The F Word

I'm pretty supportive of feminism, but only forms that advocate equality between men and women. I will NEVER buy into "feminazis". To me, there's a difference between a feminist and a feminazi. A feminist is someone who wants women to be equal to men. A feminazi is someone who thinks men are inferior, who sees sexism in everything (think of the ones who took out their rage on bras by burning them), and who might even insist on saying "womyn" instead of "woman". Feminazis do not represent the feminist movement.

Overall, the US is pretty fair towards women. Our women are among the most well-educated in the world. And we have plenty of female politicians. Plus we have lots of services for abused women.

I do think we still need feminism, but this time we should try helping women in countries where there are threats to equality, like countries under the threat of Islamism. I mean, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt could render Egyptian women helpless if they don't get removed. Honor killings also need to be stopped. A lot of Muslims, both in their own countries and in Western countries, really want to solve these problems. Plenty of them hate Saudi Arabia's cruel treatment of women. I mean, the women there cannot drive - not even if there are men present in the car. Really, Saudi Arabia is the current biggest enemy of feminism. And considering how much influence they have over the Muslim world, it convinces Muslims in other countries to be sexist.

The next biggest enemy of feminism is China. I admit, I love Chinese culture and a lot of the related things, but they really need to get over their rampant misogyny. I know that Chinese people tend to be fiercely proud of their traditions even in this day and age, but that doesn't excuse the gender imbalance, and the fact that so many Chinese baby girls are abandoned while there are too many boys. The boys will be affected too - they might be fighting for spouses eventually.

At least some Third World countries have gotten better. Latin America has improved quite a bit in the past 50 years - we've had several women presidents in Latin America while the US still hasn't had one. Though they do have problems to work on. India has also made quite a bit of progress since independence, though it's sad to hear that a lot of parents there still think having girls is bad. The government is trying to address this - in one area they have helped girls whose parents named them Nakusha, or "unwanted" in Sanskrit, choose new names (I was appalled that there could be sexism in naming your daughter). Africa isn't doing too good, though at least African women are speaking out against female genital mutilation (their biggest obstacle IMO).

Even some of the more conservative European countries need feminism. Women in Italy are not well-represented in government (well, it is much better than in most Middle Eastern countries, but still a far cry from the US, the UK, Germany, and Scandinavia), and some men still have that stay-in-the-kitchen attitude towards women. Eastern Europe is even worse, what with violence against women not being reported.

Plus a lot of these countries have serious issues with prostitution. Women and even girls feel that they have no choice but to be prostitutes because they're so poor. We should try to help them too, so hopefully they can give up prostitution in favor of a healthier lifestyle.

François said:

And as for "feminism has done its job", I of course meant in the most developed parts of the world. Obviously in regions where women don't have equal rights it has its place.

Click to expand...

But there are parts of the "developed world" where there are still problems. Like in the US where there are pushes to restrict the use of birth control, not to mention the availability of abortion services. (Having control over your own reproduction is one of the most important freedom's a woman can have.) And then there are all the rapes and sexual assaults that happen, and how even among those that are reported (and, btw, you gotta wonder why so many aren't reported) only a fraction result in convictions.

There are places in the world that aren't as bad as the US, but even then there are problems so I'm not really seeing where the job is done.

Mr. X said:

The basis behind it is that were trying to make something equal, in every case, which can't be equal - Males and females are different and thus will have different desires. While their are certain things we can be equal in, despite biological differences, their are also certain things where, due to biological differences, we will never be equal in.

The point behind the shoes statement is simple - You can't base equality on just one variable. Extended, it's about differences in what we, as individual people, want. Case in point, some want money, some want shoes. Relating to pay, if money is your goal then your going to do whatever you can in order to get that money. If shoes are your goal, then your going to do just good enough job to keep affording new ones.

The most important point, imo, to that article though is that, despite women becoming more and more equal in pay to men, they are also becoming more and more unhappy with their lives - Feminism doesn't account for the womans happiness, just the perceived place in society women should play. And really, a persons happiness is whats really important. If money makes a person happy, great. Go make some. If shoes makes a person happy, fine. Go buy some. If 'insert X here' makes you happy, then make obtaining that your goal.

