lol
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t understand why women are so uptight, they get half the money and keep all the pussy.
- Gary Busey[/quote]
I wonder what his success rate with women was.[/quote]
Well look at the success rate of women in divorce. Talk about disparity. If ANY institution needs changing it is family law. How many fathers keep their kids? How many people do you know that get FUCKED in divorce? But no one says SHIT about that disparity.
It’s a RIDICULOUSLY skewed percentage of fathers that lose half their shit AND their kids due to laws that favor women. Where’s the outrage about that if “equality” is the goal?
It’s all just a bunch of noise driven by men hating feminists with penis envy. Again, all men know this.[/quote]
I work in the retirement industry. I had a guy call looking to get as much money out of his retirement as possible in what is called a hardship distribution.
He was an Iraq veteran. He got back home and got a job, his wife left him, he had to go on disability for medical reasons, and on top of that he just found out he has cancer. He has to pay his ex-wife alimony and half her mortgage and half her truck payment and she’s entitled to half his retirement. It comes out to him having to pay her more per month than he’s even taking in (settlement was reached back when he was working at his job).
Forget paying for cancer treatments, this guy can’t even keep a roof over his head or food on his plate. His ex-wife is taking all his money while he literally cannot afford to keep himself alive. I don’t know much about marital law, but that doesn’t seem right to me…[/quote]
It would be horrible if the house accidentally caught fire and burned down, with no one inside of course. He would collect the fire insurance and no longer be liable for the mortgage payment.
Not that I am recommending he burn down the house, but accidents do happen.
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
There are biological and reproductive realities that mean we will NEVER reach parity. In fact, I don’t want to live in a world that would look like that. More women are drawn to people oriented/ helping professions. Even women who have the math chops to be engineers. More women want to work part-time or step back from the workplace to raise young children. More women will trade more money for flexibility, less stress and responsibility, and fewer hours because they see family as a priority. I could go on. I’m not being retrograde in terms of encouraging women, and paying them what they are worth, or teaching them how to negotiate and compete. Just saying, do we really want a world where HALF of the CEOs are women. Half of the tenured professors are women? That’s a world where nobody’s having kids, or nobody’s raising kids. Everybody working full-time and as stressed out as possible. I don’t think most women, or men really want that. [/quote]
I agree, and think that most - though by no means all - women I know would agree, too.
I’ve chosen a comparatively low paying traditional “chick job” because it suits me. I’m feminine - my world is centered on home, not the public sphere. I’m competitive, but only to a certain degree, and it’s not one of my guiding values.
Something I would point out with regard to responses in this thread is that I opened with a clear admission that I fall into the specific category noted in the video. Yet when I or another woman note that women are not united in seeking to have physical standards lowered to allow access to jobs, for example, there is scoffing. It doesn’t matter, women are after these “equalities” en masse.
It’s simply not true, any more than it’s true that men seek a return to women as uneducated baby-making machines.
Edited to add: I say so, too, in conversations with women. I’m not a political animal - I’m home centered and fight-averse - so I’m not out there campaigning against radical feminism, but neither are most men campaigning for or against anything.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Edited to add: I say so, too, in conversations with women. I’m not a political animal - I’m home centered and fight-averse - so I’m not out there campaigning against radical feminism, but neither are most men campaigning for or against anything.[/quote]
Then you really don’t matter, do you? Like those dirty hippies used to say, if you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Edited to add: I say so, too, in conversations with women. I’m not a political animal - I’m home centered and fight-averse - so I’m not out there campaigning against radical feminism, but neither are most men campaigning for or against anything.[/quote]
Then you really don’t matter, do you? Like those dirty hippies used to say, if you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem.[/quote]
Do you matter, Uncle Gabby? If so, how so?
I believe I am part of the solution in my small way. I am honest and ethical and outspoken in all arenas of my life. When the matter of firefighters and lowered standards comes up, I state clearly that I am against this and do not believe it represents equality in any way shape or form. Because I am a social worker and a female, I am generally saying these things to an audience that is not comprised of angry would-be firefighters. Perhaps I can have some influence, who knows. I do know that my acquaintanceship includes hard-core feminists. I don’t pretend to think or feel things that will make me popular, I state the truth as I see it. “The Manosphere” and its legitimate grievances comes up in my conversations from time to time. Perhaps there are ripples outward as a result.
I am also in a unique position to influence hearts and minds through my work, which has me speaking intimately with approximately 30 people a week. I talk about divorce and custody issues, among other things. Perhaps I represent some small contribution there, where I play a supporting role for men getting their bearings in the wake of a breakup, or in some other way. Again, ripples.
