STILL accused of all kinds of stuff that happened before any of us was born... what we did in the Raj... what we did in Africa.... etc. etc. I don't see how it's different, really. People IN those countries don't want British people involved in affairs affecting their country. And in much the same way, although the men alive now have not oppressed women over millennia, I for one don't want men to be leading a discussion about feminism.

Of course, that doesn't mean I think men should not be involved in the discussion. We need men on board... but this is about women. And while most men are very supportive and thoughtful... you've only got to look at some of the aggression that surfaces, from some men, whenever there's a discussion about feminism and women's rights.But it isn't about women, it's about equality, and stating that the pursuit of (any) equality is only about the historically disadvantaged side "of the scales" has more to do with addressing "past injury" than it does with achieving future equality. "An eye for an eye", "its our turn now and we can only have equality after we've had our turn" -type equality isn't the type of equality that anyone should be seeking... It isn't equality at all. I mean sure, acknowledge and address the fact that people have "lost eyes" in the past, acknowledge that it's wrong and regrettable, and then have everyone move forward together, progressively, to ensure that it doesn't continue happening. It's literally the only way things are going to improve... But, it so often seems to me that many people are far more concerned with having past grievances acknowledged than they are with preventing future grievances, and even at the EXPENSE of progress. "We have the right to be angry and hold grudges even if that anger makes things worse".

It makes me question the entire motive.

[Livia]

Very well said Livia.

Of course male allys is a good thing. But men trying to basically...take over and tell women they are doing feminism wrong, well...thats a bit not good.

And so many men cannot help but dominate a conversation. Its socialized into them. Thats not an insult as socialization is extremely hard to fight (I have tried and failed many many times) so men being socialized to dominate and be strong, while women are socialized to be 'nice' and put others first..well its not a good combination is it...

I have another theory, and I know this will be a bit unpopular and it is slightly off-topic, but here goes...

Whenever I've met a transsexual person, or see them on TV, I've been struck by how much less dramatic and loud the female to male transsexuals are. You really don't see them in the press, demanding their rights, crying "I'm a REAL man!". Male to female transsexuals, however, have been men all their lives and they are used to standing up and saying, right, this is what I think and you're going to listen.

[Brillopad]

Clearly we have come a very long way although still some parts of the world have not and are a reminder of what life would have been like for a woman years ago.

But it's almost like some peoples attitudes are, well you can vote and drive now so shut up. Women face sexism and are treated like we are less than men every bloody day, alot of men do this, probably without even realising most of the time, going to buy a car and the salesman speaks to your husband rather than you eventhough you're the one buying the car, always being asked to make the coffee over male co-workers, as a teenager being warned against having boyfriends when boys your age are encouraged and lauded for the same thing, the list goes on. It's so ingrained in peoples heads they don't even realise they're doing it most of the time and these examples seem small and stupid but they all add up and over time are so ****ing belittling and infuriating. Maybe you've never done any of those things which is great but that doesn't mean they don't happen everyday.

Very true - it has been and still is a substantial part of all women’s lives. There are the smaller ways as you mention in your post and the larger ways such as sexual assault and murder.

I found it interesting that in an article posted on here recently it stated that there had been 23 murders of self-identified transwomen/men as opposed to 1600 women by men in the same time period. That says a lot.

[montblanc]

Clearly we have come a very long way although still some parts of the world have not and are a reminder of what life would have been like for a woman years ago.

But it's almost like some peoples attitudes are, well you can vote and drive now so shut up. Women face sexism and are treated like we are less than men every bloody day, alot of men do this, probably without even realising most of the time, going to buy a car and the salesman speaks to your husband rather than you eventhough you're the one buying the car, always being asked to make the coffee over male co-workers, as a teenager being warned against having boyfriends when boys your age are encouraged and lauded for the same thing, the list goes on. It's so ingrained in peoples heads they don't even realise they're doing it most of the time and these examples seem small and stupid but they all add up and over time are so ****ing belittling and infuriating. Maybe you've never done any of those things which is great but that doesn't mean they don't happen everyday.

:clap1:

[Niamh.]

I have another theory, and I know this will be a bit unpopular and it is slightly off-topic, but here goes...

Whenever I've met a transsexual person, or see them on TV, I've been struck by how much less dramatic and loud the female to male transsexuals are. You really don't see them in the press, demanding their rights, crying "I'm a REAL man!". Male to female transsexuals, however, have been men all their lives and they are used to standing up and saying, right, this is what I think and you're going to listen.

Which isn't a bad thing at all of course but young girls should be socialised the same way to feel like their voice is important

[Livia]

But it isn't about women, it's about equality, and stating that the pursuit of (any) equality is only about the historically disadvantaged side "of the scales" has more to do with addressing "past injury" than it does with achieving future equality. "An eye for an eye", "its our turn now and we can only have equality after we've had our turn" -type equality isn't the type of equality that anyone should be seeking... It isn't equality at all. I mean sure, acknowledge and address the fact that people have "lost eyes" in the past, acknowledge that it's wrong and regrettable, and then have everyone move forward together, progressively, to ensure that it doesn't continue happening. It's literally the only way things are going to improve... But, it so often seems to me that many people are far more concerned with having past grievances acknowledged than they are with preventing future grievances, and even at the EXPENSE of progress. "We have the right to be angry and hold grudges even if that anger makes things worse".

It makes me question the entire motive.

It's about WOMENS equality. Men have been more than equal for a long time. And women don't need men to lead us on this. But we do need your support.

I honestly don't see how anything else you've said relates to what I said.

[Livia]

Which isn't a bad thing at all of course but young girls should be socialised the same way to feel like their voice is important

Yes, absolutely they should.

[Vicky.]

I have another theory, and I know this will be a bit unpopular and it is slightly off-topic, but here goes...

Whenever I've met a transsexual person, or see them on TV, I've been struck by how much less dramatic and loud the female to male transsexuals are. You really don't see them in the press, demanding their rights, crying "I'm a REAL man!". Male to female transsexuals, however, have been men all their lives and they are used to standing up and saying, right, this is what I think and you're going to listen.

Yes. I have said this for a very long time now. The socialization is so obvious. You do not see transmen demanding entry into male areas, you see no transmen winning awards and such...transmen are basically invisible whilst transwomen are at the forefront screaming about unfairness and demanding everyone else buy into their religion.

Actually a bulk of transactivism comes across extremely MRA like to me too. And MRA types like to attach themselves to transactivism for obvious reasons. If it becomes law that any man is a woman, then thats all womens rights gone in one swoop. Part of the reason I am so against it. I kind of see a lot of transactivism as a fightback against women getting more equal. Its backlash, and the MRAs love it. Obviously not all transactivists are MRAs, but there is so much crossover its impossible to ignore.

Look...once I saw it I could not unsee it tbh

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fTxJj09wMKQ/VPodGskF5HI/AAAAAAAACVw/KSq9Mz6oOLQ/s1600/mrastrasnew.PNG

Not all transactivists are like that obviously, but a hell of a lot are. These tend to be the same ones who believe in 'lady penis' and don't actually alter their bodies in any way, the ones who say that sex dysphoria is not needed to be trans...the more mental ones. They come across exactly like MRAs to me. Seems that some men have found a way to pushback against women getting equal. And its genius really..to attach yourself to a group of people who do generally require support and understanding.

I first started to think along these lines when a member here, thetruth, was adamant that in a story about the 'first female on the frontline' (which was a male...who had completed training as a male then suddenly decided they were actually a woman. At this time, women could not actually serve o n the frontline as the training to allow them to was still underway) the person was absolutely a woman. It rang alarm bells for me. And since, its cemented even more.

Theres also the bastardization of the word 'intersectional' and the constant demands to centre transwomen in feminism. Its demanding that male people be centred in feminism. Really.

[DemolitionRed]

You think most women haven’t experienced discrimination - I have on several occasions. It always has been and still is to a degree a part of every woman’s life. Discrimination is not exclusive to minority groups. It shows how much you know if that is what you are trying to say.

Its part of every mans life as well. We all get discriminated against at some point in our life. Its no big deal, we aren't victims. Its not constant.

Feminism isn't the issue, extremism is. Extreme feminism makes me embarrassed to be a woman and all I can say is, thank god they're a minority. The extreme feminists have ruined the very essence of what feminism is meant to be about. They've hijacked something good and made it into something that's now demonized by both men and women. I'm a feminist but I'm often embarrassed to claim that title.

When I hear women ranting about Barbie belittling women I want to bang these womens head together… its just a toy! When I read a bunch of women belittling men or claiming 'men don't know the awful time us women have. They don't know what its like to bleed or give birth', I just sigh and think, geez, you must hate being female.
This is meant to be about gender equality but sometimes it feels like its all about punishing men.

[Brillopad]

Okay, you haven't read my post at all, have you?

I'm saying that the idea of men seeing gender equality as an attack on themselves is something that is common to certain people in all majorities because the idea of equality those people have are warped. I'm not saying that women haven't faced discrimination.

Jesus Christ, Brillo. Please at least to attempt to read a post before you respond to it because nothing you have said has any relevance on what I have said at all.

Have and do still despite making up 50 % of the population in most counties. I don’t think there is any other single group that can say that as women have and are still the most discriminated against worldwide.

Also, many of those who you see as a discriminated minority in this country have not been, as well as have been, in a previous country - but members of both groups still continue to discriminate against other groups here.

[Tom4784]

Have and do still despite making up 50 % of the population in most counties. I don’t think there is any other single group that can say that as women have and are still the most discriminated against worldwide.

Also, many of those who you see as a discriminated minority in this country have not been, as well as have been, in a previous country - but members of both groups still continue to discriminate against other groups here.

Okay, you are refusing to read my posts, I'm not going to respond in future since you'll just ignore what I write anyway.

[user104658]

It's about WOMENS equality. Men have been more than equal for a long time. And women don't need men to lead us on this. But we do need your support.

I honestly don't see how anything else you've said relates to what I said.Equality is equality, by definition you need more than one component to equalise. "Women's equality" is a meaningless statement... Women's equality to what? Ducks? Bridges? Small single engined light aircraft?

Likewise, "more than equal" doesn't make anything because "more" negates the use of "equal". Have men historically had more than women, have been on the "privileged side" of an imbalance? Yes, there was an entire absense of equality...

I suppose putting it simply; you can't balance an equation that only has one side. Achieving equality will fundamentally involve cooperation... Failure to understand that - insistence on becoming incensed at the very suggestion ("how dare an oppressor try to have an opinion on how this works!!") - is already extremely close to halting progress and slamming it into reverse. I just hope people realise that before it's too late :shrug:.

I fully support equality for all individuals. I fully accept that there are still many inequalities interwoven into society that affect that equality. But I completely reject the notion that "women en-masse", like some sort of homogenous hive-mind, are better positioned to understand and address those inequalities, than a collective of all individuals working cooperatively to achieve universal equality which would by definition achieve equality for women.

[Livia]

Yes. I have said this for a very long time now. The socialization is so obvious. You do not see transmen demanding entry into male areas, you see no transmen winning awards and such...transmen are basically invisible whilst transwomen are at the forefront screaming about unfairness and demanding everyone else buy into their religion.

Actually a bulk of transactivism comes across extremely MRA like to me too. And MRA types like to attach themselves to transactivism for obvious reasons. If it becomes law that any man is a woman, then thats all womens rights gone in one swoop. Part of the reason I am so against it. I kind of see a lot of transactivism as a fightback against women getting more equal. Its backlash, and the MRAs love it. Obviously not all transactivists are MRAs, but there is so much crossover its impossible to ignore.

Look...once I saw it I could not unsee it tbh

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fTxJj09wMKQ/VPodGskF5HI/AAAAAAAACVw/KSq9Mz6oOLQ/s1600/mrastrasnew.PNG

Not all transactivists are like that obviously, but a hell of a lot are. These tend to be the same ones who believe in 'lady penis' and don't actually alter their bodies in any way, the ones who say that sex dysphoria is not needed to be trans...the more mental ones. They come across exactly like MRAs to me. Seems that some men have found a way to pushback against women getting equal. And its genius really..to attach yourself to a group of people who do generally require support and understanding.

I first started to think along these lines when a member here, thetruth, was adamant that in a story about the 'first female on the frontline' (which was a male...who had completed training as a male then suddenly decided they were actually a woman. At this time, women could not actually serve o n the frontline as the training to allow them to was still underway) the person was absolutely a woman. It rang alarm bells for me. And since, its cemented even more.

Thanks Vicky, now I can never unsee that either LOL...

I'm in total agreement with you on this issue. And yes, the last paragraph... how are women supposed to react to someone who's always been a man, still has a penis, decides he's now a woman and hey presto! He's suddenly declared the first woman on the Front Line. Meanwhile born women are still jumping through the hoops that men have set up, in order to even try to get as far as the front line.

[Brillopad]

I have another theory, and I know this will be a bit unpopular and it is slightly off-topic, but here goes...

Whenever I've met a transsexual person, or see them on TV, I've been struck by how much less dramatic and loud the female to male transsexuals are. You really don't see them in the press, demanding their rights, crying "I'm a REAL man!". Male to female transsexuals, however, have been men all their lives and they are used to standing up and saying, right, this is what I think and you're going to listen.

A very good point.

[Brillopad]

Thanks Vicky, now I can never unsee that either LOL...

I'm in total agreement with you on this issue. And yes, the last paragraph... how are women supposed to react to someone who's always been a man, still has a penis, decides he's now a woman and hey presto! He's suddenly declared the first woman on the Front Line. Meanwhile born women are still jumping through the hoops that men have set up, in order to even try to get as far as the front line.

Ridiculous is not a strong enough word. Men and women really need to be analysing why this is so rather than just listening to those that shout the loudest.

