Poll: Are you a feminist?
Apr. 12th, 2008 08:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alias_sqbrSo, I've always had a certain amount of interest in women's rights, but always felt a bit put off by feminism for reasons I couldn't articulate. I eventually decided to dig a bit and either get over it or figure out what the problem was. In the process I've become convinced of two things:
(a) I am a feminist, and feminism still has a lot of important work left to do
(b) There are a bunch of things I don't really like about the feminist movement as it actually works
And I got curious about you guys experiences and identities.
If you're not sure what the definition of "feminist" is, well... afaict there isn't a completely agreed upon one, but here's a bunch, afaict the consensus is along the lines of "Thinking society deals with gender in a way that, on balance, harms women, and that this should be corrected".
[Poll #1169959]
I'm especially interested in women who don't identify as feminist: do you have an issue with feminism, or do you think it's ok but just don't see any particular need to identify yourself that way? Other people's povs (including mens!) are also welcome, though.
And yes,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
vegetus, this does give you leave to rant a bit :) Though I would remind everyone to be civil, openminded, and tolerant. Keep in mind that we have some very different POVs here, any one of which will probably strike at least one person as Wrong And Dumb. Please take any narky arguments outside and try not to start any!
As for myself, well, you can see my (mixed) opinions on this lj.ithiliana's post Racism Imbroglios, White Feminist Bloggers, RWOC, and deja vu inspired me to make this poll, I particularly liked the line:
(a) I am a feminist, and feminism still has a lot of important work left to do
(b) There are a bunch of things I don't really like about the feminist movement as it actually works
And I got curious about you guys experiences and identities.
If you're not sure what the definition of "feminist" is, well... afaict there isn't a completely agreed upon one, but here's a bunch, afaict the consensus is along the lines of "Thinking society deals with gender in a way that, on balance, harms women, and that this should be corrected".
[Poll #1169959]
I'm especially interested in women who don't identify as feminist: do you have an issue with feminism, or do you think it's ok but just don't see any particular need to identify yourself that way? Other people's povs (including mens!) are also welcome, though.
And yes,
vegetus, this does give you leave to rant a bit :) Though I would remind everyone to be civil, openminded, and tolerant. Keep in mind that we have some very different POVs here, any one of which will probably strike at least one person as Wrong And Dumb. Please take any narky arguments outside and try not to start any!As for myself, well, you can see my (mixed) opinions on this lj.
ithiliana's post Racism Imbroglios, White Feminist Bloggers, RWOC, and deja vu inspired me to make this poll, I particularly liked the line:Within feminist discourse sisterhood became simultaneously an unquestioned assumption, an unexamined bond, and a mode of controlling behavior and containing difference.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 01:37 pm (UTC)I've personally found reading around the history of the women's movement to be very worthwhile and inspiring - it's such an immense, diverse, loosely connected movement made out of the ideas of so many different individuals - some diametrically opposed to others. I've heard people lament the fragmentation and internal politics, but I do think there's something fundamentally awesome about women getting together to collaborate, argue and figure out what it is that they want and how to get it.
(Susan Brownmiller's 'In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution' is a fascinating read if you can get hold of it.)
Edited, having read
no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 11:16 pm (UTC)Absolutely, I only felt comfortable applying the term to myself when I realised that it was ok to be in a feminist "denomination" of one :)
Heh. Yes, you've recommended that to me before, in a comment I happened to come across again yesterday *gets around to checking library catalogue* Yep, it's there, will have to remember to reserve it next time I stop by a library.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-13 12:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 03:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-13 04:04 am (UTC)Spot on. And then once its identified as a single movement, then suddenly all feminism becomes equated with radical feminism. I think that most women, and many guys, would agree with the core feminist ideas (men and women should be equal before the law, their work should be equally valued, women have the right to control their own bodies, etc) but are put off by the radical feminist idea that the idea of the 'feminine' is a patriarchal construction that should be got rid off.
(not that I'm saying the rad fems are necessarily wrong, just that its off-putting to the mainstream)
I think for many people, realising that feminism is a many-splendored thing that comes in a huge number of types and variations is the thing that allows them to self-identify as feminist. And really, feminism is a huge ongoing debate -- for a lot of the political issues I am interested in (eg censorship and civil liberties issues) there are feminist voices on both sides of the debate, so identifying as feminist doesn't tell me that much about what people believe in that context, only about why they believe it.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 03:19 am (UTC)And not even that, neccesarily, more the context in which that belief is held.
But yes, I agree with you re: the public perception of feminism. Of course it doesn't help that, as with any movement, some feminists want to imagine that there really is one unified movement, and so either gloss over differences or exclude anyone too divergent from their definition.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 01:45 pm (UTC)I agree with much of what ithiliana says. Especially the points re: ahistorism serving white privilege within feminism. Bickering about whether 2nd wavers or young women "let down" feminism functions as a kind of narcisstic smokescreen to keep marginal women's issues sidelined. Ageism enables ahistorism, ahistorism enables racism.
