Modern Feminists - aren't playing with a full deck, they have a 3.

[dexeded]

There are extremists in every belief and ideology. I don't see the point of this thread because this is clearly one of those cases where feminism is mistaken espoused as a reverse gender discrimination, against men instead. Not all modern feminists are as extreme as that, because modern feminism is about equality. So I don't exactly appreciate the panning of the modern feminist based on this one woman.

 

[This Year's Girl]

Getting back to a lot Modern Feminists not having full deck:
Maybe, I should say 'radical feminists'

I don't think it's fair to say that that article is saying what radical feminism is about.

In some regards I think radical feminism can be considered old fashion, but what's great about it is that it points to the structural side of the discrimination:

Radical feminism views patriarchy as dividing rights, privileges and power by gender, and as a result oppressing women and privileging men. (It is important to know that radical feminism opposes patriarchy though, not men. So it's not about radical man-hating, that is to assume that patriarchy and men are inseparable, philosophically and politically, and it's not. It's the ROLE men are give and what that role means in society they want to change and have equal for all human beings).

What radical feminism fails to do many times though is to ignore that they are other aspects than gender that determine ones position and how you're treated too. Age, skin color, how able your body is, which sexual orientation you have and so on. I think it oversimplifices things and overlooks that men can be discriminated too. Not to mention transpeople!

But it has played an important role, have some good points and shouldn't be devalued either. There is a partiarchy and that should be acknowledged, just not as the ONLY reason. 🙂

 

[Sweet J]

Actually you can, just not by talking and discussing. Discussing is really important to keep the issue active and not to forget about it but it won't make bigots change their minds. Prejudices can't be dismantled by talking because of cognitive difenses. Someone who discriminates and has prejudices won't listen to logic. Therefore it's mandatory that the government guarantees protection and equality for all. Society will adjust.

I think that this strip, although about another hot issue, sums it all up with the representation of those steps 🙂

From what I've read you can't change peoples behaviour or mind,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/behaviour-change-sustainability-tips

The Government guarantee of the protection and safeguarding of equality that you brought up is one of the reasons why I'm a firm constitutionalist and not too keen on pure Democracy, which doesn't have such safeguards and is prone to voting for and electing some pretty nasty laws and people. For example the Swiss(who are widely regared as equality seeking individuals) recently voted on limiting the religious freedoms of their Muslim population by preventing them from building minarets on their mosques.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland

As you've said, the hard part to changing people's minds is that most of the time these prejudices that bigots have are seemingly immune to logicaly reasoning, it's a sad fact that cognitive dissonance is not only still rampant but appears to be a natural human flaw, none of us are perfect and I pity bigots for falling into the mental sand trap that the likes of racist rhetoric sets for them. We've all been swept up in emotional rhetoric at one time or another and the logical skeptical parts of ourselves don't question it. I'll be the first to admit I sure have.

and a bit of a pet peeve, I really despise caricaturing important issues, I think a lot of important information is intentionally left out in a caricature and they thus lend themselves to easy exploitation as a propaganda tool, though I'm not solely picking on your strip.

and Oh no... what's this, I feel like we're going to get sucked into a derailment! ARGH!!! lol

The opposition to Gay marriage is strange, and as usual there are a complex number of reasons why people oppose it, for example my gay cousin is getting married here in Ireland in August, and although I support him and the principle of gay marriage, I wouldn't like to see him looking after adopted children. Not because he's gay, but because he's pretty immature, he'd put you in mind of a teenage valley girl.

At the end of the day, I think a lot of opposition towards same sex couples comes down to 2 things, questioning their parental abilities and all that religious sanctity malarkey. I'm of the opinion that you should have to pass a test to be deemed suitable to look after kids, whether you make them yourself in a heterosexual relationship or adopt them in a homosexual relationship.

If the adoption agency assess couples(regardless of sexual orientation) and deems them to meet the criteria to be sound parents, then great! Otherwise, as is the case with my cousin, I wouldn't like to see him looking after children.

Unfortunately though there is no such Parenting test, and therein(I think) lies a lot of peoples reservations about legalizing same sex marriage, so perhaps if that concern was put to bed there would be less opposition.

 

[david4wt]

[MENTION=11786]Sweet J[/MENTION] I didn't really understand what point you're making in the first part of your topic. Equality legislation is fondamental because it makes discrimantors and discriminates interact on the same level, thus leading to what the contact hypotesis in social psychology suggests. For further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_hypothesis , and I'm sure you'll find some well written article on the APA's site.

Also, gay rights are not the topic of this discussion, and I think there shouldn't be any discussion about them. Just a side note, I'm not sure of how the foster network works outside Italy but I'm really sure that foster parents go through a series of tests and interviews all around the world.