It seems to me that women are being discriminated against not only by straight men but transwomen too. Beyond reasoning.

[Jamie89]

Clearly we have come a very long way although still some parts of the world have not and are a reminder of what life would have been like for a woman years ago.

But it's almost like some peoples attitudes are, well you can vote and drive now so shut up. Women face sexism and are treated like we are less than men every bloody day, alot of men do this, probably without even realising most of the time, going to buy a car and the salesman speaks to your husband rather than you eventhough you're the one buying the car, always being asked to make the coffee over male co-workers, as a teenager being warned against having boyfriends when boys your age are encouraged and lauded for the same thing, the list goes on. It's so ingrained in peoples heads they don't even realise they're doing it most of the time and these examples seem small and stupid but they all add up and over time are so ****ing belittling and infuriating. Maybe you've never done any of those things which is great but that doesn't mean they don't happen everyday.

Great post, and I think the bit in bold is very true of most discussions about equality. But yeah this really is what feminism is about for me, not necessarily needing to make big changes (in terms of laws and things) but reinforcing general values, and I think that's where the thoughts of "women already have rights so if they want more then they want to be more than equal" come in because it misunderstands that continued feminism isn't about more and more rights, like the rights are there because they need to be in order to get to a place of equal treatment, as the foundations of it I suppose, but equal treatment still isn't always happening.
As an example I used to help with the recruitment in a company I worked for and my boss would favour male applicants because she had sexist views about men being better workers (and also having to pay for womens maternity leave etc, it was a relatively small business so she would consider the potential costs of that) and really there is no way of stopping someone like that filtering applications accordingly to their prejudice, marking someone more harshly during an interview, etc etc. (I think this is a good example as well as to it not being a men vs women thing in terms of feminism.) She'd also be harsher in general to the female employees when they made mistakes. And equal rights laws being in place isn't actually going to change someone like that's attitudes.
And I think feminism should include areas where men receive poorer treatment than women as well since it's all part of the same thing which is essentially prejudice based on gender and that can come from both men and women, and be directed towards both men and women. There might be more of it directed towards women from men so there's generally more of a focus on that but that shouldn't be a reason to exclude any other issues that arise from gender inequality, like TS says it should be a cooperative thing.

[Livia]

Equality is equality, by definition you need more than one component to equalise. "Women's equality" is a meaningless statement... Women's equality to what? Ducks? Bridges? Small single engined light aircraft?

Likewise, "more than equal" doesn't make anything because "more" negates the use of "equal". Have men historically had more than women, have been on the "privileged side" of an imbalance? Yes, there was an entire absense of equality...

I suppose putting it simply; you can't balance an equation that only has one side. Achieving equality will fundamentally involve cooperation... Failure to understand that - insistence on becoming incensed at the very suggestion ("how dare an oppressor try to have an opinion on how this works!!") - is already extremely close to halting progress and slamming it into reverse. I just hope people realise that before it's too late :shrug:.

I fully support equality for all individuals. I fully accept that there are still many inequalities interwoven into society that affect that equality. But I completely reject the notion that "women en-masse", like some sort of homogenous hive-mind, are better positioned to understand and address those inequalities, than a collective of all individuals working cooperatively to achieve universal equality which would by definition achieve equality for women.

Oh well, that's your view of feminism. And you've used some fairly colourful language and analogies, there, like:

* slamming it into reverse
They do this on the news.... going in reverse/slamming it into reverse.

*"how dare an oppressor try to have an opinion"
Haven't seen anyone except you say that.

* Achieving equality will fundamentally involve cooperation... Failure to understand that - insistence on becoming incensed at the very suggestion
No one fails to understand what you're claiming to understand. And no one is incensed. But were used to men using that kind of language when lecturing us on how many know just as well as women, what's best for them.

Fact is, we're not all ranting man-haters. But if we argue our opinions of Feminism, there is always a man to make a fuss.

[Vicky.]

Thing is, which area do men receive poorer treatment than women? I know the family courts are brought up a lot but thats not based on sex, it goes on who does the majority of childcare...which just usually happens to be the woman in most cases...so yes, women get custody in most cases. Like, if me and my husband divorced tomorrow, he would 'get the kids' because he gets up with them each morning, he takes them to school, he does most of the childcare.

Now if we were a more 'traditional' (read old fashioned :laugh: ) family where I did the childcare and he worked, then I would probably 'get them' and would also generally get child support awarded (which is for the kids, not the parent)

Obviously if there has been abuse or something then who does the bulk of the childcare is disregarded though so that the kids are safe. But our family courts (not sure about in other countries, am talking about the UK) are definitely not this 'award custody to the female' type thing. Its about disrupting the childrens lives the least.


I am all for fighting for things where men are actually genuinely disadvantaged. Just it seems, I cannot actually think of one of these areas. I don't think anyone should be treat more or less favourably because of their sex. Though there are some areas of life where sex matters (things like sports, prisons...anywhere where biology is important)

[Niamh.]

Great post, and I think the bit in bold is very true of most discussions about equality. But yeah this really is what feminism is about for me, not necessarily needing to make big changes (in terms of laws and things) but reinforcing general values, and I think that's where the thoughts of "women already have rights so if they want more then they want to be more than equal" come in because it misunderstands that continued feminism isn't about more and more rights, like the rights are there because they need to be in order to get to a place of equal treatment, as the foundations of it I suppose, but equal treatment still isn't always happening.
As an example I used to help with the recruitment in a company I worked for and my boss would favour male applicants because she had sexist views about men being better workers (and also having to pay for womens maternity leave etc, it was a relatively small business so she would consider the potential costs of that) and really there is no way of stopping someone like that filtering applications accordingly to their prejudice, marking someone more harshly during an interview, etc etc. (I think this is a good example as well as to it not being a men vs women thing in terms of feminism.) She'd also be harsher in general to the female employees when they made mistakes. And equal rights laws being in place isn't actually going to change someone like that's attitudes.
And I think feminism should include areas where men receive poorer treatment than women as well since it's all part of the same thing which is essentially prejudice based on gender and that can come from both men and women, and be directed towards both men and women. There might be more of it directed towards women from men so there's generally more of a focus on that but that shouldn't be a reason to exclude any other issues that arise from gender inequality, like TS says it should be a cooperative thing.

Yeah women can be just as guilty of the sexist attitudes as men 100%.

Oh another example of the negative stereotyping being enforced and validated is when we're driving and on the journey we might come across 4 drivers who will have done something to annoy Gav and 2 of them might be male and the other two female, when it's the male driver it's because they're an idiot but when it's a female it's because she's a female. It's this kind of thing that keeps all these stereotypes and attitudes going in society.

I've seen a few people say that we shouldn't be thinking like we have a hive mind and that we're all individuals etc which I don't disagree with, infact it's absolutely what I believe on a personal level, this is why I get so annoyed about everyday sexism and the pushing of these negative stereotypes

[user104658]

Oh well, that's your view of feminism. And you've used some fairly colourful language and analogies, there, like:

* slamming it into reverse
They do this on the news.... going in reverse/slamming it into reverse.

*"how dare an oppressor try to have an opinion"
Haven't seen anyone except you say that.

* Achieving equality will fundamentally involve cooperation... Failure to understand that - insistence on becoming incensed at the very suggestion
No one fails to understand what you're claiming to understand. And no one is incensed. But were used to men using that kind of language when lecturing us on how many know just as well as women, what's best for them.

Fact is, we're not all ranting man-haters. But if we argue our opinions of Feminism, there is always a man to make a fuss.

"No one" fails to understand this? I'm not saying that anyone on this thread has, but the claim that "no one" fails to understand and especially that "no one" is incensed and combative is clearly false.

The rest of it, is simply a case of you trying to to dismiss my opinions of this "women's only subject" because I'm male. Which is sexist, divisive and unequal, whether that fits the narrative or not. You're supposedly seeking equality whilst promoting exclusion, it's ridiculous.

[Jamie89]

Thing is, which area do men receive poorer treatment than women? I know the family courts are brought up a lot but thats not based on sex, it goes on who does the majority of childcare...which just usually happens to be the woman in most cases...so yes, women get custody in most cases. Like, if me and my husband divorced tomorrow, he would 'get the kids' because he gets up with them each morning, he takes them to school, he does most of the childcare.

Now if we were a more 'traditional' (read old fashioned :laugh: ) family where I did the childcare and he worked, then I would probably 'get them' and would also generally get child support awarded (which is for the kids, not the parent)

Obviously if there has been abuse or something then who does the bulk of the childcare is disregarded though so that the kids are safe. But our family courts (not sure about in other countries, am talking about the UK) are definitely not this 'award custody to the female' type thing. Its about disrupting the childrens lives the least.


I am all for fighting for things where men are actually genuinely disadvantaged. Just it seems, I cannot actually think of one of these areas. I don't think anyone should be treat more or less favourably because of their sex. Though there are some areas of life where sex matters (things like sports, prisons...anywhere where biology is important)

I don't mean in terms of laws I just mean in general life that if there is an instance of it then I'd consider it to fall under the same thing of gender inequality. I don't think I've ever been discriminated against for being a man so it's hard to give examples lol, in fact I'd say I've probably benefited from sexism to a degree as a lot of men probably have at some point or another, but I'm speaking more generally that sometimes there are instances of it, I suppose one example could be that some people don't take male victims of domestic abuse seriously. Or if you have an employer that prefers female employees then of course it's an area where women are more disadvantaged broadly speaking, but if there is an instance of it happening the other way around then I'd consider it to still be an individual example of sexism, and I'm just saying that when it happens it should be considered part of the same problem, rather than being dismissed for being less frequent. Like it's not one side vs the other, if feminism is about equality then theoretically we should treat all issues that may arise from gender inequality the same.

[Vicky.]

I don't mean in terms of laws I just mean in general life that if there is an instance of it then I'd consider it to fall under the same thing of gender inequality. I don't think I've ever been discriminated against for being a man so it's hard to give examples lol, in fact I'd say I've probably benefited from sexism to a degree as a lot of men probably have at some point or another, but I'm speaking more generally that sometimes there are instances of it, I suppose one example could be that some people don't take male victims of domestic abuse seriously. Or if you have an employer that prefers female employees then of course it's an area where women are more disadvantaged broadly speaking, but if there is an instance of it happening the other way around then I'd consider it to still be an individual example of sexism, and I'm just saying that when it happens it should be considered part of the same problem, rather than being dismissed for being less frequent. Like it's not one side vs the other, if feminism is about equality then theoretically we should treat all issues that may arise from gender inequality the same.
Ah right yeah I get you. The male victims of DV thing is definitely a huge issue actually. Male victims of sexual assault also...mind any victim of sexual assault seems to be rubbished and disbelieved or the very disgusting 'well at least you were not raped, could have been worse' :umm2:

Anecdotally among friends (not reporting and official treatment, just friends supporting friends), male victims of DV seem to elicit more sympathy and such. Where female ones get the whole 'what did you do to provoke him' kind of treatment. I do understand that this is not necessarily going to be true across the board though. And the social experiment videos that do the rounds every now and again show definitely sex bias against men. Like, the woman can kick the **** out of a bloke in public and people ignore it, but a man raises his voice and people intervene.

[Redway]

"No one" fails to understand this? I'm not saying that anyone on this thread has, but the claim that "no one" fails to understand and especially that "no one" is incensed and combative is clearly false.

The rest of it, is simply a case of you trying to to dismiss my opinions of this "women's only subject" because I'm male. Which is sexist, divisive and unequal, whether that fits the narrative or not. You're supposedly seeking equality whilst promoting exclusion, it's ridiculous.

ROFL.

Just like when it comes to asking run-of-the-mill white people to know their place when it comes to things they can never fully understand (aka black racism), that’s racist is it? What position are women in to be sexist?

Is there really a power injustice and oppression of straight white men in society for you to accuse a female of being sexist or do you just get high off throwing around silly reverse labels?

[user104658]

ROFL.

Just like when it comes to asking run-of-the-mill white people to know their place when it comes to things they can never fully understand (aka black racism), that’s racist is it? What position are women in to be sexist?

Is there really a power injustice and oppression of straight white men in society for you to accuse a female of being sexist or do you just get high off throwing around silly reverse labels?I have literally no interest in engaging with this, sorry.

[Redway]

I have literally no interest in engaging with this, sorry.

You still found the energy to reply though. Anything that facilitates your sense of white male entitlement.

All of what you’re saying’s like saying black people shouldn’t lead topics about black racism in the same way that white people shouldn’t. You can live in a bubble or drop the affected political correctness and admit that you can’t fully understand what you haven’t experienced on a personal level.

[Vicky.]

I used to be one of those who said reverse racism was a thing and such. Its quite embarrassing looking back. I would say that black people were just as racist as white, if not more. I never really understood power imbalances and class analysis and such until recently.

I was also one of those who would berate the black lives matter movement with the 'surely ALL lives matter' rubbish :umm2: This was not even too long ago. I believe at one stage I also asked why there was not straight pride too.

[Crimson Dynamo]

not that stale pale white male TS using his white privilege to stink out da feminist thread?

:idc:

[user104658]

You still found the energy to reply though. Anything that facilitates your sense of white male privilege.

All of what you’re saying’s like saying black people shouldn’t lead topics about black racism in the same way that white people shouldn’t. You can live in a bubble or drop the affected political correctness and admit that you can’t fully understand what you haven’t experienced on a personal level.

A discussion doesn't need to be lead or dominated to be constructive one between sets of people with varying understanding of the topic. If the only people permitt d to discuss a topic are those who already understand it then there is no need for discussion in the first place.

In your case, however, the issue is more simple;

Any point that you may have is so deeply buried under (not even very passive) aggression, righteous anger, sarcasm and general irrationality that it simply isn't worth engaging with. I'm afraid you might start posting crying-laughing emojis at me. "rofl".