Although I'm a feminist, I see people who don't identify as feminist because they are actively chauvanist very differently from those who support equality in sexual politics, but don't want to work with feminists because they've witnessed that "mode of controlling behaviour" . It's about the goals, not identity politics to me, so the latter is perfectly valid if all you see is movement drama /prejudice hampering the goals.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 11:28 pm (UTC)Also I suppose it's rather like the general way people tend to characterise the past as homogeneously racist and sexist etc, which then magically transformed to this wonderful time when noone is racist or sexist at all, so we don't need to critically examine the past because it is done.
Although I'm a feminist, I see people who don't identify as feminist because they are actively chauvanist very differently from those who support equality in sexual politics, but don't want to work with feminists because they've witnessed that "mode of controlling behaviour" . It's about the goals, not identity politics to me, so the latter is perfectly valid if all you see is movement drama /prejudice hampering the goals.
Absolutely. I get a bit annoyed at feminists who go "Why would anyone not identify as feminist? It just means 'seeing women as people', I guess they must not think women are people". While definitions and identity are very important, actions speak louder than words, and I'd rather someone who was feminist in principle but not in name than vice versa.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 02:24 pm (UTC)Great links by the way.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 11:38 pm (UTC)I think part of it is just that I tend to feel more comfortable in gender mixed social situations (I have a moderately male brain, complex female social interactions tend to go over my head :)) Also I have a somewhat irrational and counterproductive tendency to want to make everything open (open doors, open information, open invite...) which has caused me trouble in every committee type position I've been in and runs completely counter to the underground, word-of-mouth way you guys run things.
But I am pondering it very seriously, because I think you are doing really important stuff, and one thing I can offer is a critical perspective :)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-13 12:34 am (UTC)Yes, I completely agree. Your view (and every one's, really) is unique (and while every one's is unique, yours has touched some issues Babalon and I have been working on.) So even if you choose not to come (and please do, because there is a huge financial risk this year and I underwrite it completely out of John's money *grin*) I'd like to have your input and suggestions.
One of the things I find endlessly fascinating is how uncomfortable Femmeconne and Gynaecon make people. It's not like we're sitting around going "we hate all men, all men are rapists, let's take over the world," and yet people think we do. (I know you don't, but others do.) And Gynaecon has usually been an all-gendered space.
We are aware, however, that we've got a very educated middle class white pool of experience at our fingertips, and we're like to broaden that somewhat more.
I want to talk this year about the future of Femmeconne, whether there is a 4, 5, and 6, and also about the mini-Femmeconne idea. I have a venue, and thinking of having a one day conference, 45 minutes panels, and lunch provided type of thing. This would be welcome for all sexes, however I don't expect we'll actually get very men at all.
And I feel a bit worried about trying to nut out what bugs me about it since I don't want to hurt you guys feelings (or have you get narky at me! I'm a big coward :))
If you can't figure it out, we can't decide whether it's an issue that needs fixing or whether it's an issue we need to move past. You have every right to feel as you do, and as an event organizer where I *am*hoping to change the world in tiny ways, I need your input to ensure you're comfortable, happy, and getting what you want. We won't get narky at you (and if we do, we'll step away until the emotions die down and then return to the issue later, cos email is a godsend, I promise) and I ask for both negative and positive feedback after every Femmeconne. Have you read the community? If you like, I can link to posts where we ask people to whine and rave. Nothing is ever perfect. :-)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 03:36 am (UTC)I guess I'm worried that I'll poke at the issues and get all critical and eventually realise that it all boils down to me just not being comfortable around large groups of women or something. Still, no way to find out without poking I guess :)
As for the scariness factor: some of it is I think the geeky fear/distrust of anything that has even a whiff of exclusiveness or elitism. Also the danger of going in with good intentions and being told you're an Evil Sexist. And lets face it, a lot of the beliefs of well meaning people are pretty sexist, and if they go to a gynaecon panel that'll probably be pointed out, and that's kind of scary.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 06:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 06:37 am (UTC):-)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 03:26 pm (UTC)It says "none of the above", not "none" :)
Date: 2008-04-12 11:40 pm (UTC)*is currently wearing exactly that*
I blame the patriarchy!
Re: It says "none of the above", not "none" :)
Date: 2008-04-13 01:14 am (UTC)Re: It says "none of the above", not "none" :)
Date: 2008-04-13 02:57 am (UTC)I picked what I did because I've run into too many crazy fymenysts and I'm incredibly apathetic! Hooray! for apathy.
