[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by 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want more men (and women also) to get board then drop the term ‘feminism’ as it is absolutely 100% anti equality and outdated and make it more inclusive for everyone.Simple ‘equality’ or even ‘equalism’ would help things massively.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.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

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..

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

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

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

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?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..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]

Originally Posted by 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'

Which black people.

[Vicky.]

Any black people tbh

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

[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 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:

Youtube video

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...0335204155.pdf

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

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by 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:

https://www.ted.com/talks/kimberle_c...ersectionality

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...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_]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Why are you temporarily able bodied

I was wondering this too

[user104658]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Why are you temporarily able bodied

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

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Why are you temporarily able bodied

It's a term that emerged from scholarship on the 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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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.