[user104658]

I used to be one of those who said reverse racism was a thing and such. Its quite embarrassing looking back. I would say that black people were just as racist as white, if not more. I never really understood power imbalances and class analysis and such until recently.

I was also one of those who would berate the black lives matter movement with the 'surely ALL lives matter' rubbish :umm2: This was not even too long ago. I believe at one stage I also asked why there was not straight pride too.And apparently you now don't know the difference between personal and institutional -isms or that the impossibility of most institutional -isms doesn't negate personal -isms in any way, shape or form. Have fun with that.

[Vicky.]

I will, thanks :)

Obviously class analysis is pretty useless when applied to singular people as its...class analysis and not about individual people inside that class. I think we have gone over this before actually..and I think it turned out you disagree with class analysis fullstop?

[Redway]

My heart bleeds for all the straight white men who face daily discrimination, it really does.

[Crimson Dynamo]

My heart bleeds for all the straight white men who face daily discrimination, it really does.

still, at least you are not bitter

[Redway]

still, at least you are not bitter


Look at this guy.

[Underscore]

Look at this guy.

You come to expect it off people like him on here - just ignore.

[user104658]

My heart bleeds for all the straight white men who face daily discrimination, it really does.I feel like I'm going to regret continuing to respond, but I feel like I have to point out that you're not doing anyone any favours with this? You're eroding the points of those you probably consider yourself to be on the side of, and you're not effectively arguing against anyone who you probably consider yourself to be "against".

[Livia]

"No one" fails to understand this? I'm not saying that anyone on this thread has, but the claim that "no one" fails to understand and especially that "no one" is incensed and combative is clearly false.

The rest of it, is simply a case of you trying to to dismiss my opinions of this "women's only subject" because I'm male. Which is sexist, divisive and unequal, whether that fits the narrative or not. You're supposedly seeking equality whilst promoting exclusion, it's ridiculous.

You posted the term "fails to understand", I quoted it. I mean people discussing this here and now, the people involved in this discussion, the other people, and myself, reading your posts.

How many times have I, and other women on here said that we are not against men, we don't want them excluded, of course we need them as allies in this... but we don't need them to dictate the debate. I don't see what's sexist or divisive about that.

[Underscore]

How many times have I, and other women on here said that we are not against men, we don't want them excluded, of course we need them as allies in this... but we don't need them to dictate the debate. I don't see what's sexist or divisive about that.

:clap1:

As a male radical feminist, I absolutely agree which is why even though I'd love to be involved in something like the Women's Equality Party I wouldn't be.

[Redway]

I feel like I'm going to regret continuing to respond, but I feel like I have to point out that you're not doing anyone any favours with this? You're eroding the points of those you probably consider yourself to be on the side of, and you're not effectively arguing against anyone who you probably consider yourself to be "against".

The only people I’m against are people who think they can 100% understand things they’ll never experience and chuck around reverse labels whenever they’re called out on it.

Key’s In the word experience. The idea that white men experience sexism on a meaningful scale’s laughable. It might exist according to the dictionary but in reality it’s not even close to being the same thing and you know it. Just like casual black-on-white racism wouldn’t be taken as seriously because it’s nowhere near close to being in the same league.

[smudgie]

Which isn't a bad thing at all of course but young girls should be socialised the same way to feel like their voice is important

You have hit the nail on the head Niamh.

My mother was an absolute nightmare, but she would never be dictated to, by any man (or woman for that matter), we were all brought up in the same stance.
Respect authority but remember you are everyone's equal.

[user104658]

You posted the term "fails to understand", I quoted it. I mean people discussing this here and now, the people involved in this discussion, the other people, and myself, reading your posts.

How many times have I, and other women on here said that we are not against men, we don't want them excluded, of course we need them as allies in this... but we don't need them to dictate the debate. I don't see what's sexist or divisive about that.Well no, but initially the suggestion seemed to be that it should be the alternative (women leading the debate) which is where I disagree, and disagree on a completely fundamental level because I don't personally believe that debates should ever be lead at all. As soon as a debate is lead or restricted in any way it stops being a debate and becomes a soap box. I can fully appreciate that there were probably agenda-driven men trying to shift the conversation for selfish reasons. But I also appreciate that a cause - any cause - can easily be hijacked and wrecked by what some might call extremists... Though I would suggest the opposite. Often they are hijacked by "casuals" who have zero complex understanding of any issue, are not focused on progress, and simply see a "fight to be won"... And I'm sad from convinced that these days those people are in the minority. That certainly doesn't just apply to feminism, but it does apply.

There's a rhetoric that goes around that's just false... To put it in an extreme way... The suggestion that Average Jane necessarily understands more about feminism than an experienced male sociologist is just nonsense. Likewise; suggesting that Bob Next Door necessarily understands more about male mental health issues than an experienced female psychiatrist. And a whole spectrum in-between.

[Vicky.]

:clap1:

As a male radical feminist, I absolutely agree which is why even though I'd love to be involved in something like the Women's Equality Party I wouldn't be.

The WEP are an utter joke tbh. They refuse to even define the word 'woman'. Its impossible to fight for the rights of women without being able to say what a bloody woman is :laugh: If you refuse to see sex, you cannot see sexism.

It gives me a bit of rage tbh, such a great premise but...fell flat almost instantly.

[Niamh.]

You have hit the nail on the head Niamh.

My mother was an absolute nightmare, but she would never be dictated to, by any man (or woman for that matter), we were all brought up in the same stance.
Respect authority but remember you are everyone's equal.

I think for me, having 3 brothers and being the only girl helped with this, I'd be damned if I was going to allow myself to be treated differently to them :laugh:

[user104658]

The only people I’m against are people who think they can 100% understand things they’ll never experience and chuck around reverse labels whenever they’re called out on it.

Key’s In the word experience. The idea that white men experience sexism on a meaningful scale’s laughable. It might exist according to the dictionary but in reality it’s not even close to being the same thing and you know it. Just like casual black-on-white racism wouldn’t be taken as seriously because it’s nowhere near close to being in the same league.

Who is claiming to 100% understand anything? And why does not having 100% understanding of an issue exclude anyone from engaging in a discussion? And what is the point of a group of people with 100% understanding of an issue discussing that issue with each other?

Also, who has claimed that its in the same league and why does that matter when discussing acceptability? Flicking someone's nose isn't in the same league as slapping someone in the face, which is a million miles from stabbing someone in the stomach. Does that mean it's OK to go up and flick someone on the nose, or slap them in the face, "because you didn't stab them in the stomach"? Is it wrong for them to be annoyed about it "because they'll never know what it's like to be stabbed"?

[Brillopad]

Well no, but initially the suggestion seemed to be that it should be the alternative (women leading the debate) which is where I disagree, and disagree on a completely fundamental level because I don't personally believe that debates should ever be lead at all. As soon as a debate is lead or restricted in any way it stops being a debate and becomes a soap box. I can fully appreciate that there were probably agenda-driven men trying to shift the conversation for selfish reasons. But I also appreciate that a cause - any cause - can easily be hijacked and wrecked by what some might call extremists... Though I would suggest the opposite. Often they are hijacked by "casuals" who have zero complex understanding of any issue, are not focused on progress, and simply see a "fight to be won"... And I'm sad from convinced that these days those people are in the minority. That certainly doesn't just apply to feminism, but it does apply.

There's a rhetoric that goes around that's just false... To put it in an extreme way... The suggestion that Average Jane necessarily understands more about feminism than an experienced male sociologist is just nonsense. Likewise; suggesting that Bob Next Door necessarily understands more about male mental health issues than an experienced female psychiatrist. And a whole spectrum in-between.

Intellectual snobbery which in itself is discrimination.

So-called experienced sociologists and psychiatrists often get it wrong which is why so many get let out when still dangerous and go to kill people. Personal experience, instinct and intuition is every bit as valuable as reading books and following policies and procedures.

[Livia]

Well no, but initially the suggestion seemed to be that it should be the alternative (women leading the debate) which is where I disagree, and disagree on a completely fundamental level because I don't personally believe that debates should ever be lead at all. As soon as a debate is lead or restricted in any way it stops being a debate and becomes a soap box. I can fully appreciate that there were probably agenda-driven men trying to shift the conversation for selfish reasons. But I also appreciate that a cause - any cause - can easily be hijacked and wrecked by what some might call extremists... Though I would suggest the opposite. Often they are hijacked by "casuals" who have zero complex understanding of any issue, are not focused on progress, and simply see a "fight to be won"... And I'm sad from convinced that these days those people are in the minority. That certainly doesn't just apply to feminism, but it does apply.

There's a rhetoric that goes around that's just false... To put it in an extreme way... The suggestion that Average Jane necessarily understands more about feminism than an experienced male sociologist is just nonsense. Likewise; suggesting that Bob Next Door necessarily understands more about male mental health issues than an experienced female psychiatrist. And a whole spectrum in-between.

Yes a male sociologist may know more about feminism that Average Jane, but I’m not sure that he'd know more than sociologist Jane, And if he was that experienced, he would expect to (I’m not going to say lead the debate, more) set the agenda. Wouldn’t he feel that there would be enough female sociologists just as qualified?

Men have set all the agenda for so long now, and we’re only really at the very beginning of the rise to real equality. So I’m disappointed that men want to be setting this agenda too, and if a woman doesn’t agree, then she’s being divisive and sexist.

[Northern Monkey]

ROFL.

Just like when it comes to asking run-of-the-mill white people to know their place when it comes to things they can never fully understand (aka black racism), that’s racist is it? What position are women in to be sexist?

Is there really a power injustice and oppression of straight white men in society for you to accuse a female of being sexist or do you just get high off throwing around silly reverse labels?

I can already tell by this post that you’re one of the ‘white people can’t experience racism’ or ‘women can’t be sexist’ power,privilege rah rah rah etc etc crew.

[user104658]

Intellectual snobbery which in itself is discrimination.

So-called experienced sociologists and psychiatrists often get it wrong which is why so many get let out when still dangerous and go to kill people. Personal experience, instinct and intuition is every bit as valuable as reading books and following policies and procedures.I was careful to say "necessarily", Brillo, I'm far from an intellectual snob (I didn't finish my degree and I'm in retail management ffs) but my point is that saying that ALL (of any group) is going to know more about something than ALL (of any other group) is wrong... And therefore, excluding all of any group from a discussion on any topic is also wrong.

[Redway]

I can already tell by this post that you’re one of the ‘white people can’t experience racism’ or ‘women can’t be sexist’ power,privilege rah rah rah etc etc crew.

Not on as deep a scale. Unless you’re talking about Jews and then I’d agree. Definitely not Western Europeans.

[Northern Monkey]

I pretty much agree with everything Toy Soldier has very succinctly wrote.

My opinion is that if feminists want more men (and women also) to get board then drop the term ‘feminism’ as it is absolutely 100% anti equality and outdated and make it more inclusive for everyone.Simple ‘equality’ or even ‘equalism’ would help things massively.
TS has already said this but when it’s set up as one team against another and framed as a battle then it’s doomed to failure as it becomes a war in which neither side backs down.
Feminism is divisive and doesn’t work in modern times where equality is supposed to be the thing.
Society is supposed to be trying to get away from division now.

[Brillopad]

I pretty much agree with everything Toy Soldier has very succinctly wrote.

My opinion is that if feminists want more men (and women also) to get board then drop the term ‘feminism’ as it is absolutely 100% anti equality and outdated and make it more inclusive for everyone.Simple ‘equality’ or even ‘equalism’ would help things massively.
TS has already said this but when it’s set up as one team against another and framed as a battle then it’s doomed to failure as it becomes a war in which neither side backs down.
Feminism is divisive and doesn’t work in modern times where equality is supposed to be the thing.
Society is supposed to be trying to get away from division now.

Feminism simply means believing women are equal to men, nothing more, so why on earth is it divisive. It is not a dirty word.

There is a big difference between ‘equality being the thing’ and people actually practising what they preach.

[Niamh.]

I pretty much agree with everything Toy Soldier has very succinctly wrote.

My opinion is that if feminists want more men (and women also) to get board then drop the term ‘feminism’ as it is absolutely 100% anti equality and outdated and make it more inclusive for everyone.Simple ‘equality’ or even ‘equalism’ would help things massively.
TS has already said this but when it’s set up as one team against another and framed as a battle then it’s doomed to failure as it becomes a war in which neither side backs down.
Feminism is divisive and doesn’t work in modern times where equality is supposed to be the thing.
Society is supposed to be trying to get away from division now.

You can't get away from division by pretending it doesn't exist though

[user104658]

Feminism simply means believing women are equal to men, nothing more, so why on earth is it divisive. It is not a dirty word.

There is a big difference between ‘equality being the thing’ and people actually practising what they preach.The meaning of a word changes over time; it may have meant simply that once, but it's meaning has become so convoluted and complex that at this point it barely means anything. Even people who claim to subscribe to the same "branch" of feminism can't agree on a definition.

[user104658]

You can't get away from division by pretending it doesn't exist thoughTrue, but you certainly can't get away from it by encouraging it?

[Livia]

I pretty much agree with everything Toy Soldier has very succinctly wrote.

My opinion is that if feminists want more men (and women also) to get board then drop the term ‘feminism’ as it is absolutely 100% anti equality and outdated and make it more inclusive for everyone.Simple ‘equality’ or even ‘equalism’ would help things massively.
TS has already said this but when it’s set up as one team against another and framed as a battle then it’s doomed to failure as it becomes a war in which neither side backs down.
Feminism is divisive and doesn’t work in modern times where equality is supposed to be the thing.
Society is supposed to be trying to get away from division now.