 

[Sweet J]

I don't think it's fair to say that that article is saying what radical feminism is about.

In some regards I think radical feminism can be considered old fashion, but what's great about it is that it points to the structural side of the discrimination:

Radical feminism views patriarchy as dividing rights, privileges and power by gender, and as a result oppressing women and privileging men. (It is important to know that radical feminism opposes patriarchy though, not men. So it's not about radical man-hating, that is to assume that patriarchy and men are inseparable, philosophically and politically, and it's not. It's the ROLE men are give and what that role means in society they want to change and have equal for all human beings).

What radical feminism fails to do many times though is to ignore that they are other aspects than gender that determine ones position and how you're treated too. Age, skin color, how able your body is, which sexual orientation you have and so on. I think it oversimplifices things and overlooks that men can be discriminated too. Not to mention transpeople!

But it has played an important role, have some good points and shouldn't be devalued either. There is a partiarchy and that should be acknowledged, just not as the ONLY reason. 🙂

Thanks for bringing the patriarchy thing up, as this is also where modern feminism loses me.
Now I'd be the first to fight for equal rights: women's right to vote, equal pay etc etc.
but when it comes to the like of the patriarchy stuff you guys completely lose me, as I don't see it as an issue,if Patriarchy it's not discrimination then why is it an issue?
Maybe it has something to do with my rearing?
I was raised by a strong independent woman, and as for my father, I have the typical absent father story, I'd see him once every 2 months or so.

So maybe that's why I find the patriarchy stuff hard to listen to.

Yes Men seek powerful positions and usually attain them, and I'll even meet you half way at ''we live in a male dominated world'' but if women were trying to attain powerful positions too, in a equal society, then they have every opportunity to do so, just like any man.
I also know that Women are under-represented in politics in just about every western country, but this is not out of discrimination, but seemingly out of a female lack of interest.
A lack of interest that I can't fault you guys with, politics is pretty circus like. I'm not fond of it either.

So in closing, shouldn't patriarchy be an issue to an anthropologist only? I can't see how it gets shoe horned in with equal rights.

 

[david4wt]

So in closing, shouldn't patriarchy be an issue to an anthropologist only? I can't see how it gets shoe horned in with equal rights.

And you think that anthropolical studies hasn't have anything to teach to modern society?

 

[Cast No Shadow]

Yes Men seek powerful positions and usually attain them, and I'll even meet you half way at ''we live in a male dominated world'' but if women were trying to attain powerful positions too, in a equal society, then they have every opportunity to do so, just like any man.
I also know that Women are under-represented in politics in just about every western country, but this is not out of discrimination, but seemingly out of a female lack of interest.

I don't have much to say on the topic, since it's like so many we've had before, but I think this, right here is ridiculous and offensive.

 

[This Year's Girl]

[MENTION=11786]Sweet J[/MENTION] Women aren't encouraged as much as men to enter politics or go after other powerful positions, so that could be a result of a lack of interest; a lot of people are simply not given a chance to find out they are interested in an area which I think is a real shame. Women also get a lot of resistance when trying these things. Both has to do with that it doesn't fit in to the very stereotypical gender role of what women should like and do. Men also have these stereotypes surronding them, but the difference is that the things that a man is supposed to live up to is a lot of the time valued higher in society.

If you step out of this very small little box as a man or a woman (not to mention if you're a transperson!) there is consequences in form of all the way from social akward situations and snarky comments to really serious things like bullying, threats and sometimes even murder. As a result of this a lot of people stay within the zone (or tip toe arround the edge) of what is ok when it comes to men and women, which means men stay more powerful in a lot of areas because of the value of what is considered "male".

As an example. A few weeks in sweden we had our national competition to chose our entry for the eurovision song contest. A LOT of people watch this in sweden. In the audience there was a woman cheering with her arms in the air so you could see that she hadn't shaved her arm pits. To not shave your armpits is something that goes outside of the zone of what is acceptable female behavoir according to the stereotypes of how a woman should be. As a result of this image the woman was badly bullied on facebook by thousands of people. A support group was formed called "Reclaim the hair!" where women jokingly showed their armpit hair in the groups log on facebook. These women recieved thousands and thousands of nasty comments, death threats, rape threats and people finding out their adresses and phone numbers. All because of some hair. So the norms of how women and men should act are still very strong and unfourtnatly the norms a lot of the times favours men. As I said though: it is very important to remember that there is lot of other things that effect humans and how they are seen too, like age, sexual orientation and ethnicity. 🙂

When you're saying that women does not have power simply because they don't want it, it's like saying that we're just not trying hard enough to attain it. That is simply not true and are placing a lot of blaim on a individual when the problem is structural.

