Feminism

[Úlfheðinn]

To save the date thread, currently known as "Dating Grauuu, v. V" from yet another discussion threatening to lead to a new level of off-topic off-topicness I have thanks to the guidance of vodka, decided to make a thread regarding feminism.

Let us begin with what appears to be the cause of this debate on our glorious forums, is feminism by nature of its name and purpose a discriminating ideology?

 

[FrisianDude]

Okay, let me dumb this down. Feminism in its original form (hence the name) was a reactionary movement.

I don't quite get in what way it was a reactionary movement when it just started up.

if anything, I'd call it part of the revolutionary -isms which started to gain momentum in the eighteenth century. Less political than most those -isms were (with the exception of Romanticism). Most other -isms at the time (liberalism, nationalism, radicalism/republicanism, absolutism mainly) did not really specify anything to improve social equality and, specifically, the position of women in society. Even the most strident of those four mainstream -isms I listed wanted universal male sufferage. These were the radicals (in England by that name) and the republicans (of France). Even liberalism, which also specified voting rights, kept a principle of 'stake in society' which meant that it was still mostly those with a certain monetary threshold to be allowed to vote.  If anything, I'd consider feminism at its start a continuation of said republicanism. Mind you, to quote Palmer, Colton and Kramer  in their 'A history of the modern world' (tenth edition) in paragraph 73, The Advance of Democracy: Third French Republic, United Kingdom, German Empire.

"Of other countries it can be said that the political forms of democracy showed signs of advancing everywhere. Universal male suffraage was adopted in Switzerland in 1874, in Belgium in 1893, in the Netherlands in 1896, and in the next few years in Norway and Sweden.

In southern europe, besides Italy, universal male suffrage was introduced in Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and after the revolt 1908, in Turkey. Even tsarist Russia, after the revolution of 1905, received a Duma, or national parliament, elected on a wide franchise but on an indirect and undemocratic class basis and with narrow powers. Among states west of the Russian empire, only Hungary and Romania had a highly restricted suffrage on the eve of the First World War. The vote for women progressed more slowly. Women voted before 1914 only in certain western states of the United States, in Australia, New Zealand, Finland, and Norway. Not until after the First World War did female suffrage begin to make significant advances, and women did not gain the right to vote in France and Italy until after the Second World War.

My point in all this is that feminism did not start as inherently reactonary, but as a continuation of a democratizing tendency displayed all over.

Edit; I accidentally posted while sober.

 

[Jhessail]

Oh boy, oh boy, this will be fun!

Okay, let me dumb this down. Feminism in its original form (hence the name) was a reactionary movement. I like what they achieved, but as I said, I think that reactionary movements are rather limited by nature, making them less useful than broader movements for large-term change.
Current mainstream feminism isn't reactionary, wanting more broadly to introduce equality of genders in the world. I like that too, because of the above-mentioned. I said that the name was ill-fitting for this noble undertaking, which Bulle then explained the historic reason for. Wonderful.

I don't think there's anyone here, me, included, who assumed every feminist was a manhating harpy. Far from it.

Feminism has never been a reactionary movement. Reactionary movements want society to return to some idealized version of the past - that probably never existed outside of their dreams. Feminism has always been a progressive movement. I'm not sure how you've come to hold the view that Feminism was reactionary.

There's no point in arguing about the name. As pointed out by Mrs.Dryvus, every name would be belittled.

At the same time, when you browse YA supernatural romance you tend to find the opposite end of the spectrum: Unintentionally misogynist female writers and (tweenage) readers who think that abusive relationships are okay as long as the guy is hot, that a girl's life should spin around a hot guy's **** and whims, or that it's alright to play the love martyr's role in the hope that a bad boy would turn good.

Oh yes, Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey, just to name the most recent ones. They merely follow on the footsteps of a long-line of crappy bodice-rippers. Some of the romance books are harmless, other's really aren't, being excellent cultural brainwashing material for young, impressionable, minds.

I'm still dubious about anyone who calls themselves a feminist as though it were a badge of honor.

Do you feel the same about every other group that has ideological pinnings? Because you're going to feel dubious about most of humanity, except maybe the Jersey Shore crowd who don't have enough brainpower to embrace any ideology... unless you define their lifestyle as an ideology of sorts.

I've gotten into a number of heated arguments with feminists before, like the kind who would argue that the sexism Western women face is as bad as that experienced by women in the Middle-East or some African countries. It drives me nuts. But I have no problem with hating feminists while being a feminist, because I can hold a nuanced thought.

Of course it's not as bad and anyone who claims so is ignorant of reality but women in Western countries do face problems as well. Classic example being Skepchick's post about her expo-experience, how she felt threatened when some random dude cornered her in an elevator at 3 AM and asked if he could join her in her room - and the atheist&skeptic-blogosphere exploded with well-educated men shouting that she was silly, stupid and an overreacting shrill. Including Richard Dawkins. Instead of, you know, acknowledging how such an situation might actually feel like to a tiny woman with no route of escape and no way of calling for help.

When have innocent men had to prove their innocence to feminists?

Rebel is referencing my one rant from the Rape-thread, where I advocated that, if a court is presented with physical evidence of sex having taken place, they should rely more on the woman's testimony if it was otherwise a "he said, she said"-case. Position which many of our wonderful boys here then immediately twisted into meaning that I advocate that all men who've had sex with a woman to be sent into jail. 

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

I'm never drunk, does that mean I'm not allowed to post in this thread?