As I said in another post... men have set the agenda since the beginning of time, and now things are slowly changing, men want to take on the Feminist agenda too. I'm quite clear on what it means to be a feminist. It is not divisive, it is not sexist... and it appertains to women. So why any man would want to set the agenda is beyond me. Apart from that, men can be as involved as they like. But this is something they can't lead.

[Niamh.]

True, but you certainly can't get away from it by encouraging it?

Acknowledging inequality between the sexes and wanting to do something about it is doing the opposite to encouraging it.

[Livia]

The meaning of a word changes over time; it may have meant simply that once, but it's meaning has become so convoluted and complex that at this point it barely means anything. Even people who claim to subscribe to the same "branch" of feminism can't agree on a definition.

You could say the same about the word Muslim. But I don't know anyone who isn't aware that it's a minority that do the damage, and it's the same with feminists.

[user104658]

As I said in another post... men have set the agenda since the beginning of time, and now things are slowly changing, men want to take on the Feminist agenda too. I'm quite clear on what it means to be a feminist. It is not divisive, it is not sexist... and it appertains to women. So why any man would want to set the agenda is beyond me. Apart from that, men can be as involved as they like. But this is something they can't lead.But this is still the language of division? Which "team" gets to set the agenda, which "group" used to be in charge. But who does "get to" set the agenda? Which group of women? Because they don't all agree... And the idea that "women will get to set the agenda!" relies on the false premise that "women kind" are some sort of homogenous creature in full agreement. The only thing that matters is that progress is made and equality is achieved. Is it even about setting the agenda? Is it not just about constant discussion and adjustment all round?

[Niamh.]

You could say the same about the word Muslim. But I don't know anyone who isn't aware that it's a minority that do the damage, and it's the same with feminists.

It's the same with literally everything because people will be people, a small percentage of football fans give football fans a bad name etc etc

[Ammi]

...I understand what Livia is saying..like with BLM, obviously all lives matter equally but as we know, that’s not what the point and the need is about because black lives haven't felt equality, black lives have suffered suppression and they still strive for equality in many things..and yes, BLM need and appreciate the support of everyone/of white people also but white people cant and shouldn’t aim to suggest an agenda or ‘lead’...all they can do is support....and the same exactly with women and feminism and a man’s support of feminism...it’s actually a percpective I hadn’t considered before in the way Livia is explaining it..

[Ammi]

But this is still the language of division? Which "team" gets to set the agenda, which "group" used to be in charge. But who does "get to" set the agenda? Which group of women? Because they don't all agree... And the idea that "women will get to set the agenda!" relies on the false premise that "women kind" are some sort of homogenous creature in full agreement. The only thing that matters is that progress is made and equality is achieved. Is it even about setting the agenda? Is it not just about constant discussion and adjustment all round?

..yeah I so see, I’ve always seen it all the way you do with ‘equality’...but as I say..with BLM, it could only be the ‘black team’ that could set the agenda, it wouldn’t be for the ‘white team’ to do that because it’s black people striving for equality and their lives to matter equally to white...as it wouldn’t be for anyone other than women to set the agenda of feminism...simply because it has to be that way because in both cases, that’s where the suppression lay and does lie..?..

[user104658]

..yeah I so see, I’ve always seen it all the way you do with ‘equality’...but as I say..with BLM, it could only be the ‘black team’ that could set the agenda, it wouldn’t be for the ‘white team’ to do that because it’s black people striving for equality and their lives to matter equally to white...as it wouldn’t be for anyone other than women to set the agenda of feminism...simply because it has to be that way because in both cases, that’s where the suppression lay and does lie..?..But WHICH black people? WHICH women? The whole premise relies on the idea that all black people / all women have the same ideas, would go the same way, would set the same agenda. That they are the same, that they think the same things, have the same traits and ideas. I find that entire concept problematic in itself... That is the sort of thinking that LEADS to sexism. The concept that all members of "a grouping" have the same agenda is a form of prejudice in itself, whether that supposed agenda is a positive or negative one.

[Vicky.]

I don't think anyone is saying all black people have a hive mind. Just that in discussions/movements about racism, black people should be leading the way and basically, white people can support it and stand with the black people if they chose (and hopefully they would/do), but they do not get to tell black people what is or is not racist, or say 'oh well white people are treat badly too, what are you doing for them? Its not about equality if you are only concerned about black people and not white people'

Ditto feminism. Male allies, brilliant. Men telling women what is not sexist (or that women are now equal...), or saying that women should be focusing on mens rights, or anything like that is not.

[user104658]

I don't think anyone is saying all black people have a hive mind. Just that in discussions/movements about racism, black people should be leading the way and basically, white people can support it and stand with the black people if they chose (and hopefully they would/do), but they do not get to tell black people what is or is not racist, or say 'oh well white people are treat badly too, what are you doing for them? Its not about equality if you are only concerned about black people and not white people'Which black people.

[Vicky.]

Any black people tbh :laugh:

Edit. Also sorry edited that last comment so many times to try and get my point across and seemingly still didn't manage it. Am not the best at explaining what I mean but it makes sense in my head

[Vicky.]

The reason there are so many 'branches' of feminism is precisely because women do think differently. But the overall aim of all feminists is all the same, to free women from oppression.

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.

Is a definition of feminism that I understand it to be. 'Wanting equality' is a bit too simplistic for me. But that may just be semantics

[Maru]

Very well said Livia.

Of course male allys is a good thing. But men trying to basically...take over and tell women they are doing feminism wrong, well...thats a bit not good.

And so many men cannot help but dominate a conversation. Its socialized into them. Thats not an insult as socialization is extremely hard to fight (I have tried and failed many many times) so men being socialized to dominate and be strong, while women are socialized to be 'nice' and put others first..well its not a good combination is it...

Vicky, I will use your post as an example for my thoughts.

@Red This is a stereotype.

Ok, now apply this to a "protected group"... this conversation would be a non-starter obviously, but we're "socialized" to disregard bias against men, particularly white men.

This is why I said I think using labels and groups is going backwards. It's going backwards on decades of growth in individualism, which I would argue is what ushered the modern era and our strides in equality. When see each other as individuals, this is progress... when start to see each other as labels and as members of a group, then that is going backwards, back to group think and tribalism.

When we inherit groupthink, it is automatically tribal from the outset, whereas with the individual, we are not accountable to a group, we are accountable to ourselves. Which means the payment for failure is quite low for groups, but much higher for an individual and more personally felt.

If the group fails to account for it's own biases or an individual misbehaves, the group won't really flench unless it threatens it's hierarchy and continues on it's own way. So as long as the individual stays well within the group's philosophy and don't do anything stupid like "betray" the group :laugh: then they will share the same protective ward of the rest of the group.

If the individual misbehaves on it's own, it's not empowered by the group, so no sense of immunity there, and therefore, much less likely to act out in a way that would face consequences for any sort of bigotry. (we see this on BB on every season)

This is why we've come as far as we have, because while there has always been a "community" in a much larger but looser sense of the term, the focus has been on the individual and we were not engaging in "group". Movements like these work waaaaay better when they enable individuals to speak for themselves, but not speak for them.

When we break ourselves into up into little groups, all we're doing is reusing the same exact weapons that created bias, in-equal treatment and prejudice throughout history. And those weapons are poisoned.

[Vicky.]

Yes it is a stereotype. Obviously not all men are like that (hence the 'so many'). It is a fact though, that men and women are socialized differently. Its something thats extremely hard to disregard as its almost ingrained. I have tried to 'decondition' myself from the urge to be nice, and allow others to take centre stage and such. I seem to have almost managed it sometimes but then I lapse right back and its ****ing annoying :laugh: Its not something thats even conscious so much of the time.

There are literally endless studies on male/female socialization, so its not really a stereotype such as..I don't know..blonde people are stupid or something. A totally random (and offensive in this case) grouping. Socialization is a very very real thing, that affects almost all people.

[Jack_]

I completely recognise my privilege as a white, (temporarily) able-bodied male, and agree with the importance of acknowledging one's social standing before passing judgement on issues of social exclusion and discrimination. I do however find it a bit rich and amusing that a few of the people who have been asking for such in both this and other threads over the last few days, are routinely those who freely pass judgement, denigrate or indeed minimise issues that affect other marginalised groups they are not a part of, like Muslims, BME people or members of the LGBT+ community. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

That brings me on nicely to my answer to the thread title, however. I think feminism (and, actually, many other social causes) should be intersectional. Women are not one universalised, homogeneous group who are marginalised in all the same way. It is important to recognise how the many other axes of identity that make up a person will position them very differently to others. Rather than seeing the plight of women and black people as fundamentally different, we should instead use intersectionality as a frame of reference to position individuals as marginalised under several different strands of social identity. To put it another way, the issues facing a white, heterosexual, middle class, (temporarily) able-bodied woman are never going to be the same as those facing a black, homosexual, working class, disabled woman. The former, while still a woman, is privileged in multiple ways that the latter is not. Issues of social injustice transgress many different social axes, and to truly understand (and resolve) the marginalisation that a person may face, we must first use intersectionality as an analytical tool.

Here's a great TED Talk from the woman who coined the term back in 1989, Kimberlé Crenshaw:

akOe5-UsQ2o

Now, the history of and different strands of feminism are far beyond the scope of a post on a Big Brother forum, and indeed any one piece of literature - but for anyone interested here's a useful starting point for an overview of the equality-difference debate integral to a lot of feminist scholarship:

https://www.mheducation.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335204155.pdf

(The chapter entitled Equal or Different? The Perennial Feminist Problematic, pp. 8-24)

[Brillopad]

I completely recognise my privilege as a white, (temporarily) able-bodied male, and agree with the importance of acknowledging one's social standing before passing judgement on issues of social exclusion and discrimination. I do however find it a bit rich and amusing that a few of the people who have been asking for such in both this and other threads over the last few days, are routinely those who freely pass judgement, denigrate or indeed minimise issues that affect other marginalised groups they are not a part of, like Muslims, BME people or members of the LGBT+ community. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

That brings me on nicely to my answer to the thread title, however. I think feminism (and, actually, many other social causes) should be intersectional. Women are not one universalised, homogeneous group who are marginalised in all the same way. It is important to recognise how the many other axes of identity that make up a person will position them very differently to others. Rather than seeing the plight of women and black people as fundamentally different, we should instead use intersectionality as a frame of reference to position individuals as marginalised under several different strands of social identity. To put it another way, the issues facing a white, heterosexual, middle class, (temporarily) able-bodied woman are never going to be the same as those facing a black, homosexual, working class, disabled woman. The former, while still a woman, is privileged in multiple ways that the latter is not. Issues of social injustice transgress many different social axes, and to truly understand (and resolve) the marginalisation that a person may face, we must first use intersectionality as an analytical tool.

Here's a great TED Talk from the woman who coined the term back in 1989, Kimberlé Crenshaw:

https://www.ted.com/talks/kimberle_crenshaw_the_urgency_of_intersectionality

Now, the history of and different strands of feminism are far beyond the scope of a post on a Big Brother forum, and indeed any one piece of literature - but for anyone interested here's a useful starting point for an overview of the equality-difference debate integral to a lot of feminist scholarship:

https://www.mheducation.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335204155.pdf

(The chapter entitled Equal or Different? The Perennial Feminist Problematic, pp. 8-24)

As regards the first paragraph we would all undoubtedly be or feel marginalised if we went to live in a different country especially one with a very different culture and if we made little effort to assimilate. Hardly that surprising.

But to make a comparison with women born and raised here with a history going back centuries in exactly the same way as their male counterparts and who make up an equal percentage of the population and yet are still made to feel marginalized and second-class is not the same. It is not a credible comparison. To suggest so is a bit rich to say the least, although actually not so amusing. So get of your high horse.

[Jack_]

As regards the first paragraph we would all undoubtedly be or feel marginalised if we went to live in a different country especially one with a very different culture and if we made little effort to assimilate. Hardly that surprising.

But to make a comparison with women born and raised here with a history going back centuries in exactly the same way as their male counterparts and who make up an equal percentage of the population and yet are still made to feel marginalized and second-class is not the same. It is not a credible comparison. To suggest so is a bit rich to say the least, although actually not so amusing. So get of your high horse.

You are, rather ironically as a feminist, using a minoritising view towards an issue of social exclusion there. Rather than a marginalised group being the product of societal attitudes and structural oppression, it is their fault and their problem - 'made very little effort to assimilate. Hardly that surprising'. That's nice.

You've also, unsurprisingly, completely missed the point of my post. I recognised my privilege as a white, (temporarily) able-bodied male immediately, and agreed that those arguing that a man's position on issues of female oppression are only valid to a certain extent - do in fact have a point. I was merely noting that a few of the posters (and yes, you are one of them) who were making such arguments, are also ones who routinely feel it is their place to pass judgement on, denigrate or even minimise the discrimination and marginalisation that other groups face - of which they have no personal stake or experience in. Like I said, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot argue that it isn't a man's place to talk about feminism and then ten minutes later as a heterosexual non-Muslim start saying that Islamaphobia is not a problem, or that the LGBT+ community need to "get over" something. Either you wish people to recognise their privilege before passing comment on social injustices - which is a perfectly legitimate request - or disagree with the sentiment entirely. You don't get to pick and choose which social causes you and others get to comment on. That's a high horse you need to step down from.

[MTVN]

Why are you temporarily able bodied :suspect:

[Niamh.]

Why are you temporarily able bodied :suspect:

I was wondering this too :suspect:

[user104658]

Why are you temporarily able bodied :suspect:

Surely because the horrible reality is that, eventually, we all go downhill :worry:.

[Redway]

Temporarily able-bodied?

[Brillopad]

You are, rather ironically as a feminist, using a minoritising view towards an issue of social exclusion there. Rather than a marginalised group being the product of societal attitudes and structural oppression, it is their fault and their problem - 'made very little effort to assimilate. Hardly that surprising'. That's nice.

