Question about feminism

[Epic Beard Man]

There are obviously different approaches to feminism, so there isn’t a definitive “captures all theory” answer (though @epronovost ’s post is very good).

With that in mind, I’ll reinforce that it isn’t about treating anybody “worse” where they are doing better. It would be more about examining the role of sex and gender in social response and asking what it even means to be treated worse or better. Some instances of being treated “better” are actually still problematic.

But here lies the problem because it doesn't mention intersectionality and how race is also a factor. Women of color face a trifecta which is why there is a large consensus that feminism at least mainstream is largely a manifestation of "white feminism" because a lot of the arguments feminists present doesn't account for women of color as Bek Beck (n.d.) states in the following:

"This ideology is fundamentally exclusionary, she says, functioning to keep women of color from enjoying the benefits of any feminist gains or otherwise enlisting them in creating the illusion of equality for their white counterparts, such as by performing the domestic labor that allows white women to succeed in the workplace.

White feminism, however, is not exclusive to white women, Beck says. Because it is so pervasive, people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds often buy into the promises of white feminism, believing that if they work hard enough, they may be able to reap its alleged rewards."

Reference: Koa Beck on dismantling the persistence of white feminism

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm afraid I break there. The old gender roles / "stereotypes" to me are still important, I'm afraid. Without them, it would mean all my hard work transitioning was just to change my appearance, and that's it.

The “old” gender roles are not that old, I’m afraid and are entirely dependant on culture. The idea of a woman doing housework and the man going to work is honestly an arbitrary construction born out of the Cold War era propaganda. It’s not viable in this economy, if it ever was. As is the idea that women are nurturing and men are stoic. In fact a lot of the old stereotypes are actively toxic and can actually legitimately harm people. Toxic masculinity for example.
That doesn’t mean one can’t express their gender in a “traditional way” whatever the hell that even is. Honestly that looks different for different people. Just look at “cottagecore” which is seemingly popular among lesbians, well at least in my experience anyway.
It just means one should examine them and cut out the toxic aspects.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I, for one, as have expressed before, am an egalitarian. Let me rephrase I'm actually a theoretical egalitarian because the composition of egalitarianism being a realization is quite frankly impossible. I was once told by feminists that egalitarianism erases the issues women have endured for so long by employing indirect patriarchal control over women under the guise of equality in all facets of society (whatever that means). At this point, human beings in my opinion, humans would have to face near extinction or in fear of being extinct in order to redirect certain social philosophies to cover the significance of all human life in the macro and microcosm of society. Despite the pursuit of equality many movements and some of the adherents from within, contain an ego of wanting their viewpoints heard and in some instances want their viewpoints to supersede the needs of others which is why many feminists do not agree with complete egalitarianism because it, in essence, devalues the significance of equality for women especially if we all are equal in the social setting. It doesn't make sense to me but I understand.

 

[Audie]

But here lies the problem because it doesn't mention intersectionality and how race is also a factor. Women of color face a trifecta which is why there is a large consensus that feminism at least mainstream is largely a manifestation of "white feminism" because a lot of the arguments feminists present doesn't account for women of color as Bek Beck (n.d.) states in the following:

"This ideology is fundamentally exclusionary, she says, functioning to keep women of color from enjoying the benefits of any feminist gains or otherwise enlisting them in creating the illusion of equality for their white counterparts, such as by performing the domestic labor that allows white women to succeed in the workplace.

White feminism, however, is not exclusive to white women, Beck says. Because it is so pervasive, people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds often buy into the promises of white feminism, believing that if they work hard enough, they may be able to reap its alleged rewards."

Reference: Koa Beck on dismantling the persistence of white feminism

"Alleged"

 

[Epic Beard Man]

"Alleged"

I suspect someone buys into it...

 

[Meow Mix]

But here lies the problem because it doesn't mention intersectionality and how race is also a factor. Women of color face a trifecta which is why there is a large consensus that feminism at least mainstream is largely a manifestation of "white feminism" because a lot of the arguments feminists present doesn't account for women of color as Bek Beck (n.d.) states in the following:

"This ideology is fundamentally exclusionary, she says, functioning to keep women of color from enjoying the benefits of any feminist gains or otherwise enlisting them in creating the illusion of equality for their white counterparts, such as by performing the domestic labor that allows white women to succeed in the workplace.

White feminism, however, is not exclusive to white women, Beck says. Because it is so pervasive, people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds often buy into the promises of white feminism, believing that if they work hard enough, they may be able to reap its alleged rewards."