I would like to think I am also part of the solution here at TNation, where I read with an open mind. I’ve been very clear that things I’ve read and discussed here have influenced me in my own life.
My point above, that you quoted, was that I DO speak out; these are not thoughts I limit to here, where it’s easy. So I think you’re being at best unfair and at worst a blazing hypocrite. Please, enlighten me as to your “solution” creds.
I would like to go on record here on T Nation to say that I support our EmmyDearest, and that she is part of the solution, and not part of the problem.
Em is like the most solutioniest female. Definitely not a perpetuator of the problem.
I would also like to go on record as stating that I wish perpetuant were a word (outside of mathematics) as it seems wholly superior to perpetuator.
Em - I would call you an actual feminist because you seem to believe what the original tenants of feminism were rather than the current corruption of the movement. I.E., you believe a woman should have equal opportunity to be successful and choose what path in life she wants rather than be forced to follow the ‘feminist’ path which says put on a pant suit, get into a male dominated industry and show them who’s boss. Funny (and I’m stealing this from George Carlin), feminists believe men have completely screwed up America, the Earth, and everything else, but they also seem to think the only way to equalize and fix everything is to dress and act like men. Irony anyone?
Anyways EmilyQ, my point is I agree with you. I don’t believe all women are lazy incompetent bitches who want to destroy the livelihood of every man they come into contact with. When you see how many crazy bitches are out there, it kind of defeats that argument (at least partially), but still. And I will also allow that many crazy bitches were made that way by men. Not all, but many.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Edited to add: I say so, too, in conversations with women. I’m not a political animal - I’m home centered and fight-averse - so I’m not out there campaigning against radical feminism, but neither are most men campaigning for or against anything.[/quote]
Then you really don’t matter, do you? Like those dirty hippies used to say, if you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem.[/quote]
Do you matter, Uncle Gabby? If so, how so?
[/quote]
Ha! I obviously touched a nerve this morning. But don’t be mad, look at all the E hugs you’re getting! Do I matter? Probably more to some, less to others.
But allow me to retort, point by point.
You stated that here, on a forum where the vast majority likely agree with you. That’s nice. But it doesn’t matter. I hope that you would speak up and say something in public, if you lived somewhere that this was an issue. I like you and you do seem honest. I don’t think you would say one thing here and something different elsewhere. But you might express your opinion here, and in private circles, but not do much of anything beyond that?
Every woman I know, even the ones who self identify as feminists all claim they’re against this. So why is this the prevailing political current these days?
With Fire and Police departments this is often a local issue, and things really vary greatly by locality. Some departments are integrating women and maintaining high standards, others are not. It would be up to you pay attention to what’s going on locally and if you read or hear something about your police or fire departments making an effort to “promote diversity” or hire more women, you might want to write to your city counselman, maybe an editorial to the local paper saying “that’s cute, but as a citizen and a taxpayer I hope that your first priority is to hire people who are capable of doing the job.” As a woman your voice would have far more influence in that matter than a man’s.
High standards shouldn’t just apply to women. On going physical fitness requirements should be part of every fire and police department. Yet I see an awful lot of obese cops and firefighters. But some departments are better than others and it all depends on where you live. If I lived in a municipality where this was an issue I would speak up loudly and often.
I caught the “angry would-be firefighter” dig. The anger part is your projection. I am a fire fighter. I volunteer. I would love to get on a paid department, a good paid department, but will soon turn 36, so that’s not likely and I’m fine with that.
I talk about fire departments because this is what I know. I get around and have been around enough to see how this plays out.
I’ve had more trouble in my assorted jobs and volunteer-ings with nepotism than feminism. Having to carry the weight of the boss’s idiot friend, son, or nephew is something I should put on my resume. Nepotism is just one of the bad habits of the human animal, and goes back to the dawn of time, so nothing to be angry about. Likewise the current wave of feminism has been running the game since before I entered the workforce. Having come along after the current rule book was written I’m used to navigating its sometimes illogical and contradictory ways. It’s all I know, so being angry about it would be like being angry about the weather.
If I had been hired by some of the departments I applied to I may have also had to carry the weight of some under qualified women, but that’s only hypothetical. As I’ve said before I know several very good female firefighters who are an asset to their departments who wouldn’t have had a chance at a career without feminism kicking in the door for them. So the who knows, a female coworker might have been carrying my weight. Maybe even literally.