Re: It says "none of the above", not "none" :)
Date: 2008-04-15 04:00 am (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 04:41 pm (UTC)*cough*
(And I have a three-second attention span, I also got distracted while writing this comment.)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 11:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-13 12:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-13 04:14 am (UTC)I am not judging. *cough*
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 04:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 05:50 pm (UTC)I don't so much have a problem with feminism, but I've just felt fairly neutral about all that sort of thing. When asked about economic inequality, or anything like that, the best I can manage is "It's a bad thing". I'm just fairly politically neutral, like Sweden.
'Feminist' has lots of overtones to it- women are better (than men), women have special creative and communicative skills, women are oppressed, womean are angry blah blah blah. Women a great, men are great. Yeah, in the past there was obvious inequality, and it's not all magically fixed now (especially in particular cultures) and that's the only bit I get annoyed at. Otherwise I'd just like all the world's power and wealth and resources to be put in a metaphorical blender and redistributed over the world. That, however, isn't going to happen because of Fact C- people are jerks of all shapes and varieties.
(I've also met proponents from each end of the spectrum, and it's the do little more than amuse me and discourage me from tipping either side of the grey.)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 11:46 pm (UTC)By which I mean to say: THERE IS NO ESCAPE, YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED INTO THE FEMINIST HIVEMIND
no subject
Date: 2008-04-16 01:16 am (UTC)Indeed. If only there was a movement against jerks.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 11:13 pm (UTC)Men who have been on the recieving end of that kind of behaviour then think that all feminists (in some cases, all women) hate men.
Until we can get everyone to realise that all generalisations are false (including this one), there's no hope for the future.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 11:56 pm (UTC)Yeah, but that sort of thing is a problem for every movement, they all have their crazies and extremists. And their opponents seize on the extremism and pretend that's all there is. People suck.
Until we can get everyone to realise that all generalisations are false (including this one), there's no hope for the future.
Then we're all DOOMED. All of us! Without exception! :)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-13 02:47 am (UTC)It is true in a few cases. For example, all terrorists are crazy extremists.
But not all vegetarians are crazy extremists, just the small minority (eg the ones that send razor blades to staff at universities which conduct animal experiments).
Also, all extremists are cowards. Terrorists kill themselves rather than face punishment. Animal rights nutters pick on old ladies in fur but not bikers in leather.
Re: It says "none of the above", not "none" :)
Date: 2008-04-15 01:52 am (UTC)I'm sure I've encountered some brave extremists, I think it's just that most people are cowards, and extremists are no exception.
Though I guess you could say extremism stems from a fear of compromise, complexity, and uncertainty.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-16 01:19 am (UTC)And most of the AR nutters I know do disagree with fur and leather equally.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-13 12:35 am (UTC)I don't feel that females should have more rights than males, I think we should be on a level playing field in general.
But I also realise that biologically we ARE NOT the same, and never can be. Both female and male, of any species, have their own role to play.
And to be perfectly honest, I'd love to live a lifestyle where a male completely supported me and I just stayed home and kept house - I'm still undecided as to whether I'd want kids in the equation though.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-13 12:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-13 11:43 am (UTC)I don't support feminism since I am treated equal to men in all rational ways. I am different to the average man, though, and so may be treated differently because of this, but this usually works to my advantage as it means not doing things I find hard (such as carrying heavy objects) and instead doing things I am better suited to... and this isn't restrictive on my lifestyle since if I chose to buff up so I could carry heavy objects etc nobody would stop me.
I'm aware that women with different lives to me may be disadvantaged compared to men in their society, but I see this more as an individual human rights issue than a need-for-feminism issue.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-13 11:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 02:07 am (UTC)I do tend to see chivalry as an idea as stemming from chauvanism, but I'm careful not to be critical of individual well meaning chivralrous guys. (Chauvanistically chivalrous guys I criticise, but the chivalry itself still isn't the issue)
It's like, if a guy offers to pay for me (for no reason other than me being a girl) I politely decline, and am fine with it.
If a guy insists on paying, even though he's poorer than me, and gets really angry at me for saying no, then I get annoyed.
If said guy later complains for making him pay for his own dinner when he couldn't afford it, I think he's an idiot :)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 06:16 am (UTC)Surely, presuming that equality was actually complete (which a lot of feminists would argue with, of course), that just means you only support all the things feminism has achieved already?
no subject
Date: 2008-04-17 04:36 am (UTC)Clearly you are unwilling to challenge the dominance of a fellow member of...the Daviarchy!
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 02:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-13 03:17 am (UTC)I fully support womens rights to be respected and given equal pay for an equal task. However, this must also be a genuine equal task. For example; on average males are stronger than females, so tasks such as bricklaying are on average going to be done better by men. I have no problem with a women wanting to be a bricklayer, if she can lay as many bricks per hour as the guy next to her, I fully support that she should be paid just as much. However, I disagree with concessions along the lines of "well since you are female you can lay half as many bricks yet be paid the same."
