Me Myself
Back to my username
racism
sexism
animalism
classism
religionism
ageism
If you heard feminism for the first time of your life, what do you think it would mean?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Does "Feminism" Mean to You?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
racism
sexism
animalism
classism
religionism
ageism
If you heard feminism for the first time of your life, what do you think it would mean?
I have to disagree with you on most of that - I don't believe that my interests are tied up in this and I don't think I'm demonstrating my fear of my rights being infringed upon. Seems you've made a leap of logic there. The reverse discrimination canard (as you put it) is not to be scoffed at. Don't you think it's a natural result of imposing an "ism" on something. I think it's a fairly universal principle - one 'ism' comes along and superimposes another, then another one wants to come along and get rid of that one too, and each one claims to be making an improvement.
I believe very strongly in improving the situations for women, gays, and all other minority groups wherever they might be. That includes me as a white man in China! But getting all militant and "ism"-hungry over it isn't going to make a lasting contribution. Labelling something as an 'ism' simply creates opposition to it. You say that the feminist movement is seeking reform, and to some extent I agree with you, but at the same time it is generating a mass hypocrisy, where it's ok for women to be feminist but not for men to be chauvenist. How about you all stop being so crap to each other and just accept your similarities and differences for what they are! And stop thinking that you're both superior.
I would call myself passionate for women's rights, just as I am passionate for gay rights and the rights of racial minorities. But that doesn't make me a feminist. I draw a line between the two. Saying that feminism is the cause of women's rights is a fallacy, and unfair to those of us who do not wish to be labelled with an unwanted "ism"
Feminism isn't about imposing a matriarchy.
wa:do
yes I know in fact, I was just answering a point that someone brought up about feminism being a movement against patriarchy, or a movement born out of patriarchy, and i was just putting forward a hypothetical idea...because the way I see it, these kinds of isms are just one belief system trying to superimpose another, and thus replace one form of discrimination with another.
To elaborate on my previous points - basically my position on this is that any "ism" whether it's feminism, capitalism, socialism or whatever, basically encourages one system trying to convince others of its superiority to another. While it's unrealistic to imagine a world completely free of isms, I think that getting rid of some where we can would be the most beneficial thing.
Looking at feminism individually, I believe that it encourages women to feel superior to men, as opposed to simply being passionate about being on equal footing with men. I believe that there are differences between men and women, but that these differences do not make us unequal. The British are different to the Chinese - but neither nationality is "superior". I also don't want to brand all feminists so brashly, so I'm sorry if that's how I come across. I'm a relativist (argh, an ism) at heart, and don't wish to place such absolute labels on things.
However, the way I see it, feminism will bring no real positive long-term solution to the problem of women's rights, because as an "ism" it naturally provokes opposition and you end up in the deadlock of circular battle. As one side gains, the other counters and regains, and invariably, the more militant wings of each side get the most attention and become the most "associated" with the movement. This provokes opposition parties to move against it, and the circular arguments commence!
Fighting for women's rights is a truly noble cause - but feminism by its definition is basically just the opposite of chauvenism - and if we really believe in the equality between men and women, then shouldn't we abandon both concepts? How about feminists and chauvenists BOTH just stop being idiotic and let's just focus on working together as equal partners.
Looking at feminism individually, I believe that it encourages women to feel superior to men, as opposed to simply being passionate about being on equal footing with men. I believe that there are differences between men and women, but that these differences do not make us unequal. The British are different to the Chinese - but neither nationality is "superior". I also don't want to brand all feminists so brashly, so I'm sorry if that's how I come across. I'm a relativist (argh, an ism) at heart, and don't wish to place such absolute labels on things.
However, the way I see it, feminism will bring no real positive long-term solution to the problem of women's rights, because as an "ism" it naturally provokes opposition and you end up in the deadlock of circular battle. As one side gains, the other counters and regains, and invariably, the more militant wings of each side get the most attention and become the most "associated" with the movement. This provokes opposition parties to move against it, and the circular arguments commence!