That’s great. But do you ever voice your disapproval in the public square? Telling your hairy legged women’s studies professor friend that “maybe fish actually do need bicycles” at your little soirÃ?©e isn’t going to do much to stop her from carrying out her radical agenda. More effective would be next time she writes an article about how “we need more women CEOs, or more women in combat roles in the military, or more women whatever because yay women!!!”, you could write a rebuttal saying, “I’m a woman and a feminist and I think this bitch is crazy!”
It’s nice that you console the guy who lost everything when his wife divorced him because she wasn’t happy. But if he had shared custody of his kids by default, and didn’t have to piss away what was left of his income after alimony on lawyers so that he could get to see his kids more than once every other weekend he’d probably be better off emotionally.
I probably am being unfair. I like you, and therefore enjoy picking on you. As I said I hope you don’t just say these things on T-Nation and if you say you don’t that’s good enough for me. But as I said I can’t imagine how the radical wing of feminism has such influence when apparently they are less than 1% of the population.
As to my solution creds: you do realize that my ability to push against this is handicapped by my being a man don’t you? As a man feminists would dismiss anything I say by calling me as bitter, angry, a sore loser. Further, if I were to run head first into the ill effects of feminism in the work place, even implying that a female co-worker was unqualified for her job regardless of whether I blamed that on her sex, would be career suicide. I would probably do what I always do, continue to pull more than my weight, and look for greener pastures.
When I find greener pastures, I’m always more than happy to be honest about why I’m leaving. This usually is met with agreement and shrugged shoulders “eh what can you do?” But feminism is like an evil word that cannot be spoken. As long as one is careful to speak in gender neutral terms you can avoid the wrath of the PC thought police. I said, if this was a problem where I was a citizen and a tax payer I would raise hell anyway, because they would be playing with my money and safety.
When I apply for a job at a fire department, I assess the tests, the interviewers, and the other firefighters to see what kind of department I’m trying to get into. Is the written test just a personality quiz, or do you actually have to demonstrate good math and reading skills, and some mechanical aptitude? Is there a pass/fail physical, and is it actually difficult? Are the men and women who have been on the department for a while in good shape? If I see problems, I walk away. They will probably be ok without me, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that several departments that I’ve looked into and steered clear of also have a high turnover. When I find a good department, I keep re-applying, keep trying to jam my foot in the door. This is probably why I don’t have my dream job, too picky.
What other solutions do we have? Voting? Pfft!
:edited for clarity
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Edited to add: I say so, too, in conversations with women. I’m not a political animal - I’m home centered and fight-averse - so I’m not out there campaigning against radical feminism, but neither are most men campaigning for or against anything.[/quote]
Then you really don’t matter, do you? Like those dirty hippies used to say, if you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem.[/quote]
Do you matter, Uncle Gabby? If so, how so?
[/quote]
Ha! I obviously touched a nerve this morning. But don’t be mad, look at all the E hugs you’re getting! Do I matter? Probably more to some, less to others.
But allow me to retort, point by point.
You stated that here, on a forum where the vast majority likely agree with you. That’s nice. But it doesn’t matter. I hope that you would speak up and say something in public, if you lived somewhere that this was an issue. I like you and you do seem honest. I don’t think you would say one thing here and something different elsewhere. But you might express your opinion here, and in private circles, but not do much of anything beyond that?
Every woman I know, even the ones who self identify as feminists all claim they’re against this. So why is this the prevailing political current these days?
With Fire and Police departments this is often a local issue, and things really vary greatly by locality. Some departments are integrating women and maintaining high standards, others are not. It would be up to you pay attention to what’s going on locally and if you read or hear something about your police or fire departments making an effort to “promote diversity” or hire more women, you might want to write to your city counselman, maybe an editorial to the local paper saying “that’s cute, but as a citizen and a taxpayer I hope that your first priority is to hire people who are capable of doing the job.” As a woman your voice would have far more influence in that matter than a man’s.
High standards shouldn’t just apply to women. On going physical fitness requirements should be part of every fire and police department. Yet I see an awful lot of obese cops and firefighters. But some departments are better than others and it all depends on where you live. If I lived in a municipality where this was an issue I would speak up loudly and often.
I caught the “angry would-be firefighter” dig. The anger part is your projection. I am a fire fighter. I volunteer. I would love to get on a paid department, a good paid department, but will soon turn 36, so that’s not likely and I’m fine with that.
I talk about fire departments because this is what I know. I get around and have been around enough to see how this plays out.
I’ve had more trouble in my assorted jobs and volunteer-ings with nepotism than feminism. Having to carry the weight of the boss’s idiot friend, son, or nephew is something I should put on my resume. Nepotism is just one of the bad habits of the human animal, and goes back to the dawn of time, so nothing to be angry about. Likewise the current wave of feminism has been running the game since before I entered the workforce. Having come along after the current rule book was written I’m used to navigating its sometimes illogical and contradictory ways. It’s all I know, so being angry about it would be like being angry about the weather.