 

[Jules]

Yes Men seek powerful positions and usually attain them, and I'll even meet you half way at ''we live in a male dominated world'' but if women were trying to attain powerful positions too, in a equal society, then they have every opportunity to do so, just like any man.
I also know that Women are under-represented in politics in just about every western country, but this is not out of discrimination, but seemingly out of a female lack of interest.
A lack of interest that I can't fault you guys with, politics is pretty circus like. I'm not fond of it either.

In the UK women get paid, on average, 15.5% less than men. Setting aside the fact that women get paid less, your comment about ''them having every opportunity to do so, just like any man'' is incorrect. Did you know that in the UK 30,000 women lost their jobs last year due to being pregnant. So even if women ''didnt lack interest'' in a particular field of business there's still factors that need to be addressed. The law for equal pay has been around in the UK for 40 years, yet its still not helping all women.

 

[Cast No Shadow]

To add, chauvinistic and ignorant perceptions, like "women don't have an interest in politics" also contribute to holding women back in that field.

 

[Sweet J]

In the UK women get paid, on average, 15.5% less than men. Setting aside the fact that women get paid less, your comment about ''them having every opportunity to do so, just like any man'' is incorrect. Did you know that in the UK 30,000 women lost their jobs last year due to being pregnant. So even if women ''didnt lack interest'' in a particular field of business there's still factors that need to be addressed. The law for equal pay has been around in the UK for 40 years, yet its still not helping all women.

I looked this up as I was unfamiliar with it,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4634645.stm
''Roughly 30,000 women a year lose their jobs because of pregnancy, but only 3% lodge a complaint at a tribunal, the EOC said.''

Why aren't all these unfairly dismissed women bringing court cases against their employer?
Secondaly, If 30,000 women are being illegally dismissed from work, but only 3% are lodging complaints...then how do they know 30,000 women have been dismissed?

@This Year's Girl Staying with the UK, how is your idea that there is a rigid patriarchy and gender role conspiracy treating the likes of stay at home dads? seems pretty welcoming to them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandst...orking-fathers-childcare?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

 

[Jules]

I looked this up as I was unfamiliar with it,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4634645.stm
''Roughly 30,000 women a year lose their jobs because of pregnancy, but only 3% lodge a complaint at a tribunal, the EOC said.''

Why aren't all these unfairly dismissed women bringing court cases against their employer?
Secondaly, If 30,000 women are being illegally dismissed from work, but only 3% are lodging complaints...then how do they know 30,000 women have been dismissed?

@This Year's Girl Staying with the UK, how is your idea that there is a rigid patriarchy and gender role conspiracy treating the likes of stay at home dads? seems pretty welcoming to them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandst...orking-fathers-childcare?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Why should they have to go to court? It is against the law to do this. It shouldnt be happening in the first place. What person, let alone a woman who has just given birth and lost her job, has time to start legal proceedings against a company.

Also, you dont have to register a complaint or take legal proceedings against your company for the information to be gathered. They just need to look at dismissal records and I'm sure the files would then highlight if that woman was pregnant or not.

 

[Cast No Shadow]

Why should they have to go to court? It is against the law to do this. It shouldnt be happening in the first place. What person, let alone a woman who has just given birth and lost her job, has time to start legal proceedings against a company.

Also, you dont have to register a complaint or take legal proceedings against your company for the information to be gathered. They just need to look at dismissal records and I'm sure the files would then highlight if that woman was pregnant or not.

I do agree with you, but it's less clear cut than that, I think. Sure, they can look at dismissal records, sure the woman may have been pregnant, but that's not enough evidence to prove that that's why she was dismissed.

 

[SlayerFest]

Of course she literally said 'thank you', but she has clearly expressed a bizarre disdain for her story being told in a way that shows she needed help in the first place, essentially giving a 2 fingers to the person that saved her life.

Maybe she feels like her story isn't newsworthy...and I agree. If some random guy had saved her, who would care? No one. I mean some people do like celebrity related news, but I personally don't give a kitty so I would feel the same way if something like that happened to me. She thanked the guy sooo yeah, I don't see the point of this thread. The article just seems like an excuse to attack feminism.

 

[kittenpoker]

To be fair, both articles linked in the original post were worded with an extreme biased slant.

So, in the interest of balance (which I think is crucial), here's another point of view....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gIQAzRClvS_blog.html?tid=pm_entertainment_pop

"Americans are very strange. They can and do hyperventilate about the most everyday happenings as if they are the most important thing in the world, and then they act completely normal when public conversations are had about war on Iran and war on women's bodies and when Rick Santorum is considered a serious presidential candidate. The real heroes I've met in America are risking everything to make sure that the United States doesn't slide further into bigotry, inequality and violence whilst everyone is distracted by the everyday doings of celebrities."