Reference: Koa Beck on dismantling the persistence of white feminism

I agree. Intersectionality is important, I was only responding to an individual point.

 

[epronovost]

I agree. Intersectionality is important, I was only responding to an individual point.

Intersectionality has also been largely adopted by mainstream feminism. That's actually the defining characteristic of the 3rd wave which started in the mid 90's and is considered a given in the early days of what has already been dubbed the 4th wave.

 

[Audie]

I suspect someone buys into it...

Don't to make it about me.
You claim "alleged".
Back it up.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Don't to make it about me.
You claim "alleged".
Back it up.

I guess you missed the part in that post where I had that whole thing in quotes referencing a book by the author Koa Beck.

"This ideology is fundamentally exclusionary, she says, functioning to keep women of color from enjoying the benefits of any feminist gains or otherwise enlisting them in creating the illusion of equality for their white counterparts, such as by performing the domestic labor that allows white women to succeed in the workplace.

White feminism, however, is not exclusive to white women, Beck says. Because it is so pervasive, people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds often buy into the promises of white feminism, believing that if they work hard enough, they may be able to reap its alleged rewards."

Reference: Koa Beck on dismantling the persistence of white feminism

Within the link she discusses, well, summarizes what she has found through her research, perhaps in relation to the highlighted red, she mentions the desire of white feminism in the following:

"This mainstream idea of the white success model was being critiqued in the first wave as well, with a number of women’s groups — Native women’s groups, Black women’s groups— being extremely vocal about how the white suffragette model of equality wasn’t achievable for most women in the country. And not even just success, but basic equality was not achievable. Same for the second wave: Black and Latina feminists spoke out against Betty Friedan’s "The Feminine Mystique."

My takeaway is that white feminism is enduring because it’s so palatable and because it doesn’t really challenge much about our structure, our life, the way we make money or the way we relate to other women. There’s something so easy about it, and it fits within the rhythm of the shows and media we consume. You can basically identify as a “feminist” without really challenging power, and that’s very satisfying and welcoming to a lot of people," (Beck, 2021).

Through further research, I found an article that relates to Beck's synopsis regarding white feminism and how it could relate to her position regarding buying into white feminism and the promises of rewards through hard work in the following:

"When it comes to feminism in America, women of color simply don’t have a seat at the table, and when we do, it’s for illusion of inclusivity and not because our differing perspectives have value. This is called tokenism: including someone from our demographic to keep up appearances when, in fact, we have no say or power. And when we are “heard,” our voices and stories are (mis)used to further White Feminist goals," (Williams, 2019).

Reference: How White Feminists Oppress Black Women: When Feminism Functions as White Supremacy

From my understanding of the two, it would appear that Beck's white feminism approach would signify that the whole solidarity for womanhood and equality is nothing more than a ruse to advance the goals of middle/upper-class white women. Through deception, the aims of white women and the lack of addressing racial disparities for women of color indicates that the current trends of feminism are nothing more than covert white supremacy. According to the second link Williams proceeds with the idea that in order to demonstrate what it would appear to be as solidarity, many white feminists employ women of color at the table to show a type of tokenism. In a way, it would seem to relate to the comical axiom of individuals who say deny their racism or racial bias by having that one black person around to say "see I have black friends too?" Type of mentality. For both authors I suspect the supposed inclusiveness is nothing more than an undercover toxic relationship only to serve the benefit of one demographic over otthers.

 

[Audie]

I guess you missed the part in that post where I had that whole thing in quotes referencing a book by the author Koa Beck.

"This ideology is fundamentally exclusionary, she says, functioning to keep women of color from enjoying the benefits of any feminist gains or otherwise enlisting them in creating the illusion of equality for their white counterparts, such as by performing the domestic labor that allows white women to succeed in the workplace.

White feminism, however, is not exclusive to white women, Beck says. Because it is so pervasive, people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds often buy into the promises of white feminism, believing that if they work hard enough, they may be able to reap its alleged rewards."

Reference: Koa Beck on dismantling the persistence of white feminism

Within the link she discusses, well, summarizes what she has found through her research, perhaps in relation to the highlighted red, she mentions the desire of white feminism in the following:

"This mainstream idea of the white success model was being critiqued in the first wave as well, with a number of women’s groups — Native women’s groups, Black women’s groups— being extremely vocal about how the white suffragette model of equality wasn’t achievable for most women in the country. And not even just success, but basic equality was not achievable. Same for the second wave: Black and Latina feminists spoke out against Betty Friedan’s "The Feminine Mystique."