Fighting for women's rights is a truly noble cause - but feminism by its definition is basically just the opposite of chauvenism - and if we really believe in the equality between men and women, then shouldn't we abandon both concepts? How about feminists and chauvenists BOTH just stop being idiotic and let's just focus on working together as equal partners.
You're confused about what feminism really is, then. Feminism IS all about working toward equal rights, protections, and opportunities for both men and women.
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
That is indeed what it says on the label.
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Also, affirmative action is, ipso facto, reverse discrimination. But it's also a **** poor excuse for reparations, and does little to overcome the de facto affirmative action that advantages many whites.
ie, connections, old money and assets, etc.
ie, connections, old money and assets, etc.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I think you are getting needlessly wrapped up in the suffix "ism".
Heroism, optimism and colloquialism are also all "ism"s.... are they all equally vile?
And yet you are placing such absolute labels on things.... like the idea that feminism encouraging women to feel superior... when in truth it's goal is to not make women inferior.
If a woman feels superior to a man it's not because of feminism... such attitudes predate feminism as a movement.
Face it... the "ism"s that you are so against are simply labels on our principles and characteristics. Things we all by our very natures have.
I disagree... every movement toward equality naturally brings opposition. That doesn't mean that we should avoid equality.
I also don't think that the right to vote, right to work and right to choose your own spouse are things that are going to go away any time soon or are things that aren't genuinely positive.
If equal access to education, healthcare, legal protections and personal safety are neither positive nor long-term then we have problems beyond the "ism" of feminism.
No it isn't. It is a counter to chauvinism, but it isn't the opposite.
Once again, feminism isn't about matriarchy, misandry or treating men as "less than" women.
wa:do
Mr. Skittles
Active Member
I've taken a philosophy of feminism course. I've taken a woman's study course (all course to fulfill my general education requirements lol). Your talking about over 120 people in one lecture. All the women do in those courses was complain complain complain. I was 1 of 5 guys in those courses. I even argued with one girl on the movie "G.I Jane" and why in reality women couldn't join special forces (not saying no women can't but for physiological reasons at this time I don't see it possible). She got mad and called me sexist.
So my point is how can feminism teach equality while badgering the other and yes I took two courses of feminist philosophy and women's studies and yes they do badger men I was there lol.
So my point is how can feminism teach equality while badgering the other and yes I took two courses of feminist philosophy and women's studies and yes they do badger men I was there lol.
Yes, and I firmly believe we should judge the entire movement by our experience of those bad followers. It's only fair.
First, why can't women join special forces? I'm curious to read your answer why it's a reality. Perhaps the answer you gave was sexist. It doesn't mean you're a bad person, but it can mean your view of women's abilities might be skewed.
Second, I've taken women's studies in college, too. In one class, an entire mid-term was focused on the writings of Simone de Beaviour's "The Second Sex." As critical as the Second Wave of feminism was of work opportunities were for women, none of the women nor the professor complained or badgered men. In fact, the men who took the course were welcomed for their perspective on feminism in the then-1990's. Back then, we were just seeing the dawn of Third Wave Feminism.
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
I led several discussions with men-only in our meditation group a couple of years ago, and asked questions on their views concerning books like 'The Myth of Male Power." I even started a thread here on it, and continue to listen, since I have a husband and three teenaged boys that I love and care for and wish for their well-being.
Presume much?
work in progress
Well-Known Member
I'm betting that they also have no awareness that 40 and more years ago, newspapers ran separate help wanted ads for male and female job posting. The female jobs were the typical secretary, stenographer, domestic help etc. that were low-paying dead end jobs. A married woman could not testify against her husband in court. Women had no legal access to abortion. I'm not sure what the laws were in the U.S. at the time, but in Canada during the mid-70's, the rape and sexual assault laws were finally extended to allow married women to refuse their husband's advances. Previously, even in cases where there was a legal separation, an exhusband could barge in, take his exwife and not face any charges...because there was nothing on the books to rule that a crime had been committed, as long as the divorce hadn't been finalized! And there are likely lots of other things that I can't come up with right now because....I don't have first hand experience of being a woman during the 60's and 70's, and I haven't looked at any feminist blogs that I check in on occasion to refresh my memory of that time.