If I had been hired by some of the departments I applied to I may have also had to carry the weight of some under qualified women, but that’s only hypothetical. As I’ve said before I know several very good female firefighters who are an asset to their departments who wouldn’t have had a chance at a career without feminism kicking in the door for them. So the who knows, a female coworker might have been carrying my weight. Maybe even literally.
That’s great. But do you ever voice your disapproval in the public square? Telling your hairy legged women’s studies professor friend that “maybe fish actually do need bicycles” at your little soirÃ???Ã??Ã?©e isn’t going to do much to stop her from carrying out her radical agenda. More effective would be next time she writes an article about how “we need more women CEOs, or more women in combat roles in the military, or more women whatever because yay women!!!”, you could write a rebuttal saying, “I’m a woman and a feminist and I think this bitch is crazy!”
It’s nice that you console the guy who lost everything when his wife divorced him because she wasn’t happy. But if he had shared custody of his kids by default, and didn’t have to piss away what was left of his income after alimony on lawyers so that he could get to see his kids more than once every other weekend he’d probably be better off emotionally.
I probably am being unfair. I like you, and therefore enjoy picking on you. As I said I hope you don’t just say these things on T-Nation and if you say you don’t that’s good enough for me. But as I said I can’t imagine how the radical wing of feminism has such influence when apparently they are less than 1% of the population.
As to my solution creds: you do realize that my ability to push against this is handicapped by my being a man don’t you? As a man feminists would dismiss anything I say by calling me as bitter, angry, a sore loser. Further, if I were to run head first into the ill effects of feminism in the work place, even implying that a female co-worker was unqualified for her job regardless of whether I blamed that on her sex, would be career suicide. I would probably do what I always do, continue to pull more than my weight, and look for greener pastures.
When I find greener pastures, I’m always more than happy to be honest about why I’m leaving. This usually is met with agreement and shrugged shoulders “eh what can you do?” But feminism is like an evil word that cannot be spoken. As long as one is careful to speak in gender neutral terms you can avoid the wrath of the PC thought police. I said, if this was a problem where I was a citizen and a tax payer I would raise hell anyway, because they would be playing with my money and safety.
When I apply for a job at a fire department, I assess the tests, the interviewers, and the other firefighters to see what kind of department I’m trying to get into. Is the written test just a personality quiz, or do you actually have to demonstrate good math and reading skills, and some mechanical aptitude? Is there a pass/fail physical, and is it actually difficult? Are the men and women who have been on the department for a while in good shape? If I see problems, I walk away. They will probably be ok without me, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that several departments that I’ve looked into and steered clear of also have a high turnover. When I find a good department, I keep re-applying, keep trying to jam my foot in the door. This is probably why I don’t have my dream job, too picky.
What other solutions do we have? Voting? Pfft!
:edited for clarity[/quote]
I didn’t get enough sleep last night to mess with the torture of formatting and am stealing time between appointments, so I will just run through without it.
E-hugs - hugs are very nice, and I like them and wish to thank the givers of these e-hugs. Although I’m not sure what constitutes an e-hug vs. agreement-type support. . . do men “e-hug” AC when he posts about condom use or prenups? How about Stu? He gets a lot of props. Are those e-hugs? Or something different because they’re muscular men? But anyway, I’ll try not to get off track just because you threw in a diminishing little zing right at the start of your post. . .
Ability vs. gender preference - your overriding question seems to be do I campaign against these things in a public, watchdog way. My answer, which I offered at the outset two posts ago, is no. I am not a political animal for one thing, and for another my passion lies elsewhere. Have you had a foster child? Have you taken an inner city child in for part of the summer? I’m going to assume not, but I’m not going to scold you for being part of the problem (pick one: welfare moms and generational poverty; lack of civility in general; abortion from either side; high crime rate; the shit shows that are public education due to behavioral issues, etc) because I assume that as an intelligent man who seems to seek debate about what is good and right, you are doing your part to support good and right.
Consoling men through painful divorce - we seem to have very different ideas of what constitutes “therapy.” I hope mine is the right one, because I have a responsibility to do it correctly and I don’t merely console people. When men are blindsided by a wife’s decision to divorce, I suggest very quickly obtaining an attorney and insisting on joint physical and legal custody from the very start, and just generally helping them remain clearheaded and focused through the process. I also give them the name of an excellent female attorney. She is ethical and smart as hell, and I trust that the children of the people she works with will be well-served by her involvement.