My takeaway is that white feminism is enduring because it’s so palatable and because it doesn’t really challenge much about our structure, our life, the way we make money or the way we relate to other women. There’s something so easy about it, and it fits within the rhythm of the shows and media we consume. You can basically identify as a “feminist” without really challenging power, and that’s very satisfying and welcoming to a lot of people," (Beck, 2021).

Through further research, I found an article that relates to Beck's synopsis regarding white feminism and how it could relate to her position regarding buying into white feminism and the promises of rewards through hard work in the following:

"When it comes to feminism in America, women of color simply don’t have a seat at the table, and when we do, it’s for illusion of inclusivity and not because our differing perspectives have value. This is called tokenism: including someone from our demographic to keep up appearances when, in fact, we have no say or power. And when we are “heard,” our voices and stories are (mis)used to further White Feminist goals," (Williams, 2019).

Reference: How White Feminists Oppress Black Women: When Feminism Functions as White Supremacy

From my understanding of the two, it would appear that Beck's white feminism approach would signify that the whole solidarity for womanhood and equality is nothing more than a ruse to advance the goals of middle/upper-class white women. Through deception, the aims of white women and the lack of addressing racial disparities for women of color indicates that the current trends of feminism are nothing more than covert white supremacy. According to the second link Williams proceeds with the idea that in order to demonstrate what it would appear to be as solidarity, many white feminists employ women of color at the table to show a type of tokenism. In a way, it would seem to relate to the comical axiom of individuals who say deny their racism or racial bias by having that one black person around to say "see I have black friends too?" Type of mentality. For both authors I suspect the supposed inclusiveness is nothing more than an undercover toxic relationship only to serve the benefit of one demographic over otthers.

So you can cut n paste but you
can't just say it.

 

[idea]

I don't think one can really 'blanket' what is good for all relationships. When my husband and I first got married, we were both working. We were mutually miserable. He asked me to quit(he liked his job, I didn't). He said he didn't really want me to get another job. I thought that was fantastic, because I didn't really want to get another job. I liked the domestic work(except the dishes). I liked not having to shuffle to find childcare. So did he. It was a win win for both of us.

We can still talk. He tells me all about how his coworkers are idiots. I tell him about all the crap the kids did while he was gone. We can understand without having to directly experience it.

I think its best just to let the individuals in the relationship hash out what does(or doesn't) work for them.

He likes to mow the lawn. I like to cook. It works.

Yes, I was a stay-at-home mom for my kids when they were little too, so I understand the importance of being there for kids, and what an amazing experience that is for those who are able. That said, knowing now what I wished I had known then, I would have worked while they were young. My marriage survived, many do not. The reality is 50-60% of marriages end in divorce, and the #1 reason for divorces are Managing Finances.

Pros to staying at home:
stay-at-home parent has lots of time to bond with children,
less stressful for stay-at-home parent

Cons to having one person stay at home, and the other work:
Financial stress, reduced household income (#1 reason for divorce, financial stress)
Working parent is not able to spend as much time with children, and can feel un-loved and left-out. (Kids typically gravitate to the stay-at-home parent)
Stay-at-home parent is a dependent. They do not own house, cloths, or anything. They are like a child depending on another for support. This leads to unequal views, typically working parent is the "head" of the household, and all dependents are treated as dependents, without as much say.
Stay-at-home parent gets behind on their career advancement, typically will never make as much or climb as high on career ladders as those have spent more time developing their career.
In many cases, stay-at-home parent may stay in an abusive relationship because they are dependent on their spouse, unable to support themselves and their children.
Many children are not as independent or socially intelligent without as much day-care interaction with other kids.
Many stay-at-home parents lives revolve around kids in unhealthy extremes, where child has quite a lot of pressure to live up to stay-at-home parents expectations.


My mom worked, and her mom worked too. My dad's mom was a single mom who worked. It was a relief to me when my mom went to work, as that meant she defined herself as something other than "mom" - so I could be my own person too, rather than just living up to filling someone else's dreams. My mom had an amazing career, and I am so proud of her and the work she did. My kids are proud of me and my career as well - I am able to bring them to work every now and then, and have extra resources for them from my work. My relationship with spouse has drastically improved now that I am working as we are no longer living parallel lives - we can talk about work, we are not stressed out financially, there is no "head of the household" - we are both independent adults who do not leach off one another. We take turns or cook together, clean together, grocery shop together - we do so many more things together. The kids view us equally, no longer just come to "mom" for help, they come to both of us.