Might as well get started by stating my views: I'm all for feminism as far as (i) equality of opportunities, (ii) condemnation of rape culture, harmful stereotypes and unreasonable societal expectation, and (iii) promoting equality in relationships. The moment it crosses the border into female supremacy and crap like that, I put on my great helmet, don my red coat of plate, mount my heavy charger, wield my Sarleon banner and go lance-happy.

 

[Lascivo]

Spoiler: Feminism

 

[Úlfheðinn]

I am going to have to say that was the worst post so far in this thread.

I will be back in some hours, time for some breakfast Weißbier.

 

[Bulle]

The ones that taught me to be a feminist is my brothers, they are feminists themselves and they wanted something better for me than the society that we live in. Now, of course, one can look at feminism in different ways. My mother is a feminist as well, but the rest of the family in general disregards her feminist opinions since she believes that men and women should be equal, yet treated in different ways and have different places. The rest of us calls her out on it, saying that she is "difference feminist". I personally do not believe that men and women can be equal if we keep on being treated differently, which is why I find it unthinkable that a man should pay for me when we go on dates and hold up the doors just on the premises of our genders and gender roles. Now feminism has done a lot of things in Sweden, both for women and men, most of that is because feminism challenges the gender roles we have in society, even if you are a difference feminist. One example is the paid parental leave that you can split with your partner in any way you want, it's longer and it's more open for fathers to be able to participate in the family life. We then had campaigns in the 70s to encourage men to take out parental leave to stay home with their kids. Studies show that men are happier when they get to do this and women get a bigger chance to be more economically independent.

 

[Hanz]

Not another "FEMINAZIS ARE EVIL" thread.

 

[Seff]

Jhess: I obviously don't know what 'reactionary' means in politics, because I meant it as a movement working against a specific problem in society - ya know, as a reaction to a problem? Apparently that was too daring of me. FrisianDude says it isn't so, but it sure sounds that way to me - but I'm no expert.

 

[pentagathus]

I'm never drunk, does that mean I'm not allowed to post in this thread?

Might as well get started by stating my views: I'm all for feminism as far as (i) equality of opportunities, (ii) condemnation of rape culture, harmful stereotypes and unreasonable societal expectation, and (iii) promoting equality in relationships. The moment it crosses the border into female supremacy and crap like that, I put on my great helmet, don my red coat of plate, mount my heavy charger, wield my Sarleon banner and go lance-happy.

 

[Kevlar]

When I see women wanting equal rights or equal pay I have no problem with that, as long as they work as hard as their male counterparts. Military and police have separate requirements for men and women physically as well which is dumb since women don't seem to mind doing less.

If feminists actually want to make a difference they should go to the middle east and protest there to help their fellow women. In north america there is virtually no difference between a man and a women in terms of employment opportunities.

 

[Austupaio]

When I was job-searching with no prior experience I was actually written off for many places I applied to for being male.

 

[Jhessail]

In north america there is virtually no difference between a man and a women in terms of employment opportunities.

Spoken like a true member of privilege. Son, I am proud.

Jhess: I obviously don't know what 'reactionary' means in politics, because I meant it as a movement working against a specific problem in society - ya know, as a reaction to a problem? Apparently that was too daring of me. FrisianDude says it isn't so, but it sure sounds that way to me - but I'm no expert.

Ah, I see. In politics, reactionary isn't same as in science

 

[Corndawg]

If feminists actually want to make a difference they should go to the middle east and protest there to help their fellow women. In north america there is virtually no difference between a man and a women in terms of employment opportunities.

Spoiler

I've not the time to locate my sources and make my argument, I will return later.

 

[Austupaio]

Not really sure there's an argument to make, a male can't go work for a bridal store or most female-targeted department stores. No point pulling up statistics, it's right there.

 

[Bromden]

When I was job-searching with no prior experience I was actually written off for many places I applied to for being male.

And did you manage to accept after all those rejections that you won't make a career in Hooters?

 

[Austupaio]

And did you manage to accept after all those rejections that you won't make a career in Hooters?

With my wife's support, I was able to admit to myself that I didn't have what it takes to be a Hooters' girl.

With sincerity though, I was applying everywhere, and with the majority of mall stores being aimed at teen-aged girls, getting a job was ****ing hard. This was after I exhausted food industry jobs, construction, temp agencies, you name it. Getting a job without experience in the U.S. is ****ing impossible.

 

[FrisianDude]

Jhess: I obviously don't know what 'reactionary' means in politics, because I meant it as a movement working against a specific problem in society - ya know, as a reaction to a problem? Apparently that was too daring of me. FrisianDude says it isn't so, but it sure sounds that way to me - but I'm no expert.

Ohh. I see. I simply learnt to use the term 'reactionary' for those who reacted to the revolutionary tendencies of their day. People like Metternich were reactionary, states like Austria-Hungary had a reactionary tendency, etc. In that sense reactionary is indeed really a reaction to what they saw as a problem. (In Metternich/A-H case this problem was mostly nationalism.)

 

[Seff]

Yeah, well, I'm just content that it was the choice of words and not my (in my own mind) pretty civil opinions on the area that people were all up in arms about.

Jhess: Do you have a closer account of that woman's expo-elevator experience?

 

[Úlfheðinn]

Spoiler

http://www.bobpitch.com/anon/her_name_is_rio_aw_jeez_not_this_****_again2.jpg

Posting some random meme isn't funny, interesting or relevant. Go post in on topic or something equally pointless instead.

We, the order of IKEAzauberers will not stand for such annoying behavior in our glorious thread concerned with the wonderful topic of feminism.

If feminists actually want to make a difference they should go to the middle east and protest there to help their fellow women. In north america there is virtually no difference between a man and a women in terms of employment opportunities.

This is a terrible argument, should the poor in North America not be helped because there are poorer people in Africa?