Similarly women are on average less likely to have emotional outbursts than men. Therefore, women are on average better at customer service jobs than men as they are less likey to swear at the jerk-off customers. Once again this doesnt preclude men from having a customer service job, but if they are unable to provide the same level of professionalism and service as their female counterparts they should be paid less. (For those who dont know me, I work in the customer service and female dominated industry of libraries.)
I admit one of the above examples is a lot easier to measure than the other, but my point is still valid, on average women are better at men at some things, and men are better than women at others. However, statistical deviations like myself say that every now and then someone of the other gender can probably do that job as well, so let them and pay them the same.
Moving on from that, (and deliberately avoiding the massive discussion on women in other cultures) the number one oppressor of women in western society is other women.
Men seriously dont give a shit if their boss is female, we dont care about clothes/makeup/hairstyle, and sure we like big tits, but believe it or not we dont think less of women without them.
Pick up any Cosmo, Marie Clare etc womens magazine and its filled with ads and articles telling women how they should change themselves/their outfits to be a better person or make more friends. Pick up a Ralph or FHM and its filled with ads about beer and articles telling men they rock for being just the way they are. Even the more "Upmarket" mens mags like GQ which contain more of the "wear this, drive this" advertising still have an article focus largely on stroking mens egos.
Saying Rupert Murdoch or some other man owns the magazines is a weak argument as for starters he doesnt personally edit all 4gazillion newspapers he owns and all he cares about is sales. If Ms outsold Cosmo you can bet there would be less "The perfect makeup to get the man you want" articles in Cosmo in no time.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 05:10 am (UTC)Then again, afaict feminists are more likely to complain about positions of power like CEOs and polititians, which I'm going to assume you agree women are not biologically incapable of.
the number one oppressor of women in western society is other women.
If feminism was just about picking on men you might have a counterargument there, but it's about fighting sexism. Sexism from women is still sexism.
And anyway, most (but not all) of the sexism I've experienced has been from men, so nerr :P
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 03:25 pm (UTC)Also whilst most direct sexism you have experienced has been from men. "Girls can't do math" right? I would wager that it is far outweighed by the amount of passive sexism you and all other women are subjected to on a daily basis. Even if we ignore the sexism of womens magazines, how many cleaning product advertisements have you seen featuring a man? Yes this works both ways, how many drink driving ads do you see featuring women? However im sure you agree two wrongs don't make a right.
I would contend the above passive sexism is far more damaging to both genders than any idiot who says you cant do science because you have a vagina or that im a fag for working in a library.
Also whilst I am aware that many of the charges laid against feminism do not apply to you, I think you would find the Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell quite an interesting read. If you cant get a copy (its available through the public library system :-) the following link has a a large portion of it in point form.
http://www.warrenfarrell.org/TheBook/index.html
Its a good read and not at all polemic, he is actually a big supporter of feminism (a variant close to the views you seem to hold) himself.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-17 05:43 am (UTC)Like I said, in my view it doesn't really matter which gender is more sexist: the issue is that the sexism exists at all.
But to argue with your point anyway...yes I have had women give me (subtextual) crap for being too fat, or too unfashionable, or whatever. I've had men give me crap for that too (though not as much) Possibly it's partly becuase I don't care about that stuff so much, and have the sort of personality which attracts chauvanistically "old fashioned" men, but I have experienced LOTS more passive sexism from men.
I've had several men think I owe them *cough* something because they like me, which has made me paranoid about being friendly.
I'm continuously having my intelligence and skills underestimated.
Hmm. Thinking about it is all a bit distressing. Just..trust me.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-17 03:20 pm (UTC)Silly emotional woman :-p
However i am quite surprised by:
"I've had several men think I owe them *cough* something because they like me, which has made me paranoid about being friendly."
Not that there are such jerk-off men, but rather that you consider yourself paranoid about being friendly. You hide it well (or always happen to feel safe in the limited situations i have observed you) as i would consider you one of the generally friendlier people i know.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-20 01:26 am (UTC)Though I actually inherited the "freak out and shut down at emotionally intense crap" side of my personality from my father :P
Not that there are such jerk-off men, but rather that you consider yourself paranoid about being friendly. You hide it well (or always happen to feel safe in the limited situations i have observed you) as i would consider you one of the generally friendlier people i know.