There are many different family situations, and everyone finds a way for many different things to work. Just words of warning from the 50-60% of people who end up getting divorced, if you are a sty-at-home parent, be very careful of any $ that is not yours you are spending... be very careful that working parent feels appreciated for what they do, and take job of cleaning house/cooking/exercise seriously as you will be resented if you are sitting around on couch all day, you will be resented and not respected if you are not working as hard as they are.... Keep yourself educated, spend time getting a degree or something so that you are able to return to the workforce if needed (car accident, to just kids getting older).

Best wishes to everyone out there - it is difficult to make families work, but worth it. Our relationships, for most, are the most precious things we have.

 

[JustGeorge]

Yes, I was a stay-at-home mom for my kids when they were little too, so I understand the importance of being there for kids, and what an amazing experience that is for those who are able. That said, knowing now what I wished I had known then, I would have worked while they were young. My marriage survived, many do not. The reality is 50-60% of marriages end in divorce, and the #1 reason for divorces are Managing Finances.

Pros to staying at home:
stay-at-home parent has lots of time to bond with children,
less stressful for stay-at-home parent

Cons to having one person stay at home, and the other work:
Financial stress, reduced household income (#1 reason for divorce, financial stress)
Working parent is not able to spend as much time with children, and can feel un-loved and left-out. (Kids typically gravitate to the stay-at-home parent)
Stay-at-home parent is a dependent. They do not own house, cloths, or anything. They are like a child depending on another for support. This leads to unequal views, typically working parent is the "head" of the household, and all dependents are treated as dependents, without as much say.
Stay-at-home parent gets behind on their career advancement, typically will never make as much or climb as high on career ladders as those have spent more time developing their career.
In many cases, stay-at-home parent may stay in an abusive relationship because they are dependent on their spouse, unable to support themselves and their children.
Many children are not as independent or socially intelligent without as much day-care interaction with other kids.
Many stay-at-home parents lives revolve around kids in unhealthy extremes, where child has quite a lot of pressure to live up to stay-at-home parents expectations.


My mom worked, and her mom worked too. My dad's mom was a single mom who worked. It was a relief to me when my mom went to work, as that meant she defined herself as something other than "mom" - so I could be my own person too, rather than just living up to filling someone else's dreams. My mom had an amazing career, and I am so proud of her and the work she did. My kids are proud of me and my career as well - I am able to bring them to work every now and then, and have extra resources for them from my work. My relationship with spouse has drastically improved now that I am working as we are no longer living parallel lives - we can talk about work, we are not stressed out financially, there is no "head of the household" - we are both independent adults who do not leach off one another. We take turns or cook together, clean together, grocery shop together - we do so many more things together. The kids view us equally, no longer just come to "mom" for help, they come to both of us.

There are many different family situations, and everyone finds a way for many different things to work. Just words of warning from the 50-60% of people who end up getting divorced, if you are a sty-at-home parent, be very careful of any $ that is not yours you are spending... be very careful that working parent feels appreciated for what they do, and take job of cleaning house/cooking/excercise seriously as if you are not working as hard as they are, you will be resented if you are sitting around on coach all day.... and keep yourself educated, spend time getting a degree or something so that you are able to return to the workforce if needed (car accident, to just kids getting older).

Best wishes to everyone out there - it is difficult to make families work, but worth it. Our relationships, for most, are the most precious things we have.

I think we may have too different mindsets, cultures, and value systems to relate on this particular issue, but I do wish you all the best in crafting your life to be everything you want it to be(and hopefully more)!

After all, everyone should have the right to choose what paths they take in life(which I think is, ultimately, what feminism is about for many).

 

[idea]

I think we may have too different mindsets, cultures, and value systems to relate on this particular issue, but I do wish you all the best in crafting your life to be everything you want it to be(and hopefully more)!

After all, everyone should have the right to choose what paths they take in life(which I think is, ultimately, what feminism is about for many).

Yes, everyone would like to choose their own path, as much as that path is honestly earned. There are things we do not choose - illness, job loss, and all that life throws at us. For racism, sexism, and all who want to be fairly treated and equally respected and viewed, that equality comes at a price - the price of taking upon ourselves the workload that earns the respect that is sought. Equal rights and privilege are given to those who put in equal amounts of work. Self-respect, and gaining the respect of others, comes from actually pulling our own weight. The way to overcome unequal patriarchal hierarchies is for women to work, and men to take equal responsibility in changing diapers. Just the natural laws. Those who are not self-reliant are not really independent or free or equal to those who are self-reliant. It is a tuff place for parents to provide and be responsible not only for themselves, but for their children as well, but this is the reality. To choose to have kids, is also a choice of being responsible to provide for those kids.