Click to expand...

I, and I'm sure others, are not basing equality on just income. That's just one piece of the puzzle. A big piece, but not the whole picture. I mean, very few people out there are just concerned with money. People want comfort, friendship, family, luxury, a sense of purpose, etc. etc. Money is the grease that makes many of those things happen. Gotta have money to have a family, to be comfortable, and even to have shoes. I'm sure if the average man bought as many shoes as the average woman the men would still have more money.

And I don't buy the implication that equality/feminism/etc. is making women unhappy. At least not in the sense that the article implies, which is that if women went back to how things were 35 years ago they would be happy. The article implies it's women's fault for their unhappiness because they want to make money and be equal. The problem is really how anyone, man or woman, who wants to make money is going to be more unhappy because of work pressures, etc. It's about how you need to have money to survive today, and how any family that's trying to raise kids just can't do it like could be done in the past when one parent worked and the other raised kids. Today even two parents working is barely enough and that leaves no one to raise the kids.

TRIFORCE89 said:

Well, no. That's not correct because that's not just a male vs female thing. If two guys were there doing the same job, but one was more educated or qualified he would still be paid more. I'd have no problem if the woman was being paid more because she was more qualified or education

More relevant education (and in this case, specific certifications that can be applied to his field and the job) makes you a stronger candidate and more qualified for that job and your career overall. Why shouldn't you be rewarded for that?

Equal pay or equal work only really makes sense if you're working at McDonald's or something very "assembly line" like that.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is, let's say you have people working in an office doing data entry or whatever. If all the employees do around the same amount of data each day they should all be paid the same. Even if one of them speaks 5 languages and can program, skills which could certainly be useful in their field, if that's not part of their actual job it shouldn't give them a higher pay rate. Now if it meant they did more work in the same time, or more difficult work that others would take a lot longer to do, then that's not equal work and it makes sense for that person to get paid more.

Scarf said:

What I'm saying is, let's say you have people working in an office doing data entry or whatever. If all the employees do around the same amount of data each day they should all be paid the same. Even if one of them speaks 5 languages and can program, skills which could certainly be useful in their field, if that's not part of their actual job it shouldn't give them a higher pay rate. Now if it meant they did more work in the same time, or more difficult work that others would take a lot longer to do, then that's not equal work and it makes sense for that person to get paid more.

Click to expand...

That's correct. Because that job you described fits under my assembly line umbrella. That's hired labour.

Anyway, enough of that. I don't want to sidetrack this topic

lol @ everyone saying "feminism has reached what it accomplished" when lots of cases of sexual assault aren't taking seriously in the court system. shame on all of you tbh.

e: In an effort to give my post some more substance I proudly identify as a feminist because I respect the women in my life and therefor respect all women. It's honestly that simple.

Scarf said:

And I don't buy the implication that equality/feminism/etc. is making women unhappy. At least not in the sense that the article implies, which is that if women went back to how things were 35 years ago they would be happy. The article implies it's women's fault for their unhappiness because they want to make money and be equal.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I've never accepted that argument. Really just blind nostalgia. Nostalgia that I just don't subscribe to. I may watch some clip of an old timey show from some of those "top TV shows ever" things that run on TV from time to time. And how subservient women are in those roles in those shows are just bizarre to comprehend today.

Another one that irked me was those Jacqueline Kennedy interviews that surfaced a few years back. She clearly loved her husband, but she mentioned so much about permission and fearing what he would think and letting him "misbehave" because its what he wants. And just him him him. Never her. She was never first or equal. It was weird. Especially coming from her since we kind of look at her today as this feminist role model.

TRIFORCE89 said:

Another one that irked me was those Jacqueline Kennedy interviews that surfaced a few years back. She clearly loved her husband, but she mentioned so much about permission and fearing what he would think and letting him "misbehave" because its what he wants. And just him him him. Never her. She was never first or equal. It was weird. Especially coming from her since we kind of look at her today as this feminist role model.