Blindsided women get the same from me.
As for my conversations with women more radical than myself not doing any good - perhaps. But I tend to view it more optimistically. I’ve seen people influenced by respectful discourse and have experienced shifts myself. I’m not sure why the agenda continues to play out with as little support as it garners, but assume it has to do with vote-currying and the packaging of agendas. The two party system, eh?
What I was too dense to see is you obviously thought I meant you don’t matter at all as a person. And that’s the most obvious way to interpret my first response to you. You’re obviously a good person Emily and have done far more good in the world than I ever will.
But we were specifically talking about modern feminism, or post modern, or whatever, and it’s effects in the working world. You self identify as a feminist, and you are friends with the hardcore variety. You say you don’t agree with the radicals’ agenda but you don’t really push against it publicly. Well, if the extremists have taken feminism too far it’s because the vast silent, sensible majority like you have stood back and let them.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
What I was too dense to see is you obviously thought I meant you don’t matter at all as a person. And that’s the most obvious way to interpret my first response to you. You’re obviously a good person Emily and have done far more good in the world than I ever will.
But we were specifically talking about modern feminism, or post modern, or whatever, and it’s effects in the working world. You self identify as a feminist, and you are friends with the hardcore variety. You say you don’t agree with the radicals’ agenda but you don’t really push against it publicly. Well, if the extremists have taken feminism too far it’s because the vast silent, sensible majority like you have stood back and let them. [/quote]
I think I was very clear, specifically talking about modern feminism, or post modern, or whatever, and it’s effects in the working world, that I am outspoken in my views regarding equality and men’s rights, but do not campaign.
I went on to say that I feel that this IS a contribution given that I have a small soapbox. That this isn’t enough for you is unfortunate (for you, that is) but my life is not lived in pursuit of your goals. Earlier today I defended the right of Hobby Lobby to play Christian music. Must I also actively pursue religious freedoms? When will I have time to campaign for the men?
I don’t worry that you think I’m not a good enough person, it was obvious that you weren’t thinking beyond yourself at all. I was suggesting that you should appreciate my earnest support of your cause as I would appreciate good will toward my causes without indicating that you are “part of the problem” for being less engaged than I am.
Lastly, I stated that I have hardcore feminists in my acquaintanceship. I have too little in common with any sort of radical to be friends. So I encounter these people in the public sphere to some capacity; they’re not drinking wine in my kitchen. If they express hate, I counter. Same thing the racists and etc.
Gabby I’m curious about the mentality I think I’m seeing here. If you feel affected by a problem, how is it anyone else’s responsibility other than yours to deal with it? Why would Emily or any other woman have some kind of responsibility to “be part of the solution” or campaign against other women with harmful ideas?
If it’s our fucking problem, it’s our fucking job to deal with it. It seems ridiculous to me to expect anyone not directly affected by a problem to help deal with it on your behalf.
[quote]csulli wrote:
If it’s our fucking problem, it’s our fucking job to deal with it. It seems ridiculous to me to expect anyone not directly affected by a problem to help deal with it on your behalf.[/quote]
Yeah, thats a kind of limitation women just dont have.
As a man, you will never win in the court of public opinion, “women are wonderful” effect and whatnot, so he only resort you really have is to say “fuck it”.
Let it all burn to the ground, rebuild from scratch.
[quote]csulli wrote:
Gabby I’m curious about the mentality I think I’m seeing here. If you feel affected by a problem, how is it anyone else’s responsibility other than yours to deal with it? Why would Emily or any other woman have some kind of responsibility to “be part of the solution” or campaign against other women with harmful ideas?
If it’s our fucking problem, it’s our fucking job to deal with it. It seems ridiculous to me to expect anyone not directly affected by a problem to help deal with it on your behalf.[/quote]
It’s her movement.
If you self-identified as a member of a political party that advocated segregation, but stated privately “I’m not into the segregation stuff, I joined the party for other issues, segregation ain’t me” I would ask what you are doing to push your party away from that platform. If you answered that you were quietly sitting in the background I would laugh.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Gabby I’m curious about the mentality I think I’m seeing here. If you feel affected by a problem, how is it anyone else’s responsibility other than yours to deal with it? Why would Emily or any other woman have some kind of responsibility to “be part of the solution” or campaign against other women with harmful ideas?
If it’s our fucking problem, it’s our fucking job to deal with it. It seems ridiculous to me to expect anyone not directly affected by a problem to help deal with it on your behalf.[/quote]
It’s her movement.