You've also, unsurprisingly, completely missed the point of my post. I recognised my privilege as a white, (temporarily) able-bodied male immediately, and agreed that those arguing that a man's position on issues of female oppression are only valid to a certain extent - do in fact have a point. I was merely noting that a few of the posters (and yes, you are one of them) who were making such arguments, are also ones who routinely feel it is their place to pass judgement on, denigrate or even minimise the discrimination and marginalisation that other groups face - of which they have no personal stake or experience in. Like I said, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot argue that it isn't a man's place to talk about feminism and then ten minutes later as a heterosexual non-Muslim start saying that Islamaphobia is not a problem, or that the LGBT+ community need to "get over" something. Either you wish people to recognise their privilege before passing comment on social injustices - which is a perfectly legitimate request - or disagree with the sentiment entirely. You don't get to pick and choose which social causes you and others get to comment on. That's a high horse you need to step down from.

So you think it’s a reasonable comparison do you, comparing the plight of a minority group with very diferent views on many things, including the equality of women, to 50% of the indigenous population.

How wholly unacceptable for any Western woman to feel opposed to an even more sexist culture coming to our country and trying to tell Western women how to dress and and how to a act. Women should for ever play the martyr hey! Not this woman. Maybe male attitudes like yours are precisely why 50% of the population are still having to fight for their rights.

[Jack_]

Why are you temporarily able bodied :suspect:

It's a term that emerged from scholarship on the social model of disability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability), as a means of attempting to break down the distinction between "disabled people" and "able-bodied people". The basic notion is that if we see ourselves as only temporarily able-bodied - that we can and could be impaired at any time - we can begin to empathise and come up with solutions to help those that society has disabled, quicker than if it were something we could not relate to. It's usage is contested and it's not something I use often, but in the context of acknowledging my privilege I felt it was appropriate.

[Jack_]

So you think it’s a reasonable comparison do you, comparing the plight of a minority group with very diferent views on many things, including the equality of women, to 50% of the indigenous population.

How wholly unacceptable for any Western woman to feel opposed to an even more sexist culture coming to our country and trying to tell Western women how to dress and and how to a act. Women should for ever play play the martyr hey! Not this woman. Maybe your attitude is an indication of why 50% of the population are still having to fight for their rights.

All this reply tells me is that you didn't read my initial post properly at all, because the plight and injustice that women face is not all the same. Women are not one homogenous group, the various intersections of social identity all have a profound impact on one's social standing and any discrimination and marginalisation they may experience. I would encourage you to watch and read the material I provided and then get back to me, because you have misinterpreted my post completely.

[Brillopad]

All this reply tells me is that you didn't read my initial post properly at all, because the plight and injustice that women face is not all the same. Women are not one homogenous group, the various intersections of social identity all have a profound impact on one's social standing and any discrimination and marginalisation they may experience. I would encourage you to watch and read the material I provided and then get back to me, because you have misinterpreted my post completely.

I was responding to one paragraph of your post as I made clear. Even women of a higher social standing still experience sexism from their male counterparts. Sexism crosses all social boundaries so it still affects 50% of the population one way or another. Are you trying to suggest it doesn’t.

A good example is all those professional actresses who have recently come out to expose the sexism in Hollywood. It’s everywhere despite it allegedly being a progressive society. It’s seems some are too focused on minority groups (the more fashionable cause) to even acknowledge the plight of 50% of its own.

[Maru]

Individualism: A New View Of Feminism

From a talk presented for the Institute for Humane Studies, at Marymount University, Arlington, Virginia, on June 22, 2001.
by Wendy McElroy

Women are the equals of men and should be treated as such.

For most people, the foregoing statement is the core of what feminism means. But what is equal? How is equality defined?

For example, does it mean equality under existing laws and equal representation in existing institutions? Or does it involve a socio-economic equality -- a redistribution of wealth and power -- that, in turn, requires new laws and an overturning of existing institutions. It could involve cultural equality by which women are accorded the same level of respect as men with sexual harassment laws, for example, enforcing that respect.

The manner in which the word "equality" is defined is a litmus test by which different schools of feminism can be distinguished from each other.

Throughout the 19th century, the mainstream of American feminism defined "equality" as equal treatment with men under existing laws and equal representation within existing institutions. More revolutionary feminists protested that the existing laws and institutions were the source of injustice and, as such, could not be reformed. The system had to be swept away before women's rights could be secured.

In simplistic terms, the two more revolutionary traditions were socialist feminism, from which contemporary radical feminism draws heavily, and individualist feminism, which is sometimes called libertarian feminism. These two traditions differed dramatically in their approaches to equality.

To socialist feminism, equality was a socioeconomic term. Women could be equal only after private property and the economic relationships it encouraged -- that is, capitalism -- were eliminated. Equality was also a cultural goal. The 19th century parallel to the 20th century rebellion against 'white male culture' -- against pornography, for example -- is to be found in the 19th century social purity crusades over such issues as temperance. The social purity campaigns attempted to impose 'virtue'-- that is, to impose a morally proper behavior upon society through the force of law -- in much the same way that modern feminism attempts to impose political correctness.

To individualist feminism, equality was achieved when the individual rights of women were fully acknowledged under laws that identically protected the person and property of men and women. It made no reference to being economically or socially equal, only to equal treatment under the laws that governed society in such a manner as to protect person and property.

In an ideal society, the legal system would make no distinction based upon secondary characteristics, such as sex, but would protect the rights each individual equally. Women would neither be oppressed by nor receive any privileges under the law. This society does not exist. As long as the law distinguishes between the sexes, women need to stand up and demand their full and equal rights. No more, no less. This demand forms the political crux of individualist feminism.

This article focuses on the two revolutionary forms of feminism, which are diametrically opposite to each other ideologically and define the two extremes of feminism: radical feminism and individualist feminism.

Speaking in 20th century terms, how do they define equality? For radical feminism, equality is socio-economic and cultural. That is, the class distinctions between the genders must be eliminated so that men and women can enjoy social, economic, political and sexual parity. To achieve this, it is necessary to sweep away patriarchy, which is a combination of white male culture and capitalism.

For individualist feminism, equality still means equal treatment of men and women under laws that protect person and property. Individualist feminism says nothing about whether the resulting wealth should be spread equally between the sexes. That kind of division could only be achieved through the imposition of law, through State intervention over people's lives and property. This is precisely what individualist feminism opposes -- the use of force in society.

Let me provide an example of why this last statement is as revolutionary. Consider the issue of marriage. Mainstream feminism says, "Reform divorce laws to make them just." Individualist feminism says, "the very existence of marriage/divorce laws is an injustice because the State has no proper authority over what should be a private contract between individuals."

The word "just" has appeared. Briefly, I want to consider how the two forms of feminism approach the concept of justice.

Radical feminism approaches justice as an end state; by which I mean, it provides a specific picture of what constitutes a just society. A just society would be one without patriarchy or capitalism in which the socio-economic and cultural equality of women was fully expressed. In other words, justice is a specific end state in which society embodies specific economic, political and cultural arrangements. It says employers shall pay men and women equally, no one should publish pornography, sexual comments in the workplace must be outlawed.

By contrast, the individualist feminist approach to justice is means-oriented: that is it refers primarily to methodology. The methodology is "anything that is peaceful." The only end-state individualist feminism envisions is the protection of person and property -- that is, the removal of force and fraud from society.

Otherwise stated, justice is not embodied in a specifically defined end-state: whatever society results from the free and peaceful choices of individuals are, politically-speaking, a just society. Aspects of the society may not be moral and individualist feminists may use education, protest, boycott, and moral suasion -- the whole slate of persuasive strategies -- to affect change. What they will not do is use force in the form of government law to restrict peaceful choices.

The conflicting concepts of justice between radical and individualist feminism highlight one of the key differences in their approach to social problems: namely, the willingness of socialist or radical feminists to use the State. This difference is not surprising when you realize that the radical feminist ideal of justice *can* by established by the use of force, by the State. You can, for example, impose a specific economic arrangement on society. You can arrest people for over-charging or for bad hiring practices. But you cannot use force to impose a purely voluntary society: it is a contradiction in terms.

Leaving theory, I want to provide a sense of the unique history of individualist feminism within America.

As an organized force, feminism can be dated from the abolitionist movement that arose in the early 1830s. And the two dominant ideological influences on the feminism that arose were Quakerism and individualism. Many courageous women advanced the status of women prior to that date. For example, in the 17th century, Anne Hutchinson led the first organized attack on the Puritan orthodoxy of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. But these women spoke out as individuals rather than as part of a self-conscious movement dedicated to women's rights.

Abolitionism was the radical anti-slavery movement that demanded the immediate cessation of slavery on the grounds that every human being was a self-owner: every human being had a moral jurisdiction over his or her own body.

Gradually, abolitionist women began to apply the principle of self-ownership to themselves. The abolitionist feminist Abbie Kelley observed: "We have good cause to be grateful to the slave, for the benefit we have received to ourselves, in working for him. In striving to strike his irons off, we found most surely that we were manacled ourselves."

Within abolitionism, women's rights stirred hot debate. Perhaps the strongest advocate of women's rights was the libertarian William Lloyd Garrison, editor of the Liberator, who insisted that anti-slavery was a battle for human rights, not male rights.

Then, a watershed event occurred: the 1840 World Anti-Slavery Conference in London, England. The abolitionist feminism Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who attended the 1840 World Anti-Slavery Conference in London, was embittered by the dismissive treatment women received from the less-enlightened Englishmen. Garrison, who also attended, had been so outraged that he withdrew from the floor to the curtained off section to which the women were relegated.

Later, with the Quaker Lucretia Mott, Stanton planned the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention to discuss women's rights. There, women's suffrage resolution was introduced: "Resolved, that it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise." The resolution met strong resistance from Mott and other members of the old guard of abolitionist feminists who were deeply opposed to using government to solve social problems. But it passed.

Unfortunately for the American individualist tradition -- in all its manifestations -- the Civil War erupted. If 'War is the health of state', as Randolph Bourne claimed, then it is the death of individualism. There are many reasons for this; one of them being that individualism is, at its roots, an anti-Statist ideology, and war involves an increase in State power that never seems to roll back to its prewar level when peace is declared.

After the war, the key issue for feminism became the Constitution; women wished to be included in the wording of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments that aimed at securing freedom for blacks. The Fourteenth Amendment introduced the word "male" into the United States Constitution. The Fifteenth Amendment assured that the right to vote could not be abridged because of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It made no reference to sex. The abolitionist women felt betrayed. Susan B. Anthony wrote, "We repudiated man's counsels forever." This became a pivotal point at which mainstream feminism became alienated from men.

At this juncture, the feminist movement diversified, with the mainstream focusing its efforts into a drive for woman's suffrage. Other feminists were suspicious of political solutions to social problems.

Individualist feminism found expression within a variety of social movements, especially free love, free thought, and individualist anarchism. There, these feminists functioned as a radical segment, where they represented and pursued the interests of women.

The most important vehicle was the free love movement that sought to separate the State from sexual matters such as marriage, adultery, divorce, and birth control. Free love demanded that such matters be left to the conscience and contracts of those involved. Consider free love, very briefly...

In 1889, a woman who had just risked her life in a self-induced abortion wrote to the libertarian periodical, Lucifer the Light Bearer, pleading:

"I know I am dreadful wicked, but I am sure to be in the condition from which I risked my life to be free, and I cannot stand it...Would you know of any appliance that will prevent conception? If there is anything reliable, you will save my life by telling me of it."

The woman wrote to Lucifer -- published and edited by Moses Harman -- because, in the late 1800s, it was one of the few forums openly promoting birth control. Moses Harman insisted that woman's self-ownership fully acknowledged in all sexual arrangements.

Unfortunately, Harman ran counter to the Comstock Act (1873), which prohibited the mailing of obscene matter but did not define what constituted obscenity. Whatever it was, it specifically included contraceptives and birth control information. A witchhunt ensued.

Against this backdrop, Harman began his "free word" policy by which he refused to edit correspondence to Lucifer that contained explicit language. Harman maintained, "Words are not deeds, and it is not the province of civil law to take preventative measures against remote or possible consequences of words, no matter how violent or incendiary." He openly discussed birth control.

In 1887, the staff of Lucifer was arrested for the publication of three letters and indicted on 270 counts of obscenity. One letter had described the plight of a woman whose husband forced sex upon her even though it tore the stitches from a recent operation. It is a very early analysis of forced sex within marriage constituting rape.

Harman's legal battles against the Comstock laws continued from 1887 through to 1906, his last imprisonment during which he spent a year at hard labor, often breaking rocks for eight hours a day in the Illinois snow. Harman was 75 at the time."

Interestingly, when the authorities came to arrest Harman in 1887, his 16-year old daughter Lillian was not present. She was in jail herself, having been arrested for engaging in a private marriage -- that is, a marriage that consisted of a private contract, without Church or State involvement. At that ceremony, Moses had refused to give his daughter away, stating that she was the owner of her person.

The Harman episode is not a tale of individualist feminism because he championed birth control. A number of traditions did that. Harman was an individualist feminist because of the ideology and methodology he used. He based his arguments on women's self-ownership and extended this principle to all arrangements, sexual and economic. He refused to use the State in personal relationships because he considered it to be the institutionalization of force in society. He actively opposed laws that restricted peaceful behavior.

Moses Harman -- along with Voltairine de Cleyre -- are the most prominent figures from the 19th century. In their own time, such figures as Harman were well recognized by contemporary radicals. Emma Goldman in her autobiography "Living My Life" credited him with being a pioneer who made her birth control work possible. In 1907, when George Bernard Shaw was asked why he did not tour America, he replied if the "brigands" could imprison Moses Harman for expressing basically the same views set forth in his play Man and Superman he did not care to come to America and test his luck. It is a travesty that he is forgotten today.