Click to expand...

I never considered Jackie Kennedy a feminist - in fact, she was very much a product of her time. She actually called her marriage "Asiatic", playing into a racist stereotype of Asian women as submissive, plus she looked down on Martin Luther King because of his race. I find it weird because she wasn't even that old - I know women born before her who do not ascribe to such beliefs. It really puts her in contrast to Eleanor Roosevelt, who was a woman far ahead of her time. Then again, Jackie Kennedy had a rather sheltered lifestyle due to being born super rich (the Bouviers are an old money family - they've been wealthy MUCH longer than the Kennedys). I'll still think of Jackie Kennedy as a great fashion icon, but she wasn't a feminist.

I admit the reveal of Jackie Kennedy's outdated views felt terrible for me. But I moved on from it. Then again, some of the great women in our history had terrible flaws. Take Margaret Sanger, for example. She was an outspoken eugenicist who targeted blacks and Catholics with her birth control programs. It's the same as realizing that Thomas Jefferson had a young slave mistress or that Henry Ford was pro-Nazi.

And those lame 50s shows...they're so bad that the name of June Cleaver (the mom from Leave it to Beaver) has entered my lexicon as a synonym for women who are willingly submissive to their husbands. A good example of a woman like that would be Michelle Duggar.

Mr. X said:

Spoiler:

Click to expand...

That last one is hopefully starting to be looked into:

Compulsive Liar Jailed After 11 False Rape Claims In A Decade
If you're a real feminist, you should be ashamed of this woman.

Oh, and here's a conversation I had with a friend of mine about this. It's more sarcastic than anything, but I know someone is going to get mad at it anyway, so meh:

CarcharOdin said:

Compulsive Liar Jailed After 11 False Rape Claims In A Decade
If you're a real feminist, you should be ashamed of this woman.

Click to expand...

Of course. Why would you think otherwise? Not only is it just wrong for the people involved, it helps perpetuate misconceptions about rape, a.k.a. that women falsely claim rape all over the place. With the internet the way it is, single instances like this end up heard about by thousands of people who will conclude this is common.

Skinwalker213 said:

Feminism's goals have been long accomplished, yet there are still people claiming it didn't. Equality is never going to happen, let's face the fact that we are never going to treat both genders the same. I do, though, think that gender shouldn't play a role in professional situations such as court. Even though they aren't allowed to discriminate against a certain gender,race, etc., females get easier punishments than males.

Click to expand...

true that. i read a news story the other day about a "rare female execution" i don't remember where it was but apparently she was (i think) the 4th female on death row while there were hundreds of males. at this point there really isn't equal rights anywhere. there are all those countries where the women have no rights, and here in america its looking like the females rule it (i don't care if all the presidents are male. most of my female friends and family voted for the males anyway just cause they thought they had better ideas. its not like the president can change things that much anyway.)

Skinwalker213 said:

Feminism's goals have been long accomplished, yet there are still people claiming it didn't. Equality is never going to happen, let's face the fact that we are never going to treat both genders the same. I do, though, think that gender shouldn't play a role in professional situations such as court. Even though they aren't allowed to discriminate against a certain gender,race, etc., females get easier punishments than males.

Click to expand...

Feminism's goals are far from accomplished, the gender disparity is still a huge issue, especially in the workplace still. And just because the goal may "never happen", that doesn't mean we should throw in the towel and let disenfranchisement happen. It's about fighting social injustices to the best of our ability.

Im all for equality for women, being one myself. I dont agree with really radical feminism but I can admit that things are better for women where I live then they once were. I enjoy the fact that I can pretty much do what I please in life and have the freedoms I have and know that if I lived in a different time, I would likely not have those choices. I do agree that it's not perfect and there is still some inequality and double standards though.

I'm fine with feminism, just not radical feminism.

But for the most part, it has achieved most of what it intended to achieve, and most of the things it didn't achieve are coming along well, even if not as quickly as some wish.

I support equality in the justice system and workplace, just as anybody should.