Oh, I'm not paranoid about being friendly with everyone, just the sort of overbearing self absorbed chauvanists who I used to always be blandly, nonthreateningly pleasant to (and who see bland nonthreatening pleasantness as the sign of a perfect women) Overall I'm figuring out how to be friendly to people without finding myself surrounded by annoying prats who think "Finally! Someone who'll listen to me!", but the ones who are just boring are much easier to put up with.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-13 05:51 am (UTC)In a number of essentials I identify as a feminist. "Within feminist discourse sisterhood became simultaneously an unquestioned assumption, an unexamined bond, and a mode of controlling behavior and containing difference." And there you have, in a nutshell, why I hardly ever bother getting on the women's rights bandwagon. Men may enforce how women behave but it's women who teach women how to behave, and until a more educated face of feminism makes it out of the white middleclass, I honestly can't see things changing for the better much at all.
My big gripe still remains how insular and selfish your average person is.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 05:18 am (UTC)Yeah, that's a pretty big gripe for me too.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-14 03:43 am (UTC)(Hi, btw. I surfed into this post via the friends page of the Swancon lj community - we did meet at various points during the con.)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 06:40 am (UTC)Well put :)
(Hi, btw. I surfed into this post via the friends page of the Swancon lj community - we did meet at various points during the con.)
Totally cool. *take a guess at who you are, is gratifyingly proven correct by your usericons*
no subject
Date: 2008-04-14 06:50 am (UTC)Except I only just got this far back in my friendslist right now and I'm about to disappear to dinner with my friend Sutie (who is a female who is into social justice). So in short why I am not a feminist and disagree with many feminist ideals:
* I have issues with the modern feminist movement, I feel that it has turned away from equality and is very much into being anti-male.
* Feminism needs to consider culture. If you live in upper middle class white Australia you really don't have as many issues regarding equality as an Indo-Fijian woman (they have the 3rd highest suicide rate in the world- after Greenland and Iceland). What is liberating for one person isn't for another.
* I have issues with people who slag off sex workers and anyone else who works in the porn/sex/exotic dance/erotic industries. Sadly the majority of people who I have encountered are also people who identify as being feminist or pro womens rights. As someone who used to work in said industry I got alot of respect from men and alot of bitching from women (who I might like to add are just insecure about who they are and are hiding behind a feminist argument /end bitch).
* I have had two relationships with men who used to date card carrying feminists. Both occasions the ex went out of her way to break us up. In one case I considered this person to be my friend up until that point, in the other they were just a judgmental fucker. If you are so pro womens rights you wouldn't go out of your way to hurt other women I would have thought...
* Following that line feminists who hide their male partners and treat them poorly are no better than men who beat their wives.
* I think modern feminism has put pressure on women to have it all- job, house, relationship, family and to be brilliant at it all. We all only have 24 hours in a day and I do not belive that it is possible for anyone to do all of these things equally and be brilliant at them all.
* I am against maternity leave, particularly if it is paid. I am in favour of everyone having a certain amount of "family leave" that they can take to care for family members be in elderly grandmothers, best friends recovering from cancer or recently having a kid.
* I disagree with government funding for families.
* I am against the discrimination of child-free people.
* The biggest opponents to my view of "well having lots of kids is bad for the environment and the world and we should screen people who want to breed and have a strict one child policy" are women who identify as feminists.
* I don't think that there are that many hurdles for women in Australian society to overcome.
* I'm a stats junkie. I hate how people complain that women earn less than men on average without considering that men on average work more hours than women.
* I am against womens only space- particularly as the womens movement has been against mens only space.
* I am pro abortion. Please note that I am not pro choice.
* I think both men and women need to take responsibility for contraception.
* There should be respect in all relationships.
* I find domestic violence awareness that promotes the idea that only men hit women, without considering homosexual relationships or heterosexual relationships where women hit men deeply harmful to society.
* I think all feminists should read "The Sexual Politics of Meat" by Carol Adams.
Hey I ranted well in dot-point. There is more, but I'm doing to eat dinner now!
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 06:21 am (UTC)You think it should be compulsory? Or, less flippantly, someone else should get to make the choice? Ie compulsory abortion for those that don't abide by your one child policy?
no subject
Date: 2008-04-16 01:08 am (UTC)See my reply to Sophie's comment.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-16 08:08 pm (UTC)Though actually, while it was a bit facetious, I am curious as to how you think a one child policy would be enforced, taking into account both accidental and deliberate extra pregnancies.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 08:08 am (UTC)I guess my view on abortion is less "woman's control over body" and more a "best interests of potential child". I think someone who feels they cannot raise a child for whatever reason shouldn't be forced to, nor should they have to carry it to gestation if they feel they are not able to (which is part of the "control over my body" argument) because that would not be in the best interest of the child to be raised in that situation.
I don't think a one child policy can be enforced though in theory I think it's a good idea. I belive something similar to the policy that was used in Singapore a few decades ago of discouraging people from having more than two children (from memory the campaign was "One, Two and that's enough"), financial incentives not to have more than two kids and free sterilisation/contraception is the way to go.