If you self-identified as a member of a political party that advocated segregation, but stated privately “I’m not into the segregation stuff, I joined the party for other issues, segregation ain’t me” I would ask what you are doing to push your party away from that platform. If you answered that you were quietly sitting in the background I would laugh.
[/quote]
Radical feminism is not my movement. When I identify as a feminist I always (ALWAYS) offer an explanation as to its meaning to me. But at this point in time I’m not sure what the alternative would be. I’m not a religious fundamentalist, so what identification should I hold? I’m neither a man-hater nor dependency-seeker. What’s the in-between; the identification of a regular, non-radical, fairly traditional, feminine in personality and dress but not sexualized, working woman?
And why do you insist on identity politics? Haven’t they done enough harm?
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Gabby I’m curious about the mentality I think I’m seeing here. If you feel affected by a problem, how is it anyone else’s responsibility other than yours to deal with it? Why would Emily or any other woman have some kind of responsibility to “be part of the solution” or campaign against other women with harmful ideas?
If it’s our fucking problem, it’s our fucking job to deal with it. It seems ridiculous to me to expect anyone not directly affected by a problem to help deal with it on your behalf.[/quote]
It’s her movement.
If you self-identified as a member of a political party that advocated segregation, but stated privately “I’m not into the segregation stuff, I joined the party for other issues, segregation ain’t me” I would ask what you are doing to push your party away from that platform. If you answered that you were quietly sitting in the background I would laugh.
[/quote]
I’m not really even sure to what extent Em is actually a feminist at all, but regardless, if we move away from her and just speak in generalities, let’s say someone is part of a movement that shits all over you. Privately they say “You know I really don’t support that this movement is shitting all over you.” And your response is “Well if it’s your movement and you don’t support this then it’s your job to do something about it!” It’s not though. You can’t expect them to make your problem their problem regardless of whether or not they agree with what their movement is doing to you.
Em:
Please pick from the following list so we know what broad brush to paint you with:
Liberal feminism:
primarily focuses on women?s ability to show and maintain their equality through their own actions and choices.
argues that our society holds the false belief that women are, by nature, less intellectually and physically capable than men, it tends to discriminate against women in the academy, the forum, and the marketplace. Liberal feminists believe that ?female subordination is rooted in a set of customary and legal constraints that blocks women?s entrance to and success in the so-called public world? and they work hard to emphasize the equality of men and women through political and legal reform
Terms:
procedural accounts of personal autonomy: in order for women to enjoy personal autonomy, they should have a broad range of autonomy-enabling conditions, such as: being free of violence and the threat of violence, being free of the limits set by paternalistic and moralistic laws, having access to options
Ecofeminism
connects the exploitation and domination of women with that of the environment; ecofeminism argues that there is a connection between women and nature that comes from their shared history of oppression by a patriarchal Western society.
Terms:
deep ecology: the philosophy that environmental problems stem from a human-centered ideological position. They can only be solved when the needs of nature are put first or on the same level as human needs.
biocentrism and ecocentrism: The act of putting nature's needs first or alongside human needs. Recommended authors: Françoise d'Eaubonne, Vandana Shiva, Maria Mies
Transfeminism
a category of feminism, most often known for the application of transgender discourses to feminist discourses, and of feminist beliefs to transgender discourse".
often criticizes the ideas of a universal sisterhood - instead, transfeminists view gender as a multifaceted set of diverse intrinsic and social qualities. For example, there are trans/cis men/women who express themselves in an unusually feminine or masculine way. Because this strongly affects how the person experiences their gender, and also their standing within patriarchy, transfeminists would argue that masculine/feminine expression is an important concept worthy of feminist inquiry, to be compared and contrasted with both birth sex and gender identity.
Anarcha-feminism
views patriarchy as a manifestation of involuntary coercive hierarchy that should be replaced by decentralized voluntary association. Anarcha-feminists believe that the struggle against patriarchy is an essential part of class struggle, and the anarchist struggle against the state. In essence, the philosophy sees anarchist struggle as a necessary component of feminist struggle and vice-versa.
an important aspect is its opposition to traditional concepts of family, education and gender roles; the institution of marriage is one of the most widely opposed.
Terms:
free love: a social movement that rejects marriage, which is seen as a form of social bondage. Its initial goal was to separate the state from sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery. It claimed that such issues were the concern of the people involved, and no one else
Black feminism
argues that sexism, class oppression, and racism are inextricably bound together. The way these relate to each other is called intersectionality. Forms of feminism that strive to overcome sexism and class oppression but ignore race can discriminate against many people, including women, through racial bias. Black feminist theory has argued that black women are positioned with in structures of power in fundamentally different ways than white women. Black feminist organizations emerged during the 1970s and face many difficulties from both the white feminist and black nationalist political organizations they were confronting. These women fought against suppression from the larger movements in which many of its members came from.