 

[Sweet J]

If I were discriminated against for being xyz I sure as hell would make sure my ex-employer get a healthy dose of legal medicine.

Fighting the likes of this is exactly what I agree with.

To add, chauvinistic and ignorant perceptions, like "women don't have an interest in politics" also contribute to holding women back in that field.

Women don't have as great an interest in politics: I'm not just spouting opinionated nonsense.
http://apr.sagepub.com/content/17/1/105.short
Although women now vote in national elections at the same rate as men, they are still less politically interested. Using regression analysis and two new scales to tap an orientation toward women's place in the public arena (Traditional Feminine Role Scale) and political interest (Political Apathy Scale), this article seeks to test the utility of the three standard explanations for women's political orientations (situational, structural, and sex-role socialization) in understanding the continuing "gender gap" in political interest.

Men don't have as great an interest in Fashion, therefore men are under-represented in fashion and the fashion industry, an industry, I presume that is female dominated.

Men don't have as great an interest in nursing, therefore there are more females in the nursing business etc.

men don't have as great an interest in the perfume industry, therefore, I presume, that is another female dominated industry.

This does not appear to be discrimination, just what different genders are interested in, how our different minds work.

I whole-heartedly welcome more women to get involved in politics, I'm actually a personal semi-fan of a female politican in Ireland.

 

[brinkster130]

I really don't think the article you shared is truly about feminism. When I read it it seemed more like the women disliked the attention that came with such a little act. The fact that it involved a celebrity doing something so little (but very kind) got national attention seemed to rub her the wrong way so she spoke out against it an extreme way (and a wwriter who acted out in an equally extreme way). I thought it showed her dislike for societies obsession with Hollywood celebrities.

This woman is not in any way an accurate representation of what feminism is; it is a collective effort by both males and female to support and rally for equal rights everywhere.

Also, I would like to remind everyone to keep this conversation civil. 🙂

 

[This Year's Girl]

@This Year's Girl Staying with the UK, how is your idea that there is a rigid patriarchy and gender role conspiracy treating the likes of stay at home dads? seems pretty welcoming to them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandst...orking-fathers-childcare?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

It isn't "my idea" or "a conspiracy". What I told you are facts. Patriarchy and gender roles exists, it isn't something that is up for discussion.

Stay at home fathers meet resistance, yes. But it's great that attitudes are changing. I think that's the way to go about it besides laws, going outside the norms so the structures slowly break down.

 

[Taake]

[MENTION=11786]Sweet J[/MENTION]

but when it comes to the like of the patriarchy stuff you guys completely lose me, as I don't see it as an issue,if Patriarchy it's not discrimination then why is it an issue?

I'm sorry but this really made me laugh. If patriarchy is not discrimination?
Patriarchy is the very CORE of discrimination against women (and children in certain senses) as patriarchy is an ideology where the concept of the father-figure is integral along with ”pater potestas” (power of the father)

You can trace it back to the binding of Isaac, patriarchy is the concept where the father's word and will becomes the law, what you have to obey, a message subscribed throughout e.g many a holy book. It is the creative power and therefor connected with the destroying power.

Patriarchy is the heart from which stems the very ideas of female ”weakness” ”submission” ”passivity” ”incapability” (which breeds into a monster of it's own with the 'women don't have as big of an interest in politics etc …)

Now personally I would argue that in a lot of places in the Western world patriarchy has become seriously compromised (we now have more of a male dominance in our society) but I feel that the integral role of the father has diminshed to the extent of the word becoming obsolete, which may seem like semantics but that's where I stand.

Feminism may have it's faults, most ideologies do, but it is just as unfair to label all modern feminist as ”radical” is it would be to name all men ”chauvanists”. It is simply not true.

And what the title story of this thread has to do with feminism at all is beyond me, it seems to me that the woman is simply not pleased with heaving her story repeated, as it is of little interest, because a celebrity helped her. Not a man, a celebrity, and that is just a sad social commentary on our world today IMO

 

[Buffy Summers]

Men don't have as great an interest in Fashion, therefore men are under-represented in fashion and the fashion industry, an industry, I presume that is female dominated.

Have you looked at the fashion industry lately? Men are everywhere.

Men don't have as great an interest in nursing, therefore there are more females in the nursing business etc.

And I'm sure male nurses feel discriminated against.

This does not appear to be discrimination, just what different genders are interested in, how our different minds work.

It is discrimination when someone can't pursue a certain career or pursue it with the same opportunities because of their gender, whether it's a male nurse or a female politician.