Answering dot points: Part 1
Date: 2008-04-15 07:13 am (UTC)Some parts of it, yes, but not, imo, the bits I mainly engage with.
* Feminism needs to consider culture. If you live in upper middle class white Australia you really don't have as many issues regarding equality as an Indo-Fijian woman (they have the 3rd highest suicide rate in the world- after Greenland and Iceland). What is liberating for one person isn't for another.
Also true. You get some very complex issues on dealing with other cultures while being neither colonialist nor ignoring the plight of the oppressed. I guess the trick here, as with so many things, is to talk to the "oppressed" people themselves and ask what they want.
* I have issues with people who slag off sex workers and anyone else who works in the porn/sex/exotic dance/erotic industries. Sadly the majority of people who I have encountered are also people who identify as being feminist or pro womens rights. As someone who used to work in said industry I got alot of respect from men and alot of bitching from women (who I might like to add are just insecure about who they are and are hiding behind a feminist argument /end bitch).
Huh, see, I must admit that obviously I've had less experience with this than you, but the only non-sex workers I've seen defending sex workers etc are feminists. The pre-feminist attitude was hardly very positive, and the sexist anti-female-sexuality society we live in is imo responsible for a lot of the exploitativeness/danger etc of these industries.
I get the feeling the old-skool first/second wave feminists tend to be quite anti sex which can easily tend into (ironically sexist) anti-sexual-women rhetoric, but there's a strong sex positive tendency in (most but not all) younger, third wave feminists.
* I have had two relationships with men who used to date card carrying feminists. Both occasions the ex went out of her way to break us up. In one case I considered this person to be my friend up until that point, in the other they were just a judgmental fucker. If you are so pro womens rights you wouldn't go out of your way to hurt other women I would have thought...
Fair enough, that does sound nasty. I seem to attract chauvanistic men, which has certainly made me more receptive to feminism.
* Following that line feminists who hide their male partners and treat them poorly are no better than men who beat their wives.
Well, if they beat them, yes.
* I think modern feminism has put pressure on women to have it all- job, house, relationship, family and to be brilliant at it all. We all only have 24 hours in a day and I do not belive that it is possible for anyone to do all of these things equally and be brilliant at them all.
I agree, that is an issue, but imo things are still better than the old days.
Re: Answering dot points: Part 1
Date: 2008-04-16 01:04 am (UTC)"Also true. You get some very complex issues on dealing with other cultures while being neither colonialist nor ignoring the plight of the oppressed. I guess the trick here, as with so many things, is to talk to the "oppressed" people themselves and ask what they want."
*nods* however you often can find that some groups of women want a western feminist culture rather than embracing their own culture of equality.
"Huh, see, I must admit that obviously I've had less experience with this than you, but the only non-sex workers I've seen defending sex workers etc are feminists. The pre-feminist attitude was hardly very positive, and the sexist anti-female-sexuality society we live in is imo responsible for a lot of the exploitativeness/danger etc of these industries."
About a month ago I was having a discussion with a group of people about the sex industry and had one person basically say that all women in it were oppressive and betrayed other women. I asked her what she would say to a woman who was a stripper or a prostitute and she said she would tell them they should seek support to get out of the industry because they were hurting women and themselves. This is not the first time I have heard this directly (usually people say this without realising what I did for a living). Camilia Pagila and other feminists who are pro-sex industry have been branded as anti-feminist by the mainstream movement. I also recall IWD events in WA that involved protesting against strip clubs and brothels as little as 3 years ago. Even when I wrote a piece for Damsel about stripping many of the women were uncomfortable about it and I got told multiple times I should be careful of what I was doing to myself and to they way women were viewed (Bless the women's officer at the time who I still adore who was the only person who was supportive!)
I guess I can only speak from my own experience talking to people about working in said industry and with people who do (from full service escorts to the counterhands at a porn store both male and female) so I guess all up 200+ people across 4 states. The view is that men are more open and accepting of the industry than women are. When working peeps girls had alot of verbal abuse from women (why you would *pay* to call someone a slut/whore/cunt I have no idea)- yet no abuse from men, but rather respect and they treated you like a person than an object. Interestingly lesbians acted in a similar way so perhaps it is an insecurity thing with the het girls? More open clubs (with stage shows and the traditional pole dancing) have bouncers who tend to through out rowdy groups. Male strippers I have spoken to reported more likely to be groped/other inappropriate behaviour from women than female strippers- and feeling obliged to brush it off/laugh, whilst female strippers reported this happened at a lower rate and they were able to get the person thrown out/tell them to f-off.
"Following that line feminists who hide their male partners and treat them poorly are no better than men who beat their wives.
Well, if they beat them, yes."