So, my hunch is that most of these girls who agree with you on gender roles, are typical, weak-minded young women afraid they won't be popular if some guy says they are being a *****, and they, like most young people these days, have no awareness or appreciation of recent history. After all, the second wave of feminism didn't even start until the early 60's!
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
I was referring to the relative lack of 'men's studies' as compared to 'women's studies' in college curricula, and also the fact that 'studies' in general (ie, history) tend to be, in some sense, more men's studies than women's studies, a regrettable point, seemingly necessitating the existence of a separate and self-insulating women's studies.
Would you mind linking the thread? I'd like to read it.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
No, and I don't even accept your premise that movements advocating on behalf of oppressed groups are "imposing" their will on the majority.
If you really believe in improving the situation for oppressed groups you wouldn't be making the comparison between feminism and chauvinism in the first place! First of all, I've read a number of feminist writers over the years, and although there are things where some of them have gone off on tangents on (especially in psychology theories), I don't recall any calling for a reversal of power and the suppression of men. Just as with other examples of affirmative action and laws and workplace rules designed to bring some balance, it's not easy to fix every situation. But, if you're really concerned about bringing balance, you're not going to be jumping up and down with your hair on fire because changes in the workplace -- such as ones where women were previously excluded like mine. I hear guys I work with ******** because a woman gets a workplace accommodation during pregnancy. Well, men don't have the privilege of going through nine months of labour and birthing babies, so making things equal depends on making a few concessions in real life situations may require a little more of a generous spirit and a little less selfishness and egotism, which seems to be running rampant these days.
You still haven't explained what you find objectionable about feminism, and yes, without feminist movements starting in the late 1800's and then again in the 60's, nothing would have changed. Every major social advancement was not provided by the generosity of the majority, nor politicians who wear the progressive label! They depend on mass movements that jar a society out of their comfortable complacency and convince a majority that it's better to make some concessions than deal with a rising level of anger.
It doesn't always work, many times populist uprisings are brutally suppressed....even here in the West, which I believe will be the end result for Occupy and similar movements that are challenging the growing wealth and power of the business class. But, for grievances of women, racial minorities, native americans, gays, immigrants etc. to be heard, they have to take to the streets.
For Americans, if you want to see feminists take to the streets again, keep attacking pay equity laws and reproductive rights, and the demonstrations will be back again!
Ah, my mistake. Sorry about that.
Sure. I titled it The Insecure Male because I wanted to get some feedback from men about their perspectives of society's expectations of masculinity, the male ego, and how a man is supposed to value himself.
I learned quite a bit from what the fellas had to say.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
As I touched in another post, I am not in the dry, theoretical circles of academia; I have worked in a large metal fabricating and machine shop that did not have any female employees on the floor until about 15 years ago. This is my basis for understanding who gains and who is disadvantaged in the typical workplace. The first women who enter a previous all-male bastion face a lot of abuse and intimidation, even if most guys try to be subtle about it. Most of the guys were adamant that women can't do our jobs and shouldn't be on the floor. It took me awhile to figure out that most of their objections were centered around a fear that our jobs lose their status if women can do them too. It's only been in the last few years that things seem to have cooled down a bit. A lot of guys were getting hit with sexual harassment complaints at first because they just couldn't deal with a female worker on that level -- they were either trying to be nasty to them, or trying to chat them up in the hopes that maybe they could **** them later.
In my personal experience, I'm married, but I have two sons - no girls; even my three brothers only have two girls among their children, so if there is a big reason why I am a feminist or a feminist-supporter or whatever you want to call it, it's because of what I see and have seen going on in the workplace. And, I know that not all women are perfect...there are some that have appeared to try to take advantage of being female for their own personal advancement; but most of them go to work, try to do a good job, and earn a decent paycheque for their efforts.