So with a small taste of history, let's move back to theory.

Arguably, the most important concept in feminism today is "class." There are men, there are women, they are separate classes...or so the theory goes.

The foregoing statement is different than the tradition "war between the sexes." That war refers to the fact that, in the same circumstances, men and women often want different things and, so, come into conflict. For example, on a date men are typically said to want sex whereas women are said to seek a relationship. This is not the conflict to which I am referring. I am talking about a war of the gender.

A class is nothing more than an arbitrary grouping of entities that share common characteristics as determined from a certain epistemological point of view. In short, what constitutes a class is defined by the purposes of the definer. For example, a researcher studying drug addiction may break society into classes of drug using and non-drug using people. Classes can be defined by almost any factor salient to the definer.

For radical feminists, gender is the salient factor. Many fields of endeavor use biology as a dividing line. For example, medicine often separates the sexes in order to apply different medical treatment and techniques. Women are examined for breast cancer and men for prostate problems. But medicine does not claim that the basic interests of men and women as human beings conflict or even diverge. The sexes share a basic biology that requires the same approach of nutrition, exercise and common sense lifestyle choices. In short, although the biology of the sexes differs, they share the same goal of good health, which can be defined and pursued in roughly the same manner.

By contrast, radical feminism advocates a theory of fundamental class conflict based on gender. It claims that males not only share a biological identity but also a political and social one. The political interests of men are in necessary conflict with those of women.

The concept of class conflict is widely associated with Karl Marx, who popularized it as a tool to predict the political interests and social behavior of individuals. Once the class affiliation of an individual was known, his or her behavior became predictable. To Marx, the salient feature defining a person's class was his relationship to the means of production: was he a capitalist or a worker? This is a form of relational class analysis that describes a class in terms of its relationship to an institution.

Radical feminism has adapted this theory. Catherine MacKinnon refers to the analysis as "post-Marxist." By this, she means that radical feminism embraces many aspects of Marxism but rejects its insistence that economic status, not gender, is the salient political factor that determines a class. Thus, radical feminism incorporates such Marxist/socialist ideas as "surplus labor" through which one class is said to use the free market in order to commit economic theft upon another class. (An example of surplus labor in radical feminism is unsalaried housework.) The classification 'male' becomes so significant that it predicts and determines how the individuals within that class will behave. Thus, radical feminists can level accusations of "rapist" at non-violent men because they are beneficiaries of 'the rape culture' established by patriarchy.

To prevent the oppression of women, it is necessary to deconstruct the institutions through men control women -- institutions such as the free market

This class analysis makes no sense within the framework of individualist feminism that declares all human beings to have the same political interests.

Individualism has a long and differing tradition of class analysis. The salient factor by which people are categorized is whether he or she uses force in society. Do they acquire wealth or power through merit and productivity or do they use aggression, often in the form of law, to appropriate wealth and power from others? Expressed in the most basic form, individualist feminism asks, "are you a member of the political or productive class?" This, too, is a form of relational class analysis because it asks, "What is your relationship to the State?"

Individualist feminism class analysis does not predict the behavior of individuals. Both men and women can use the political means. An individual can change his or her class affiliation at will, abandoning the use of force and adopting the economic means instead. In short, classes within individualist feminist analysis are fluid. This is not true of radical feminist analysis that is based on biology. Within radical feminism, classes are static.

This difference has many implications. One is that individualist feminist class analysis offers no predictive value. Just because an individual has been a member of the political class in the past says nothing about whether he or she will continue to be so in the future.

This fluidity has a further implication. Namely, there is no necessary conflict between the genders. The fact that men have oppressed women in the past says nothing about whether they will oppress women in the future. Whether an individual man is an oppressor or a friend depends on whether he uses the political means and this is a matter of his conscious choice. Men are not the enemy.

Conclusion

Radical and individualist feminism constitute the two extremes of the feminist movement. One advocates state-control; the other, self-control. One considers men to be the enemy; the other embraces men as valued partners. But the most important feature of the ideological divide is individualist feminism's insistence on applying the radically personal principle "A woman's body, a woman's right" across the board to all issues.

For most men who are feminists, they are of the individualist/libertarian variety, as this was the version they were sold on. So I don't think male pushback is due to social constructs of dominance as much as the "newer" form is a new version seemingly being snuck in it's place.

[LukeB]

Feminism is a load of women that take things too far and try to trash men. Feminists are just a hate group really and say it's all equality but it's trashing men

https://78.media.tumblr.com/d72f0d773354e64ef327e6a5fc29ade0/tumblr_nsw7x0M8Dg1r3jqyco2_400.gif

[RileyH]

https://78.media.tumblr.com/d72f0d773354e64ef327e6a5fc29ade0/tumblr_nsw7x0M8Dg1r3jqyco2_400.gif

:joker::joker::joker:

[RileyH]

https://78.media.tumblr.com/db19bc7dba139732bbb40a59c10a6bb8/tumblr_nsw7x0M8Dg1r3jqyco3_400.gif

[thesheriff443]

A woman will judge another woman.

A house wife will judge a stripper.

A mum will judge her daughter

A daughter will judge her mum

Women don't see all women as the same.

[Ashley.]

Equality. That's it.

Women who believe they are owed more in the world than men, aren't feminists.

[Ammi]

But WHICH black people? WHICH women? The whole premise relies on the idea that all black people / all women have the same ideas, would go the same way, would set the same agenda. That they are the same, that they think the same things, have the same traits and ideas. I find that entire concept problematic in itself... That is the sort of thinking that LEADS to sexism. The concept that all members of "a grouping" have the same agenda is a form of prejudice in itself, whether that supposed agenda is a positive or negative one.

...I have no answer for which black people or which women, TS...because that’s kind of complicated in itself although it’s also quite simple as well...:laugh:...no, women don’t all have the same ideas and thoughts of how feminism and that equality that so many of us hope for can progress as it has to ...because the ‘goal’ as it were, has not yet been reached...and yeah, it’s obviously the thing for it all to keep that progression and minimise hindering if possible...just touching on Black lives Matter again, as being a similar thing..?...well not exactly BLM but what Spike Lee said when he talked about the Oscars and diversity in Hollywood and acting roles...and how it was important to have more black representation in that ‘decision making’/on the ground level as it were...of who gets parts and who doesn’t, and what ‘dictates’ and sets agendas, as it were, whether a part/character which has previously been portrayed as a white or as a male even, I guess would be more keeping with the topic...?...I mean if those rooms, those Hollywood rooms of decision making with these things have been mostly and predominantly ‘white’...then surely, the black voices become those that are important to have because white voices have prevented diversity, is what he’s saying...so then, we go around in circles..:laugh:...because then, are we not giving those white voices and white decision makers etc, equality because the progress and diversity that we seek and hope for would mean giving the black voices the greater voice and say as it were, to try to ‘level’...yeah it doesn’t feel equal to me in what I feel feminism is, but maybe it’s a ‘necessity’ though, that sometimes things can’t always feel equal but they’re necessary...I’m not saying..that’s the best way, or that’s not the best way etc in my opinion...it’s just really that what Liv has said has set those old thoughts going again in opening up another percpective that I personally hadn’t been considering so much before but I think is really valid as well...

[user104658]

OK but then it becomes a bit of a checkbox, doesn't it? Tile insistence that women must lead the discussion... But, inevitably, as women are obviously individuals, it doesn't take much searching for a male to find a female opinion that mirrors their own. So say, for example, you and me had the same or a similar view on a feminist issue that was in direct contradiction to another female's view... It wouldn't be OK for me to say "I don't agree with that, I think ________" because that would be a male disagreeing with a female opinion on feminism (and thus going against the rule that only females may lead the discussion, and so invalid and easily dismissed)..... But it WOULD be OK for me to say "I don't agree with that, I agree with Ammi" because you are female so the counter opinion is now validated? Even if once you peel back a layer, it is EXACTLY the same opinion? It doesn't really make sense to me.

Likewise with BLM, some black people agree with the movement and others do not. It would be a huge - and actually racist - stereotype to say "you must agree with the BLM message because you are black" to a black person. And therefore, all a non-black person has to do to express skepticism of BLM, is say that they agree with a black person who expresses skepticism of BLM.

It all seems a bit convoluted and driven by some sort of "rules system" that I'm not sure anyone ever actually agreed to. It would surely be much quicker to just consider all opinions on all subjects to be equally valid, and then explain why you believe an opinion to be misguided or incorrect.

Maybe that's where the problem lies. People mistakenly believe that acknowledging that an opinion is valid is the same thing as agreeing with that opinion or thinking that it is in any way factually correct. Which isn't the case.

In other words... If I talk **** about a female issue that I clearly have misunderstood, tell me that I'm doing so, by all means. Don't tell me that I'm not allowed to have an opinion in the first place because of some arbitrary birth attribute... Because whilst no, it isn't the same as functional or historical sexism / racism and doesn't "affect me the same way" as those things, it IS still exactly the same mindset as the one that lead to -isms existing in the first place.

Judge the opinion. Discuss the opinion. Try to find common ground. Don't get hung up on the other details. SURELY that is the entire point.

[Ammi]

OK but then it becomes a bit of a checkbox, doesn't it? Tile insistence that women must lead the discussion... But, inevitably, as women are obviously individuals, it doesn't take much searching for a male to find a female opinion that mirrors their own. So say, for example, you and me had the same or a similar view on a feminist issue that was in direct contradiction to another female's view... It wouldn't be OK for me to say "I don't agree with that, I think ________" because that would be a male disagreeing with a female opinion on feminism (and thus going against the rule that only females may lead the discussion, and so invalid and easily dismissed)..... But it WOULD be OK for me to say "I don't agree with that, I agree with Ammi" because you are female so the counter opinion is now validated? Even if once you peel back a layer, it is EXACTLY the same opinion? It doesn't really make sense to me.

Likewise with BLM, some black people agree with the movement and others do not. It would be a huge - and actually racist - stereotype to say "you must agree with the BLM message because you are black" to a black person. And therefore, all a non-black person has to do to express skepticism of BLM, is say that they agree with a black person who expresses skepticism of BLM.

It all seems a bit convoluted and driven by some sort of "rules system" that I'm not sure anyone ever actually agreed to. It would surely be much quicker to just consider all opinions on all subjects to be equally valid, and then explain why you believe an opinion to be misguided or incorrect.

Maybe that's where the problem lies. People mistakenly believe that acknowledging that an opinion is valid is the same thing as agreeing with that opinion or thinking that it is in any way factually correct. Which isn't the case.

In other words... If I talk **** about a female issue that I clearly have misunderstood, tell me that I'm doing so, by all means. Don't tell me that I'm not allowed to have an opinion in the first place because of some arbitrary birth attribute... Because whilst no, it isn't the same as functional or historical sexism / racism and doesn't "affect me the same way" as those things, it IS still exactly the same mindset as the one that lead to -isms existing in the first place.

Judge the opinion. Discuss the opinion. Try to find common ground. Don't get hung up on the other details. SURELY that is the entire point.

..that’s the thing though, TS...all of what you’ve said I agree with also...and then how do we get there...I mean, how does ‘feminism’ get there...I do think it’s really valid to feel women should have the greater voice as it were and to set the agenda...but then that could, not deliberately but just by its nature...prevent from the greater voices of men, who are great and much needed allies and any progress they could offer...and I guess that goes back to feelings of feminism and the things which still have to be ‘equalled’ being such a slow thing since the start of a movement...

[thesheriff443]

We have two women at the top, in politics, in this country and Germany, we have women at the head of police , women at the top in medicine, but in other country's woman are still classed as second class also Indian women that have to walk behind their husbands.

If you look at any aid appeal since the 80,s it shows femal children and young girls walking miles for water where are the useless men

[GoldHeart]

I don't like the word "Feminism" , but I believe in equality for both men &women.

Sadly the word has been twisted and tainted , that's why we now get new words like "feminazi" as there's some people who moan and winge and seem to have a Superiority complex :bored: .

You don't fight for equality to then be utterly sexiest and demeaning towards men :facepalm: .And then be hypocritical if it's done back to you .

[lime]

Feminism to me as a 46yr old woman means equality and making sure women have equal rights..sure there are idiots out there that campaign for things that have nothing to do with feminism
What's frustrating for me is that a group of women maybe 30 or so talk kak and they are accussed of hijaking feminism.....I find it the other way round in that that those who highlight those who talk kak are the one's hijaking feminism..just because I am am a middleaged white woman doesn't mean...that all middleaged white women hold the same opinion as me

[Livia]

A woman will judge another woman.

A house wife will judge a stripper.

A mum will judge her daughter

A daughter will judge her mum

Women don't see all women as the same.

A house husband will judge a stripper

A dad will judge his son and his daughter

A son or daughter will judge their dad

Men don't see men and women as all the same either.

I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate.

[Livia]

I don't like the word "Feminism" , but I believe in equality for both men &women.

Sadly the word has been twisted and tainted , that's why we now get new words like "feminazi" as there's some people who moan and winge and seem to have a Superiority complex :bored: .

You don't fight for equality to then be utterly sexiest and demeaning towards men :facepalm: .And then be hypocritical if it's done back to you .

It's just a word. And it weakens women's fight for equality when we stop talking about the issues and muddy the waters with semantics.

[Niamh.]

It's just a word. And it weakens women's fight for equality when we stop talking about the issues and muddy the waters with semantics.

Exactly, keeps the eye of the ball so to speak

[thesheriff443]

A house husband will judge a stripper

A dad will judge his son and his daughter

A son or daughter will judge their dad

Men don't see men and women as all the same either.

I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate.

That women judge woman, one size does not fit all in terms of individual opinions.

[Niamh.]

That women judge woman, one size does not fit all in terms of individual opinions.