Terms:
intersectionality: examining how various biological, social and cultural categories such as gender, race, class, ability, sexual orientation, and other axes of identity interact on multiple and often simultaneous levels, contributing to systematic social inequality. Intersectionality holds that the classical conceptualizations of oppression within society, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and religion-based bigotry, do not act independently of one another; instead, these forms of oppression interrelate, creating a system of oppression that reflects the "intersection" of multiple forms of discrimination.
matrix of domination: a sociological paradigm that explains issues of oppression that deal with race, class, and gender, which, though recognized as different social classifications, are all interconnected. As an example: many argue that Colin Powell?s success (as one Black man out of millions) is proof that discrimination based on race has been, or is close to being, eradicated in the United States ? however, proponents of the theory of the matrix of domination would argue that this overlooks issues of social class, gender, and age, Powell being an upper class, middle-aged/elderly male.
Postcolonial feminism
through analysis of entrenched power structures in formerly colonized nations, postcolonial feminism explains how economic and political institutions and social practices in those nations often oppress and marginalize women. In addition, it demonstrates how women around the globe struggle for equality and independence for themselves, their families, and their nations.
often referred to as Third World feminism centers around the idea that racism, colonialism, and the long lasting effects (economic, political, and cultural) of colonialism in the postcolonial setting, are inextricably bound up with the unique gendered realities of non-white,and non-Western women. Postcolonial feminists criticize Western feminists because they have a history of universalizing women's issues, and their discourses are often misunderstood to represent women globally.
thus, one of the central ideas in postcolonial feminism is that by using the term 'woman' as a universal group, they are then only defined by their gender and not by social classes and ethnic identities. Also, it is believed by postcolonial feminists that mainstream Western feminists ignored the voices of non-white, non-western women for many years, thus creating resentment from feminists in developing nations.
postcolonial feminists have had strong ties with black feminists because colonialism usually contains themes of racism. Both groups have struggled for recognition, not only by men in their own culture, but also by Western feminists.
Multiracial feminism
refers to the activist and scholarly work conducted by women of color and anti-racist white allies to promote race, class, and gender equality. In comparison to the highly documented second-wave white, middle-class feminism, which centered on abolishing patriarchy and privileged patriarchy as an oppression over all others, women of color feminism resists separating oppression and insists on recognizing the intersectionality of race, class, and gender oppression.
Radical feminism
focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society.
locates the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (as in liberal feminism) or class conflict (as in socialist feminism and Marxist feminism)
Socialist feminism
argues that liberation can only be achieved by working to end both the economic and cultural sources of women's oppression.
broadens Marxist feminism's argument for the role of capitalism in the oppression of women (and rejects the idea that class and class struggle are the only defining elements of history and economic development) and radical feminism's theory of the role of gender and the patriarchy.
reject radical feminism?s main claim that patriarchy the only or primary source of oppression of women and assert that women are unable to be free due to their financial dependence on males in society. Women are subjects to the male rulers in capitalism due to an uneven balance in wealth. They see economic dependence as the driving force of women?s subjugation to men. Further, socialist feminists see women?s liberation as a necessary part of larger quest for social, economic and political justice.
Postmodern feminism
incorporates postmodern and post-structuralist theory, and thus sees itself as moving beyond the modernist polarities of liberal feminism and radical feminism
has been described as the ultimate acceptor of diversity: ?multiple truths, multiple roles, multiple realities are part of its focus. There is a rejectance of an essential nature of women, of one-way to be a woman. Poststructural feminism offers a useful philosophy for diversity in feminism because of its acceptance of multiple truths and rejection of essentialism?
Judith Butler on Gender performativity:
sees gender as an act that has been rehearsed, much like a script, and we, as the actors make the script a reality through repetition, thus coming to perform in the mode of belief.
the distinction between the personal and the political or between private and public is itself a fiction designed to support an oppressive status quo: our most personal acts are, in fact, continually being scripted by hegemonic social conventions and ideologies?
sees gender not as an expression of what one is, rather as something that one does. Furthermore, she sees it not as a social imposition on a gender neutral body, but rather as a mode of "self-making" through which subjects become socially intelligible. According to Butler?s theory, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not fixed categories. A person is merely in a condition of ?doing straightness? or ?doing queerness?
Recommended authors: Mary Joe Frug, Judith Butler, Kate Bornstein
Further reading: Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, A Postmodern Feminist Legal Manifesto
Marxist feminism
focuses on the social institutions of private property and capitalism to explain and criticize gender inequality and oppression.
posits that private property gives rise to economic inequality, dependence, political and domestic struggle between the sexes, and is the root of women's oppression in the current social context.