Sorry was a little extra ranty then! How you can be women's officer and whine about equality, then tell your male partner not to turn up to events because it would be bad for you to be seen in a heterosexual relationship is nothing short of horrific in my view- not only because of the individual but the view of the women's movement towards the view you couldn't be a good feminist if you had a male partner. I guess what I'm saying is not treating your partner right is something that both men and women do and it is sad that society doesn't see it that way and sadder still that people who are suppose to be for equality don't either.
:)
Re: Answering dot points: Part 1
Date: 2008-04-16 07:59 pm (UTC)Camilia Pagila and other feminists who are pro-sex industry
Camille Paglia is a whole special case. There are plenty of reasons why she is disliked, most of which go a lot deeper than what she thinks about sex work, such as an obsession with biological determinism. Feminism as a whole is probably a lot more inclined to like people like Suzie Bright or Annie Sprinkle, who are a lot more focussed on sex work, and a lot less focussed on attacking the intellectual foundations of feminism.
Re: Answering dot points: Part 1
Date: 2008-04-24 08:12 am (UTC)Whilst feminism is whatever anyone really wants to make it, it still doesn't stop the negativity of a good proportion of those who identify as feminists against the sex industry.
Re: Answering dot points: Part 1
Date: 2008-04-24 10:35 am (UTC)I don't disagree, but I'd just point out that most sex workers rights organisations (both old, such as COYOTE, and current, such as Scarlet Alliance (which is, errrr, mostly run by EJ)) are also run by people who strongly identify as feminist.
Re: Answering dot points: Part 1
Date: 2008-04-27 01:57 am (UTC)Re: Answering dot points: Part 1
Date: 2008-04-27 09:08 am (UTC)EJs hair is quite glorious in its colourfullness at the moment, too.
Re: Answering dot points: Part 1
Date: 2008-04-17 05:11 am (UTC)And yeah, I Do Not Like the anti-sex/anti heterosexuality vibe I get from certain parts of the feminist movement. Luckily most of the feminists I spend time around are pro sex (heterosexual or otherwise) so I sometimes forget how bad the other bits get.
A while ago
doubleness of sex for women
I found this passage struck a chord with me:
I think this doubleness of experience may explain the bitterness of the fight against pornography (to which I've contributed as much as anyone, I'm afraid) and the phenomenon of the sides being so very horrified by each other because they are perpetually talking past each other. When A attacks violence and B hears her attacking sexual freedom, B will defend sexual freedom — and A will hear her defending violence. You see how it goes, round and round and louder each time, though A doesn't intend to attack sexual freedom per se, and B doesn't mean to defend violence.
Re: Answering dot points: Part 1
Date: 2008-04-18 03:00 am (UTC)However I think the porn industry and sex industry have some inherent issues that we're not able to solve at this stage of our societal evolution.
But being awful to sex workers is just a sign of being an awful person.
Re: Answering dot points: Part 1
Date: 2008-04-20 04:03 am (UTC)Re: Answering dot points: Part 1
Date: 2008-04-24 08:16 am (UTC)I guess I haven't ever looked at the sex industry as being about someone's personal "sexual freedom" more as just another job. I don't have people abusing me for working as a carer for old people and sick kiddies and telling me not to value myself on the way I view myself as a carer, yet I did for working in the wider sex industry. The sex industry is just like any other industry- there are a good and bad things about the different jobs and about the industry as a whole and some people love to work there and others don't- but at the end of the day it's just work.
(sorry it's taken me ages to get back to this)
Answering dot points: Part 2
Date: 2008-04-15 07:15 am (UTC)* I disagree with government funding for families.
* I am against the discrimination of child-free people.
* The biggest opponents to my view of "well having lots of kids is bad for the environment and the world and we should screen people who want to breed and have a strict one child policy" are women who identify as feminists.
Hmm. Personally I think pro-children and anti-children attitudes are spread pretty evenly between feminists and non-feminists, just that the reasons and emphasis are different. The importance of keeping population up is a very old, pre feminist idea which people hold for lots of reasons. Look at all the "make babies!" religious conservatives, and the baby bonus was brought in by a pretty unfeminist government.
* I don't think that there are that many hurdles for women in Australian society to overcome.
I tend to agree with this to some extent, as I explained in my later post this sort of thing isn't why I'm a feminist.
* I'm a stats junkie. I hate how people complain that women earn less than men on average without considering that men on average work more hours than women.
*shrug* All POVs sometimes use crappy stats to justify themselves. The discussions I've seen on this made a point of including hours worked in their analysis, but I'm sure some don't becuase people suck.
* I am against womens only space- particularly as the womens movement has been against mens only space.
I'm not, but I can see your point and think they have to be used carefully. I am in favour of certain kinds of mens only spaces, the issue is when they are used to exclude women from things they can't get access to elsewhere.