Not a fan of sexism within feminism; the obvious slander of men when it's not needed; and then the less obvious slander of traditional female roles. There is no shame in aspiring to be a mother or homemaker; you don't have to be working in an office to be a respectable woman.

I feel like the term "radical feminism" is stupid. I don't see people supporting equal rights going around and blowing up buildings like we would equate other radical movements to be.

When I looked at this I thought the real F word.

Just my two cents worth, feminism is over-rated and if woman wanted more feminism in the world I guess that would have been done already AND that could be a very good thing for the Earth.

Pichu2Pikachu2Raichu said:

When I looked at this I thought the real F word.

Just my two cents worth, feminism is over-rated and if woman wanted more feminism in the world I guess that would have been done already AND that could be a very good thing for the Earth.

Click to expand...

No. Femnists are trying their hardest but there's still stuff like this happening in the world. Everyone is trying; it's not done because they haven't accomplished their goals yet. That goes for everyone who said "Feminism accomplished its goals lololol"

Pichu2Pikachu2Raichu said:

When I looked at this I thought the real F word.

Just my two cents worth, feminism is over-rated and if woman wanted more feminism in the world I guess that would have been done already AND that could be a very good thing for the Earth.

Click to expand...

Overrated? what? No. Women around the world want rights and to be equal but it's a tough fight for them in some places in the world. They are trying hard, it isnt a matter of "it wouldve been done already" It takes a lot longer in some places than others.

Shiny Celebi said:

Im all for equality for women, being one myself. I dont agree with really radical feminism but I can admit that things are better for women where I live then they once were. I enjoy the fact that I can pretty much do what I please in life and have the freedoms I have and know that if I lived in a different time, I would likely not have those choices. I do agree that it's not perfect and there is still some inequality and double standards though.

Click to expand...

That is the single flaw with feminism. While everyone in the thread pretty much has the right idea, I can say that practically everyone in the thread is very wrongly approaching it.

Why? "Equality for women" is an oxymoron. Equality itself loses its entire meaning by being attached to one side of an argument, you see. How can we have equality by focusing on one gender alone? We can't, and we never will by looking at it as if the problem lies with how women are treated. By handling it through upping rights and freedoms of one gender, you end up completely forgetting the 'roles and customs' that are left behind on the other side of the field. This is the one reason why all customs formerly held by women are practically nonexistant (cooking, child rearing, etc), while customs for men are practically untouched (selective services, manual labor, etc).

Calling yourself a 'feminist/masculinist' skips over the point either of them might hope to achieve, honestly.

.........I hope all of you take into account what I've said.

Word. That is very true. Feminism will never be the agent to equality when the very word itself is based on the woman's perception. The entire ideology is clouded from its starting point.

Also, feminism is so broad a concept/movement, that there are many conceptions on what it actually means. This gives it lots of opportunity to be hijacked by some part of it. For example, there is an argument (that I agree with) that much of the public feminist message is clouded from an upper-middle class, white, privileged perspective, the one that is born on university campuses. These feminists that advocate women breaking away from their gender roles and becoming career-focused women do not represent all women - because not all people can move up the corporate ladder, regardless of their gender. I don't think it's proper for women to become career oriented as a whole, because somebody has to be the secretary/janitor/burger-flipper/line worker. But we hear this message all the time, that women /should/ put off marriage to focus on their careers, etc. That isn't a message for women, but for overachievers. And this view has nothing to say for women of minorities, who are often not even in a position to think about career advancement to begin with.

I agree that much of the goals of feminism, the ones that apply to all women, have been accomplished, at least in the Western world. I see the feminist movement right now as breaking into different sects that each speak for a minority, but not for women as a whole. There are many women who want a career, but also want to marry and settle down and be mothers. Who will speak for the mothers? <-- oh wait that's a traditional gender role supporting the patriarchy

Pichu2Pikachu2Raichu said:

When I looked at this I thought the real F word.

Just my two cents worth, feminism is over-rated and if woman wanted more feminism in the world I guess that would have been done already AND that could be a very good thing for the Earth.

Click to expand...

Maybe in the US, but a lot of places still really need it.