Chicana feminism
analyzes the historical, social, political, and economic roles of Mexican American, Chicana, and Hispanic women in the United States
Post-structural feminism
emphasizes "the contingent and discursive nature of all identities",[1] and in particular the social construction of gendered subjectivities
resists universalist or normalizing conceptions of women as a group or altogether dismiss the category ?woman?. They share with psychoanalytic feminists a skepticism about phallogocentric language and social structures, as well as the French feminist rejection of metanarrative explanations and prescriptive norms for gender and sexuality.
French feminism
is distinguished by an approach which is more philosophical and literary. Its writings tend to be effusive and metaphorical being less concerned with political doctrine and generally focused on theories of "the body". The term includes writers who are not French, but who have worked substantially in France and the French tradition.
Simone de Beauvoir?s analysis focuses on the social construction of Woman as the Other, this de Beauvoir identifies as fundamental to women's oppression. She argues that women have historically been considered deviant and abnormal, and contends that even Mary Wollstonecraft considered men to be the ideal toward which women should aspire. De Beauvoir argues that for feminism to move forward, this attitude must be set aside.
Transnational feminism
attentive to intersections among nationhood, race, gender, sexuality and economic exploitation on a world scale, in the context of emergent global capitalism.
inquires in to the social, political and economic conditions comprising imperialism; their connections to colonialism and nationalism; the role of gender, the state, race, class, and sexuality in the organization of resistance to hegemonies in the making and unmaking of nation and nation-state.
transnational feminist practice is attentive to feminism as both a liberatory formation and one with longstanding ties to colonialism, racism and imperialism. As such, it resists utopic ideas about "global sisterhood" while simultaneously working to lay the groundwork for more productive and equitable social relations among women across borders and cultural contexts.
Atheist Feminism
is a movement that advocates the Feminism within atheism. Atheist feminists also oppose religion as a main source of female oppression and inequality, believing that the majority of the religions are sexist and oppressive to women.
Feminist Theology
is a movement found in several religions, including Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, and New Thought, to reconsider the traditions, practices, scriptures, and theologies of those religions from a feminist perspective. Some of the goals of feminist theology include increasing the role of women among the clergy and religious authorities, reinterpreting male-dominated imagery and language about God, determining women's place in relation to career and motherhood, and studying images of women in the religion's sacred texts.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Gabby I’m curious about the mentality I think I’m seeing here. If you feel affected by a problem, how is it anyone else’s responsibility other than yours to deal with it? Why would Emily or any other woman have some kind of responsibility to “be part of the solution” or campaign against other women with harmful ideas?
If it’s our fucking problem, it’s our fucking job to deal with it. It seems ridiculous to me to expect anyone not directly affected by a problem to help deal with it on your behalf.[/quote]
It’s her movement.
If you self-identified as a member of a political party that advocated segregation, but stated privately “I’m not into the segregation stuff, I joined the party for other issues, segregation ain’t me” I would ask what you are doing to push your party away from that platform. If you answered that you were quietly sitting in the background I would laugh.
[/quote]
Radical feminism is not my movement. When I identify as a feminist I always (ALWAYS) offer an explanation as to its meaning to me. But at this point in time I’m not sure what the alternative would be. I’m not a religious fundamentalist, so what identification should I hold? I’m neither a man-hater nor dependency-seeker. What’s the in-between; the identification of a regular, non-radical, fairly traditional, feminine in personality and dress but not sexualized, working woman?
And why do you insist on identity politics? Haven’t they done enough harm? [/quote]
When did I insist on identity politics? You’ve self identified as a feminist before, that I remember, and it’s obvious that you’re not a Radical. Beyond that this is too much arguing on the internet for me.
[quote]csulli wrote:
…if we move away from her and just speak in generalities, let’s say someone is part of a movement that shits all over you. Privately they say “You know I really don’t support that this movement is shitting all over you.” And your response is “Well if it’s your movement and you don’t support this then it’s your job to do something about it!” It’s not though. You can’t expect them to make your problem their problem regardless of whether or not they agree with what their movement is doing to you.[/quote]
I see what you’re saying. If I were getting shit on, it would certainly be more up to me to do something about it than anybody else, and I didn’t say that it wasn’t. If staying to fight wasn’t a viable option, I would vote with my feet, not just lay there and get shit on. But if you were one of them, I wouldn’t want to hear you say “well I don’t think we should be shitting on you, but it’s your problem, not mine.”