By that logic there would never be any groups at all because everyone s different :laugh:

[Livia]

By that logic there would never be any groups at all because everyone s different :laugh:

Men are all different and judge each other. Shhhhhhhh.... keep it to yourself!

[Niamh.]

Men are all different and judge each other. Shhhhhhhh.... keep it to yourself!

:laugh:

[GoldHeart]

It's just a word. And it weakens women's fight for equality when we stop talking about the issues and muddy the waters with semantics.

I'm all for talking about serious issues and sexism, but that word has been mis used soo many times . And some people take it too far .

I think we've come a long way ,and although sexism & gender inequality is still around it's no where near as bad as it use to be, NOT in this country anyway .

The real problems are other parts of the world where women are still treated like dirt and repressed just because they're female .

[thesheriff443]

By that logic there would never be any groups at all because everyone s different :laugh:

Well shopping is the exception

[Niamh.]

Well shopping is the exception

I have no idea what this means? Are you saying all women love shopping? Because I hate it

[thesheriff443]

Men are all different and judge each other. Shhhhhhhh.... keep it to yourself!

This is what happens when women get together, they start picking on men, were is the truth when you need him,lol

[Vicky.]

I'm all for talking about serious issues and sexism, but that word has been mis used soo many times . And some people take it too far .

I think we've come a long way ,and although sexism & gender inequality is still around it's no where near as bad as it use to be, NOT in this country anyway .

The real problems are other parts of the world where women are still treated like dirt and repressed just because they're female .

Many women in this country are treat like dirt and repressed because they are female tbh. Yes its much worse in many other countries, but I am kind of sick of this assumption that because we have laws that are equal in this country now that women have it just fine and dandy. They don't.

No, its not quite as bad as it used to be. But its not good, nor anywhere NEAR equal either.

[Niamh.]

I'm all for talking about serious issues and sexism, but that word has been mis used soo many times . And some people take it too far .

I think we've come a long way ,and although sexism & gender inequality is still around it's no where near as bad as it use to be, NOT in this country anyway .

The real problems are other parts of the world where women are still treated like dirt and repressed just because they're female .

Yes but we don't live in that side of the world. I think women on that side of the world need to lead that fight as it involves them and change should come from themselves pushing forward. If people stopped wanting change just because somewhere else someone has it worse nothing would ever be done

[thesheriff443]

I have no idea what this means? Are you saying all women love shopping? Because I hate it

You have let the women down in this thread niamh

[bots]

This group thing always causes a problem once the initial impact has been made, with opinions differing between moderates an extremists. It means basically that progress has been made, but maybe not enough yet for some at one end of the scale to it will never be enough at the other end of the scale

[Livia]

Women all over the world are suffering, but while people are saying that we're nearly there in this country, we're about to take a HUGE step backwards by opening up women only safe spaces to anyone with a penis who gets up that morning and identifies as a women. It's being sneaked through as law while we're arguing about whether the word feminism is acceptable. If you don't know about this issue, male or female, I suggest you go and look at it. And thank you Vicky, without you I would never have known about it.

[GoldHeart]

Many women in this country are treat like dirt and repressed because they are female tbh. Yes its much worse in many other countries, but I am kind of sick of this assumption that because we have laws that are equal in this country now that women have it just fine and dandy. They don't.

No, its not quite as bad as it used to be. But its not good, nor anywhere NEAR equal either.


I never said women have it "fine & dandy" here, but men get treated like dirt as well .
I'm just saying that some (not all ) feminists have a weird superiority complex and they seem to want special treatment . And they treat men exactly how they themselves WOULDN'T want to be treated .

Listen I support fighting against sexism but only when it actually exists.

[Livia]

I would like to say something off-topic, bear with me mods.

I've so enjoyed taking part in this thread. I've not seen anyone melt down... it's been quite like old times.

[Niamh.]

Women all over the world are suffering, but while people are saying that we're nearly there in this country, we're about to take a HUGE step backwards by opening up women only safe spaces to anyone with a penis who gets up that morning and identifies as a women. It's being sneaked through as law while we're arguing about whether the word feminism is acceptable. If you don't know about this issue, male or female, I suggest you go and look at it. And thank you Vicky, without you I would never have known about it.

Yeah, that is absolutely appalling

[Niamh.]

I would like to say something off-topic, bear with me mods.

I've so enjoyed taking part in this thread. I've not seen anyone melt down... it's been quite like old times.

Yes it's been a very dignified discussion tbf

[bots]

Women all over the world are suffering, but while people are saying that we're nearly there in this country, we're about to take a HUGE step backwards by opening up women only safe spaces to anyone with a penis who gets up that morning and identifies as a women. It's being sneaked through as law while we're arguing about whether the word feminism is acceptable. If you don't know about this issue, male or female, I suggest you go and look at it. And thank you Vicky, without you I would never have known about it.

This is both unbelievably serious and beyond any sane persons comprehension at the same time. How we have come to the point where this is being considered is beyond me.

[Vicky.]

Women all over the world are suffering, but while people are saying that we're nearly there in this country, we're about to take a HUGE step backwards by opening up women only safe spaces to anyone with a penis who gets up that morning and identifies as a women. It's being sneaked through as law while we're arguing about whether the word feminism is acceptable. If you don't know about this issue, male or female, I suggest you go and look at it. And thank you Vicky, without you I would never have known about it.

Indeed. Feminism is needed now more than ever. Everything feminists have fought for for women for the past hundred years or so is under threat right now. Its not scaremongering, its true. Even the word woman is under attack ffs. The Tories appear to be backtracking on this absolutely ridiculous 'self identification' law that they were going to push through by stealth, but Labour are still planning on it, and have said so. Its absolutely mental. Its scary. And its stupid. But its true.

[Niamh.]

This is both unbelievably serious and beyond any sane persons comprehension at the same time. How we have come to the point where this is being considered is beyond me.

The thing is no one seems to know about it like Livia pointed out, it's all very sneaky. Only for Vicky I wouldn't be aware of half of this stuff

[Vicky.]

This is both unbelievably serious and beyond any sane persons comprehension at the same time. How we have come to the point where this is being considered is beyond me.

Yes, many people when told about this nonense assume it is a joke as surely...noone is that stupid. But they are. It seems utterly unbelievable, but its really happening. Businesses are already acting as though self identification is law, allowing people to 'self declare' their sex..which means you can go from male to female day to day (or hour to hour) as you please. Fully intact men with penises are fighting for the right to use womens changing rooms (and winning too...as, its only women who will be disadvantaged). It does not really happen the other way around, but I am sure men do not want women in their changing rooms either!


I know it sounds ****ing mental.

[Livia]

Yeah, that is absolutely appalling

It IS! I was shocked... and yet people seem to be treating it with complete apathy!

[Vicky.]

The thing is no one seems to know about it like Livia pointed out, it's all very sneaky. Only for Vicky I wouldn't be aware of half of this stuff

The womens aid thing was talked about on good morning britain this morning. With Piers Morgan on womens side. Bit oif an alternate universe :laugh:

Apparently on Nick Ferraris show too..though I don;t know who he is. People are amazed he was on womens side too though, so I assume he is quite sexist generally

It is coming into mainstream, slowly, but its happening now. It has to, given how many people it will actually affect. And how many people are now standing up to say no. Geneally once someone becomes fully aware of quite whats happening, they will say no. Tories have realised this, so have backed off a bit. Labour have realised it, and do not care. They are actually going to be taken to court soon for this

[Vicky.]

I could rant all day about this, but will leave the thread for a bit else I will fill it up :laugh: But yeah, sex is meaningless and not actually a real thing and places segregated by sex should not be segregated by sex. And males are actually female (and vice versa) simply on their say so.

[Livia]

I could rant all day about this, but will leave the thread for a bit else I will fill it up :laugh: But yeah, sex is meaningless and not actually a real thing and places segregated by sex should not be segregated by sex.

I think you should maybe consider starting a thread, Vicky. You know so much about it and it's so important that people know about it.

[Vicky.]

I think you should maybe consider starting a thread, Vicky. You know so much about it and it's so important that people know about it.

I did start one about Labour electing a 19 year old male as their womans officer where I went into a lot of this. Have started a few on this issue actually. I started a thread about the serious threats I had recieved for donating to a fundraiser that was against self ID...my issue at the moment with this stuff (and why I tend to keep talk to PM now..though do sometimes have outbursts on the main board) is that they are already combing the net for social media accounts to link. I have had to delete a bunch of older posts incase they managed to link my account here to the other ones they have a spreadsheet on..there are entire groups of people trying to dox women who speak out about this, and unfortunately I am one of the ones on 'the list'. As I said I made a thread about that, but thought against it and deleted it as it may help them link this account to the others they have on their spreadsheet. So I need to try and control myself a bit when ranting about this, just incase. I THINK I have deleted all posts that mention where I actually live or anything that would make me identifiable...but I am not totally sure (as I cannot realistically go back over 55k posts) so I am a bit worried that I haven't. I have no issue talking about it. I do have an issue when they may take it a little further than the rape/death threats I have already recieved and actually turn up at my house or something :S If I didn't have the kids, this would not bother me, but I have to think about their safety too and these nutter are..well..extremist nutters.

I will think about it. Issue is, most papers and such are not reporting on it, the times does regular coverage but its paywalled. Daily mail does coverage sometimes but its..the daily mail and is often from an actual transphobic angle rather than pro-womens rights angle. Share tokens on the times only last for so long, and I don't think I am allowed to paste the entire article. And with no sources, I will be accused of making it up :laugh: Hell even with sources sometimes I am accused of making it up

[Ashley.]

I never said women have it "fine & dandy" here, but men get treated like dirt as well .
I'm just saying that some (not all ) feminists have a weird superiority complex and they seem to want special treatment . And they treat men exactly how they themselves WOULDN'T want to be treated .

Listen I support fighting against sexism but only when it actually exists.

Yeah, this argument gets used quite a bit during discussions regarding whether or not feminism has gone too far. The simple answer is that they're not feminists. Special treatment is not what feminism is about at all. The sooner we can all accept that, the sooner we can all stop assuming that actual feminists are the same as them, and conjuring up criticisms that do not apply to them.

[GoldHeart]

Yeah, this argument gets used quite a bit during discussions regarding whether or not feminism has gone too far. The simple answer is that they're not feminists. Special treatment is not what feminism is about at all. The sooner we can all accept that, the sooner we can all stop assuming that actual feminists are the same as them, and conjuring up criticisms that do not apply to them.

I know that's why they're called "feminazi's" because they abuse the true meaning of feminism. I still don't like the word feminism but that's my preference.

However I'm a woman that supports equal rights for both genders absolutely. And I hear stories of women feeling pressured for example to wear high heels in the work place , things like that shock and get me angry .

If I was in that situation I'd tell the person to F off if they were making it mandatory to wear high heels etc then I'd quit the job and complain, it's 21st century not the 1950's with pointy bra's .

By all means sensible shoes ,and appropriate clothing. But there's some women that can't wear heels for medical reasons .

[Niamh.]

I know that's why they're called "feminazi's" because they abuse the true meaning of feminism. I still don't like the word feminism but that's my preference.

However I'm a woman that supports equal rights for both genders absolutely. And I hear stories of women feeling pressured for example to wear high heels in the work place , things like that shock and get me angry .

If I was in that situation I'd tell the person to F off if they were making it mandatory to wear high heels etc then I'd quit the job and complain, it's 21st century not the 1950's with pointy bra's .

By all means sensible shoes ,and appropriate clothing. But there's some women that can't wear heels for medical reasons .

**** medical reasons, they're really uncomfortable, that should be enough reason imo!

Totally offtopic, I always assumed you were male :laugh: sorry

[Marches]

Many women in this country are treat like dirt and repressed because they are female tbh. Yes its much worse in many other countries, but I am kind of sick of this assumption that because we have laws that are equal in this country now that women have it just fine and dandy. They don't.

No, its not quite as bad as it used to be. But its not good, nor anywhere NEAR equal either.

Both genders are treated poorly
All races are treated poorly
Gay people are treated poorly for being gay and in the flip side straight people are treated poorly for being straight

The merit for movements like this back when the treatment of woman was appalling and they outright didn’t have rights was fine, but because of social media the movement has lost its focus and has become rather obsolete. I had feminism shoved down my throat purely because am a woman multiple times and they get offended when I say I’m not. They try to make out to other woman that they’re victims and that they should feel bad, it’s like an oppression olympics.

The fact is, the treatment of women in the first world is far from perfect, sure, but it’s so much better than it’s ever been, and in certain both real life and online circles and in certain rights, woman now have the upper hand. Weve moved past the point where we need mass protests and movements and such for gender equality because it’s regressive considering the point we are in society.

Why can’t we all just label ourselves as good human beings and do our part in making sure EVERYONE has rights and an equal playing field regardless of colour or sexuality or gender, not just certain people? Why do we feel the need to wear labels like feminism on our shirts and claim ‘I’m for equality if ur not a feminist ur not pro equality’? It’s so regressive it literally achieves nothing and it’s created a generation of people with victim complexes

[Niamh.]

Both genders are treated poorly
All races are treated poorly
Gay people are treated poorly for being gay and in the flip side straight people are treated poorly for being straight

The merit for movements like this back when the treatment of woman was appalling and they outright didn’t have rights was fine, but because of social media the movement has lost its focus and has become rather obsolete. I had feminism shoved down my throat purely because am a woman multiple times and they get offended when I say I’m not. They try to make out to other woman that they’re victims and that they should feel bad, it’s like an oppression olympics.

The fact is, the treatment of women in the first world is far from perfect, sure, but it’s so much better than it’s ever been, and in certain both real life and online circles and in certain rights, woman now have the upper hand. Weve moved past the point where we need mass protests and movements and such for gender equality because it’s regressive considering the point we are in society.