As much as I would have liked to view myself as "equal" when living as a stay-at-home parent, the truth is, I was not equal, I was not self-reliant, I was not living to my full potential. Outdated beliefs on gender roles perpetuated by those who wish to maintain power structures can only be toppled through everyone becoming self-reliant. Everyone needs to pull their own weight. If you do not pul. your own weight and work, you are not on the same grounds as those who do.

 

[JustGeorge]

Yes, everyone would like to choose their own path, as much as that path is honestly earned. There are things we do not choose - illness, job loss, and all that life throws at us. For racism, sexism, and all who want to be fairly treated and equally respected and viewed, that equality comes at a price - the price of taking upon ourselves the workload that earns the respect that is sought. Equal rights and privilege are given to those who put in equal amounts of work. Self-respect, and gaining the respect of others, comes from actually pulling our own weight. The way to overcome unequal patriarchal hierarchies is for women to work, and men to take equal responsibility in changing diapers. Just the natural laws. Those who are not self-reliant are not really independent or free or equal to those who are self-reliant. It is a tuff place for parents to provide and be responsible not only for themselves, but for their children as well, but this is the reality. To choose to have kids, is also a choice of being responsible to provide for those kids.

As much as I would have liked to view myself as "equal" when living as a stay-at-home parent, the truth is, I was not equal, I was not self-reliant, I was not living to my full potential. Outdated beliefs on gender roles perpetuated by those who wish to maintain power structures can only be toppled through everyone becoming self-reliant. Everyone needs to pull their own weight. If you do not pul. your own weight and work, you are not on the same grounds as those who do.

You have every right to believe that.

Others have every right to disagree.

 

[epronovost]

You have every right to believe that.

Others have every right to disagree.

Yes, but its the strength of your argument who will determined the reasonableness of those opinions and beliefs. As history has shown, women's rights progressed as their strength in the economy grew. The same can be observed in more equalitarian or matriarchal societies of the past and current. These societies are those in which women play a large role in the economy and have developed institutional or traditional power bases capable of defending their interests and values.

 

[JustGeorge]

Yes, but its the strength of your argument who will determined the reasonableness of those opinions and beliefs. As history has shown, women's rights progressed as their strength in the economy grew. The same can be observed in more equalitarian or matriarchal societies of the past and current. These societies are those in which women play a large role in the economy and have developed institutional or traditional power bases capable of defending their interests and values.

I'm not sure how this is relevant in one's personal choices.

Are you saying women should not have a choice?

In that case, would anyone have a choice? How would you do things, if it were up to you?

One could instate a law that requires everyone of a certain age to be publicly employed, but then how would that go for those who are self employed, especially those who are self employed from home(like a person who makes a living off of their crafts on Etsy, a self employed contractor/landscaper, or a personal child/adult care provider)?

 

[epronovost]

I'm not sure how this is relevant in one's personal choices.

It's relevant because social mores are the sum total of personal choices. Your personal choices can have influence that extend outside your own person.

Are you saying women should not have a choice?

No. I am saying that men and women should be cognizant of the consequences of their choices. For example, a woman choosing to stay at home to take care of her children is a perfectly legitimate personal choice without any negative implication. Though, if it were the norm for women to stay at home to take care of their children, it would invariably lead to women being relegated to an inferior status in society, politics and culture. The law of large numbers can be ruthless at time, but one should always be aware of their own influence. We don't just make choices for ourselves. We also make choices and set examples for others and society in general. That's both the perk and the curse of living in a society.

 

[JustGeorge]

It's relevant because social mores are the sum total of personal choices. Your personal choices can have influence that extend outside your own person.



No. I am saying that men and women should be cognizant of the consequences of their choices. For example, a woman choosing to stay at home to take care of her children is a perfectly legitimate personal choice without any negative implication. Though, if it were the norm for women to stay at home to take care of their children, it would invariably lead to women being relegated to an inferior status in society, politics and culture.

I see where you're coming from.

Of course one's personal choices affect more than just them. I guess its just finding that balance between a life lived only for oneself, and a life lived only for others. That can be a hard line to draw.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

So there's something I don't understand about feminism. I see feminism as a push to men and women being treated equally.

However, the way I see things now, women sometimes get treated worse at home and as part of the family unit, as well as when it comes to getting paid for their work, but significantly better than men when it comes to the justice system, their value as seen by the administrators of dating sites, and a lot of, I feel, by modern society in general.

So would advocating for feminism and it getting followed by others as a result, just be to get them treated worse in the areas they are treated better than men, but better treated in the areas where they are treated worse than men?


View attachment 52606

Ideally, no but realistically, probably yes.