* I am pro abortion. Please note that I am not pro choice.
Like
* I think both men and women need to take responsibility for contraception.
* There should be respect in all relationships.
Absolutely.
* I find domestic violence awareness that promotes the idea that only men hit women, without considering homosexual relationships or heterosexual relationships where women hit men deeply harmful to society.
I agree with this completely. Really, it's pretty sexist (and heterosexist), as if women are inherently non threatening.
* I think all feminists should read "The Sexual Politics of Meat" by Carol Adams.
*googles*
Huh, interesting. Hmm.
Re: Answering dot points: Part 2
Date: 2008-04-16 12:22 am (UTC)But the baby bonus was touted as a way the government was helping families and working mothers- very feminist ideas.
"Like strangedave I find this a bit disturbing. What do you mean by it?"
I think that in some cases that abortion should be the way to go to prevent the suffering of the child. I see no reason why someone should be allowed to go to full term if the baby is going to be in great physical pain and will live for only a few hours or days. I think it isn't fair for a child to be brought into the world only to suffer. I do not mean that a termination should take place if the reasons for it can be changed once the child is born but rather in those rare circumstances where it is a hopeless case, why should a parent force a child to live a short, fruitless, painful existence? If someone had a child and beat them every hour for two weeks they would be jailed, yet it's ok to keep a child in prolonged suffering because you choose not to have an abortion?
It's a bit like someone who is suffering and in great pain from a terminal illness yet they are bullied into trying more treatment or forced to have more life prolonging drugs because they feel pressure from their family to do so rather than being allowed to stop treatment or alternatively have physican assisted suicide. However an adult can make an informed choice for themselves.
I've written alot more about this elseware (vegan lj groups mainly) but basically I view "quality" of life over "quantity" of life.
"I agree with this completely. Really, it's pretty sexist (and heterosexist), as if women are inherently non threatening."
And yet I have never heard of any feminist organisation complaining about the "Men's" Domestic Violence hotline and the fact all of the advertising for it was aimed at heterosexual men. I do recall a media statement by a GBLT group commenting how violence in homosexual relationships was underreported and this type of advertising would continue to push the stereotype and lead to further silence on the issue.
Whilst I disagree with alot of things that Carol Adams says, she is anti-porn for a start and believes that non-vegetarians are mentally "blocked" and can easily be enlightened to become veg (which is something I thought when I was about 15). I am looking forward to hearing her speak in Germany in July just to see what she has to say.
Re: Answering dot points: Part 2
Date: 2008-04-17 05:23 am (UTC)Working mothers, sure, families, no. Not that feminism is against families per se, but imo the last governemnt was All About harking back to 50s ideals of Old Skool Family Values.
I think that in some cases that abortion should be the way to go to prevent the suffering of the child.
Ah, ok, that makes sense. I think having an abortion against her will would have to be an unbelievably horrible experience for a preganant women (admitedly, knowing your baby was going to die anyway would make a difference), so I'd tend to be against it, but I can definitely see where you're coming from. I assumed you weren't in favour of compulsory abortions for everyone :)
And yet I have never heard of any feminist organisation complaining about the "Men's" Domestic Violence hotline and the fact all of the advertising for it was aimed at heterosexual men
Yeah, I'm not denying that the vocal feminist organisations have some Serious Issues, especially in terms of heterosexism and racism. Did I mention that people suck? :/
Also, thankyou for speaking up, I think it's vitally important to test ones ideas against people who disagree with them (or at least, don't agree with them entirely) It's too easy to surround youraself with people who agree with you and let your ideas get stagnant.
Re: Answering dot points: Part 2
Date: 2008-04-24 08:21 am (UTC)And the new government is all about working families which is very 1970s/80s idea of having it all.
"Yeah, I'm not denying that the vocal feminist organisations have some Serious Issues, especially in terms of heterosexism and racism. Did I mention that people suck? :/"
Agreed. You'll always find people who suck regardless of the movement/organisation/ideology :/
"I think it's vitally important to test ones ideas against people who disagree with them (or at least, don't agree with them entirely) It's too easy to surround youraself with people who agree with you and let your ideas get stagnant."
Not a problem- I like a good rant and I like the way you question and the ideas you put forward. You are one of the few people I can have a well reasoned debate with and I quite enjoy it :)
Re: Answering dot points: Part 2
Date: 2008-04-27 06:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-14 11:16 am (UTC)I guess the analogy would be that I am anti-racism as well, but I do a lot less in that area so I am open to the charge of talking the talk but not walking the walk. (Though, today was my day for writing a brief to try to get more funding for roads in Indigenous communities so I took at least one or two steps towards activism in that direction).
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 07:36 am (UTC)