Why can’t we all just label ourselves as good human beings and do our part in making sure EVERYONE has rights and an equal playing field regardless of colour or sexuality or gender, not just certain people? Why do we feel the need to wear labels like feminism on our shirts and claim ‘I’m for equality if ur not a feminist ur not pro equality’? It’s so regressive it literally achieves nothing and it’s created a generation of people with victim complexes

How are straight people treated poorly for being straight? that's absolutely not true

[Vicky.]

In which rights do women have the upper hand?

[Vicky.]

And yes, people are treat poorly for a variety of reasons. But there is systematic sexism against women, like there is systematic racism against POC, and there is systematic homophobia against gay people. Single people are single people and are not responsible for the overwhelming sexism, racism and homophobia thats rampant in society, unless they themselves are sexist, racist, homophobic (and a lot of people are without realising it too..unconcious bias). But denying that disadvantaged groups are disadvantaged really does noone any favours.

[Marches]

And yes, people are treat poorly for a variety of reasons. But there is systematic sexism against women, like there is systematic racism against POC, and there is systematic homophobia against gay people. Single people are single people and are not responsible for the overwhelming sexism, racism and homophobia thats rampant in society, unless they themselves are sexist, racist, homophobic (and a lot of people are without realising it too..unconcious bias). But denying that disadvantaged groups are disadvantaged really does noone any favours.

Everyone experiences systematic sexism to an extent. I could outline both sides but I think they should be pretty obvious

Also in response to ur post above, divorse settlements child custody battles access to domestic abuse shelters favoured in sexual abuse cases (in a lot men are often guilty until proven innocent)

[Livia]

I did start one about Labour electing a 19 year old male as their womans officer where I went into a lot of this. Have started a few on this issue actually. I started a thread about the serious threats I had recieved for donating to a fundraiser that was against self ID...my issue at the moment with this stuff (and why I tend to keep talk to PM now..though do sometimes have outbursts on the main board) is that they are already combing the net for social media accounts to link. I have had to delete a bunch of older posts incase they managed to link my account here to the other ones they have a spreadsheet on..there are entire groups of people trying to dox women who speak out about this, and unfortunately I am one of the ones on 'the list'. As I said I made a thread about that, but thought against it and deleted it as it may help them link this account to the others they have on their spreadsheet. So I need to try and control myself a bit when ranting about this, just incase. I THINK I have deleted all posts that mention where I actually live or anything that would make me identifiable...but I am not totally sure (as I cannot realistically go back over 55k posts) so I am a bit worried that I haven't. I have no issue talking about it. I do have an issue when they may take it a little further than the rape/death threats I have already recieved and actually turn up at my house or something :S If I didn't have the kids, this would not bother me, but I have to think about their safety too and these nutter are..well..extremist nutters.

I will think about it. Issue is, most papers and such are not reporting on it, the times does regular coverage but its paywalled. Daily mail does coverage sometimes but its..the daily mail and is often from an actual transphobic angle rather than pro-womens rights angle. Share tokens on the times only last for so long, and I don't think I am allowed to paste the entire article. And with no sources, I will be accused of making it up :laugh: Hell even with sources sometimes I am accused of making it up

I hope people who are claiming, yeah, women in the West are doing okay and I don't like the word Feminist... read your post. How awful that a woman standing up for women is threatened with rape and murder.

I'd be happy to start a thread.... I'd need to discuss it with you first though.

[Vicky.]

Everyone experiences systematic sexism to an extent. I could outline both sides but I think they should be pretty obvious

Also in response to ur post above, divorse settlements child custody battles access to domestic abuse shelters favoured in sexual abuse cases (in a lot men are often guilty until proven innocent)

Divorce settlements are usually because of child custody issues (ie whichever parent has custody of children will get the house, speaking broadly) which I will move onto in a sec

Child custody, again is not because of sex, its down to who, before the split, did the majority of childcare. Its to make sure the childrens lives are disrupted as little as possible. If more men did the lionshare of child related things, then they would win more custody battles. Luckily, with paternity leave and such being increased and more and more families being 'less traditional' (ie woman works, father is in the house) this will even out. But again, not disadvantaged due to sex. If me and my husband split tomorrow, he would 100% 'get the kids' if we ended up going through the courts.

Domestic abuse shelters yes. But this is because the majority of people needing shelters are women. There should be more for men of course but its a supply and demand thing tbh. I don't want to be hoping for more male victims of serious DV so that refuges are 50/50 tbh

Sexual abuse cases, wow. Near all sexual abuse is committed by men. And most get off with it. So not sure that proves your point at all. I completely disagree with guilty until proven innocent. But this very very rarely happens.

[Redway]

How are straight people treated poorly for being straight? that's absolutely not true

Some people like to throw around reverse labels to a crazy extent.

[Livia]

Divorce settlements are usually because of child custody issues (ie whichever parent has custody of children will get the house, speaking broadly) which I will move onto in a sec

Child custody, again is not because of sex, its down to who, before the split, did the majority of childcare. Its to make sure the childrens lives are disrupted as little as possible. If more men did the lionshare of child related things, then they would win more custody battles. Luckily, with paternity leave and such being increased and more and more families being 'less traditional' (ie woman works, father is in the house) this will even out. But again, not disadvantaged due to sex. If me and my husband split tomorrow, he would 100% 'get the kids' if we ended up going through the courts.

Domestic abuse shelters yes. But this is because the majority of people needing shelters are women. There should be more for men of course but its a supply and demand thing tbh. I don't want to be hoping for more male victims of serious DV so that refuges are 50/50 tbh

Sexual abuse cases, wow. Near all sexual abuse is committed by men. And most get off with it. So not sure that proves your point at all. I completely disagree with guilty until proven innocent. But this very very rarely happens.

Shelters for battered women is always brought into the discussion, as is the fact that more is spent on breast cancer than on prostate cancer. The simple fact is that women fundraise for these causes. Yes a certain amount of funding is available... but I've been to countless dinners, bought loads of draw tickets etc., raising money for victims of domestic abuse, Breast Cancer Care... I drove a bloody tractor covered in pink bows a couple of years ago to raise money for breast cancer. I've never once been approached to contribute to any kind of fundraising that's been organised by men, for men.

[bots]

Shelters for battered women is always brought into the discussion, as is the fact that more is spent on breast cancer than on prostate cancer. The simple fact is that women fundraise for these causes. Yes a certain amount of funding is available... but I've been to countless dinners, bought loads of draw tickets etc., raising money for victims of domestic abuse, Breast Cancer Care... I drove a bloody tractor covered in pink bows a couple of years ago to raise money for breast cancer. I've never once been approached to contribute to any kind of fundraising that's been organised by men, for men.

Happy to pass the tin round to collect for my visit to Hooters :hee:

[Livia]

Happy to pass the tin round to collect for my visit to Hooters :hee:

The cheque is in the post, don't forget to tip your waitress.

[GoldHeart]

**** medical reasons, they're really uncomfortable, that should be enough reason imo!

Totally offtopic, I always assumed you were male :laugh: sorry

Yeah the fact they're uncomfortable is enough reason. But there is some women who have other problems etc that's why I said medical reasons. And no I'm female :hee: what made you think otherwise?? .

[Niamh.]

Yeah the fact they're uncomfortable is enough reason. But there is some women who have other problems etc that's why I said medical reasons. And no I'm female :hee: what made you think otherwise?? .

I have no idea :laugh: I think lots of people thought I was male too when I first joined

[Vicky.]

Some members I get so wrong, I read them as very male and they turn out to be women. Others I read as female, and it turns out they are male. And some, I read as male, they claim they are female for ages and ages, and then it turns out they were male all along :D

I think avatars with newer members does this too. Once you get to know someone a bit more it seems more obvious...obviously. But I do tend to assume that those with male avatars are male and such, even when the avatars are of BB contestants.

[GoldHeart]

I have no idea :laugh: I think lots of people thought I was male too when I first joined

I knew you were female , you're Irish too aren't you ? . But sometimes it's hard to know who's male & female on here :joker: .

[GoldHeart]

Some members I get so wrong, I read them as very male and they turn out to be women. Others I read as female, and it turns out they are male. And some, I read as male, they claim they are female for ages and ages, and then it turns out they were male all along :D

I think avatars with newer members does this too. Once you get to know someone a bit more it seems more obvious...obviously. But I do tend to assume that those with male avatars are male and such, even when the avatars are of BB contestants.

My avatar is of Shane Lynch :joker: :) .

[Niamh.]

I knew you were female , you're Irish too aren't you ? . But sometimes it's hard to know who's male & female on here :joker: .

Well it's obvious now cos I've been hanging out in the feminism threads so much :fan: But when i first joined I only really posted in the BB section for the first few months and yes I'm Irish

[Maru]

Feminism is still relevant. There are diseases that effect females predominantly for example, that are not well-understood and in many cases, not taken seriously... the movement in the foreground may not directly petition for these causes, but it does effect these things because seeing other women step forward to talk about specific wrongs in their world near them, it is empowering other women (in the background) to step forward and to fight for their own specific causes... interstitial cystitis for example, 9 of 10 patients are women. It used to be a 7 year average rate of diagnosis and it wasn't widely understood. Now even your average PCP knows what it is, takes it very seriously and there are more medications & treatments for it when there used to be very few (and expensive) options. A simple pill solves my problems... a vast majority of this is due to the fact there is such a supportive and active female community that has been pushing for treatment, who helped with FMLA, who put together organizations to help pay for the expensive treatments. I participated in a study for it and I honestly couldn't have gotten through without the incredible support system that came from the hospital and also online as there are many supportive communities as well.

Women's communities are the bomb, you know. I've always made sure to have a female-only board on any of the communities I ran. Usually the topics are boring enough to keep the men away even if they were to "sneak" in. On one forum I participated in several years ago, the women were a minority and so vulgar everytime a female topic came up... I discovered a hack that allowed anyone to create topics on unused forum ids (it was a custom CMS that someone did a sh*te job on), so I started a hidden women's section underneath their noses. :hee:

[Vicky.]

Well I learnt something from this thread. I thought cystitis was a female only illness for some reason. ****ing horrible condition. have not had it as an adult much but my god I suffered as a teen and I still remember the pain clearly.

[Vicky.]

Ew ew ew

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42912529

I didn't want to make a new thread as what on earth would I put in the OP, but this is gross and it kind of fits in a thread thats moved onto if feminism is needed today in this country.

[Maru]

Ew ew ew

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42912529

I didn't want to make a new thread as what on earth would I put in the OP, but this is gross and it kind of fits in a thread thats moved onto if feminism is needed today in this country.

I shared this in a group chat a week or so ago and thought there was a silver-lining to this. I was worried about computers becoming too smart, i.e. they could identify us by our faces which means people can pull up all our pictures with our faces in it... Kinda glad they can make good fakes too now which means in a way is an unintended privacy mask since computer/camera footage won't be 100% trustworthy, especially if AI image/video reproduction becomes a common thing.

On the other hand, people can maybe now take our faces and create on the fly personal porn if they want and create "remakes" etc. Those NFL graphics were a bit uncanny for me during the Superbowl yesterday in terms of what they are able to generate overlays/reproductions of simple camera footage now. It's awe-inspiring, but it's obviously a double-edged sword.

[Ammi]

...anyways....just to celebrate women and the very essence of female...a beautiful poem by Maya Angelou, who was a civil rights activist and one of the most influential women of recent times...it’s a poem that a friend ‘gave’ to me over the last little while...and it’s quite, hmm..phenomenal...




Phenominal Woman

Pretty women wonder where my secret lies.
I'm not cute or built to suit a fashion model's size
But when I start to tell them,
They think I'm telling lies.
I say,
It's in the reach of my arms
The span of my hips,
The stride of my step,
The curl of my lips.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That's me.

I walk into a room
Just as cool as you please,
And to a man,
The fellows stand or
Fall down on their knees.
Then they swarm around me,
A hive of honey bees.
I say,
It's the fire in my eyes,
And the flash of my teeth,
The swing in my waist,
And the joy in my feet.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That's me.

Men themselves have wondered
What they see in me.
They try so much
But they can't touch
My inner mystery.
When I try to show them
They say they still can't see.
I say,
It's in the arch of my back,
The sun of my smile,
The ride of my breasts,
The grace of my style.
I'm a woman

Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That's me.

Now you understand
Just why my head's not bowed.
I don't shout or jump about
Or have to talk real loud.
When you see me passing
It ought to make you proud.
I say,
It's in the click of my heels,
The bend of my hair,
the palm of my hand,
The need of my care,
'Cause I'm a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That's me.

[Vicky.]

A slightly more depressing one, about the erosion of the very word woman...

He Tells Her

He tells her he's a woman too

He has a lady brain

He tells her his identity

and hers, they are the same

He tells her not to talk about

her body, it's not fair

her body is her privilege

his own, a cross to bear

He tells her that she cannot talk

or otherwise allude

to what her female body does

its nasty to exclude

He says respect diversity

except he would prefer

that she would not point out the ways

that he's diverse from her

He tells her that biology

does not impact her life

she should still bear his children

but she should call him 'wife'

He says that words must all evolve

she must learn to make do

And now that woman is his word

he's taking female too

He tells her that a woman is whatever he decides

He will not put it into words

she must not ask, he chides

He tells her he is more oppressed

than she has ever been

He says she must agree with him

or else she's being mean

She searches for the words she needs

to talk about herself

The billions who exist like her

Their lives, their rights, their health

Whatever word she chooses now

He finds a way to spin it

The conversation carries on

But she's no longer in it
From here, not sure if that poster actually wrote it or not
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3159058-Disgusted-by-all-the-transphobia-here?msgid=75363686

Sorry, I read it like an hour ago and your poem reminded me of it so I had to share :laugh: