What do feminists want?

[Antiquehunter]

That's because PZ and Phil are good friends of Rebecca's.

Agreed, but I also thought that RD would be included in that circle of friends. Hopefully he will be once again.

You know - it would be interesting to hear if RD draws a comparison to this incident as to why he doesn't debate creationists. While I'm not suggesting that he's being disingenuously quoted out of context by RW, PZ or PP; I do think it is fair to state that they are reading altogether too much seriousness into an issue that has been given far too much airplay. His original comment with the comparison to female oppression in the Muslim world certainly wasn't his finest argument, but to turn him into some sort of sexist villain is taking this to the point of idiocy. It may have been an imprudent and not entirely well-thought out line of reasoning from him, but he's hardly Chris Brown.

 

[Ysidro]

Christ, now it's infected the Bad Astronomer...

Can't wait to hear about it on SGU...

Yeah, how dare these people be decent human beings!

 

[shawmutt]

Yeah, how dare these people be decent human beings!

Yeah, because that's the point I'm making.

 

[sgtbaker]

That article was linked to on today on PZ's site. It made me angry again at dismissive feminists with comments like:



and



To hell with me "abusing my privilege"--that's just insulting to men and women alike, and was a common brushoff in the crazy PZ posts.

Well, because out of the eight posts PZ so far today, two of them were a big "screw you misogynist atheists and skeptics!!oneone11one" I decided to drop him from my feed. I'm sure I'll be missed

I think that is a major part of the problem; people with extreme views arguing what I, in my humblest opinion, felt was a valid point she made. Though moderate (?) feminists and radical feminists agree that the guys actions were out of line, the responses of the more radical feminists do not represent the rest of us, nor do they help in supporting her complaint. If nothing else, it's doing more damage than good.

 

[Koudelka]

I'm a feminist. However, I hate that word. "Feminist" ... It sounds like I'm pro-woman. This isn't true. I think people should be equal, regardless of what's between the legs. Furthermore, I think socially constructed boundaries associated with gender should be lessened. Ideally, I'd like it if it were completely gone, but that'd be unrealistic.

The problem with associating one's self to the idea of feminism is that there's different types of feminism. Welp, that just got complicated. Even more so, opinions and facts can get warped along the process of communication. Some women get into feminism and get so worked up in it, that they interpret everything a man does (that doesn't favor them) as being misogynistic. Of course, I do not condone such behavior, as it ruins the entire image of what a feminist is.

To be clear:

Feminism is: an idea that women and men should be equal on all grounds of socially constructed parts of society, which would obviously include rights.

Women fought long and hard for that, but now we're looking at smaller things. We want there to be just as many women employed as men. We want women to be paid just as much as men (within the same job placement). Stuff like that. But here's where problems come in ...

There are biological differences between men and women that people can't really accept, especially among feminists it seems. This is just a generalization though. In example of what I said above about women being employed just as much as men, what if we were talking about a construction worker or a police officer? Should women be able to hold those jobs? Yes, of course. But this is within reason. If a women is not strong enough, which would be an obvious requirement for certain placements in these job fields, then she should not be hired for it. Since we can't read people's minds, who knows if a woman is not being hired for the position of a construction worker (or some other traditionally "manly" job) because she's not strong enough or because she's being discriminated against.

Social problems are complex like this and it's probably why so many people feel that there's a lot of injustice going on. The truth is difficult to find sometimes. Some feminists want some pretty radical things. Of course, in just saying that - who's to determine what's too radical and what isn't?

Just like with anything else, you should never judge a whole group of people based on some bad (or good) interactions with a small portion of that group. There's lots of types of feminists out there and to group us all together is a bit insulting.

 

[Ysidro]

Yeah, because that's the point I'm making.

So you now agree the guy was out of line and Rebecca was right to say "don't do that guys"?

Or are you still painting people with a broad brush? A brush that didn't have paint until sexist ******** started in on her.

 

[shawmutt]

So you now agree the guy was out of line and Rebecca was right to say "don't do that guys".

I didn't start this thread in response to that particular video. I started this thread in response to the blitzkrieg I witnessed at the battle of Pharyngula this past weekend and the skirmishes that followed in assorted areas.

Further, I did state, in this very thread, my position on the specific topic of creepergate. Post #68,

I don't discount that the woman in that specific situation would feel uncomfortable. It's also not something I personally would think of doing. I also realize that really ****** things would be said if something did happen to Ms. Watson.

I'm not sure what I did to deserve the rest of your condescending reply.

 

[bookitty]

Just like with anything else, you should never judge a whole group of people based on some bad (or good) interactions with a small portion of that group. There's lots of types of feminists out there and to group us all together is a bit insulting.

For the record, I am a feminist and I am part of the group that includes:
The ones who only care about abortion. The ones who only use it to make a point. The ones who think that all sex is rape. The ones who are pro-porn. the ones who are anti-porn. The ones who hate men. The ones who only say they are feminist so that they can insult other women and get a pat on the head for being a "good" feminist. The ones who defend abortion clinics. The ones who are pro-choice but hate abortion. The ones who argue on the internet. The ones who never say a word. The ones who know every definition and toss it out in every conversation. The ones who have no clue but are learning. The ones who will never have clue. The ones who inspire. The ones who drive everyone away.

Basically, I am part of the group that includes every feminist that ever was or will be. There are plenty that I admire and plenty that I despise with a passion. Because I believe in equal rights, I will be linked to them. I can't and don't want to control what other feminists say. If I don't agree, I can speak up but I can't kick anybody out of the club. Things that I say and do will have consequence. Qualifiers don't divorce me from responsibility. identify as feminist and you're speaking for all of them. There's not really a lot of choice in that.

 

[Koudelka]

identify as feminist and you're speaking for all of them. There's not really a lot of choice in that.

This is not true. They do not speak for me. No one else in the world could ever speak for me. Every individual speaks for himself or herself. Being a part of a group doesn't take away your individuality. If you want to associate yourself with other types of feminists, that's your choice. As for me, if I stand beside a feminist who has very different ideas on what feminism is from me, then we are not the same kind of feminist and that's that. In fact, some of these people I wouldn't consider feminists at all.

 

[bookitty]

This is not true. They do not speak for me. No one else in the world could ever speak for me. Every individual speaks for himself or herself. Being a part of a group doesn't take away your individuality. If you want to associate yourself with other types of feminists, that's your choice. As for me, if I stand beside a feminist who has very different ideas on what feminism is from me, then we are not the same kind of feminist and that's that. In fact, some of these people I wouldn't consider feminists at all.

Me neither but that's not really for me to say. Still, what they say and do will impact the way people deal with me. The same way that what I say will impact how other feminists are dealt with. It can be frustrating at times but accepting it means that you don't need a huge introduction every time.

 

[bookitty]

I didn't start this thread in response to that particular video. I started this thread in response to the blitzkrieg I witnessed at the battle of Pharyngula this past weekend and the skirmishes that followed in assorted areas.

Further, I did state, in this very thread, my position on the specific topic of creepergate. Post #68,



I'm not sure what I did to deserve the rest of your condescending reply.

The blitzkrieg is equal parts frustration, bullheadedness and hope. People like myself, who identify with Watson because of shared experience, are frustrated by the reaction to a somewhat simple scenario and request. Bullheaded about letting it go. And hopeful that people actually do care enough to listen.

 

[epepke]

You have no way of knowing this but I did take a month or so off from the JREF because it was making me despair for the human race. Having recognized that as an illogical response, I pulled back to reflect.

It happens to all of us.

You're caught up in a really bizarre description of equal. I got no answers for you. On one hand, it seems like the word game is all and you're looking for a bumper sticker slogan. On the other hand, the concepts of privilege are really difficult to explain. No single example can ever sum it up and most definitions are vague.

My definition is really bizarre? How? You could ask me.

Here, I'll try to explain. I really have no idea whether it will work.

My idea of sexual equality is when I can treat a female colleague the same way I treat a male colleague, offer her the same opportunities that I would give him, and vice versa.

Please explain to me why this is bizarre.

For example, I know intellectually that being a white American female of a certain body weight, social standing and of good health gives me advantages that I don't even see. That someone who was different in any of those categories would face challenges that would never occur to me. Even if I can emphasize with them, I won't notice them daily. How many times have I noticed whether or not a favorite restaurant is wheelchair accessible? Maybe never. But if I had a friend who was in a wheelchair and they mentioned it, I would see it more. I'd start looking for restaurants that had access before inviting them to lunch. I might even start talking to the managers even if my friend wasn't with me.

A lot of what Rebecca is saying is like that. Like "Here's something you may not have noticed because the way I move through the world is parallel to you but not the same."

I understand that. (Though I did watch the video you posted in the other thread, and I thought it quite reasonable. Perhaps you will tell me that is a bizarre opinion as well?)

What may be the difference is that I don't see having these "not the same" worlds as acceptable, let alone something to celebrate.

Here's an example. Once upon a time, women were discriminated against in symphony orchestras. Applicants played in front of a panel of judges, traditionally male. So they made a change. They make the applicants play behind a curtain, which prevented the judges from seeing applicants but allowed them to hear them. All of a sudden, not only were women accepted, but people of various races too.

I find this a move in the direction of equality. Please explain to me how it is "really bizarre."

 

[shawmutt]

This is not true. They do not speak for me. No one else in the world could ever speak for me. Every individual speaks for himself or herself. Being a part of a group doesn't take away your individuality. If you want to associate yourself with other types of feminists, that's your choice. As for me, if I stand beside a feminist who has very different ideas on what feminism is from me, then we are not the same kind of feminist and that's that. In fact, some of these people I wouldn't consider feminists at all.

Dumb question--then why call yourself a feminist? I mean if the movement itself is so hard to define, why even use the word to define it? I guess that's the crux of my OP. I'm not trying to pigeonhole the movement or the people involved, I'm just trying to get an understanding of the chaos I experienced last weekend.

For example, I call myself an atheist--someone who just knows me as "atheist" can figure out several things about me, not the least of which is that don't believe in their god/gods/goddesses/small farm animal. They can also make incorrect assumptions, like I have proof about the absence of a god--which I can correct them by saying, "actually, most atheists consider the evidence and make their decision based on that evidence". I can even point them to websites that are much more articulate than I can ever be. Skepticism is another well-defined movement.

What do you want other people to think a contemporary feminist is?

 

[Koudelka]

Dumb question--then why call yourself a feminist? I mean if the movement itself is so hard to define, why even use the word to define it? I guess that's the crux of my OP. I'm not trying to pigeonhole the movement or the people involved, I'm just trying to get an understanding of the chaos I experienced last weekend.

For example, I call myself an atheist--someone who just knows me as "atheist" can figure out several things about me, not the least of which is that don't believe in their god/gods/goddesses/small farm animal. They can also make incorrect assumptions, like I have proof about the absence of a god--which I can correct them by saying, "actually, most atheists consider the evidence and make their decision based on that evidence". I can even point them to websites that are much more articulate than I can ever be. Skepticism is another well-defined movement.

What do you want other people to think a contemporary feminist is?

Actually, I wish there were another word for it. I wish there were subcategories for each kind of feminist. It isn't that feminism is difficult to define, it's that there's a great deal of social problems that are linked to feminism. You're comparing feminism to atheism, which is much more clear only because it doesn't have nearly as many social problems associated with it.

For example, atheism clearly cut is to reject the existence of a god/goddess/deity/higher power of some sort, right? That's a pretty straight-forward simple view. Using the definition I gave for feminism, it incorporates many, many aspects of culture, society, and social problems. The larger it spans out, the more complicated it'll get. There's many contributing factors, such as gender differences. Even religion could be brought into it because so many religions' texts are so sexist.

Also, there's a lot more people defining themselves as feminists than there are defining themselves as atheists. Don't you think that with more people, we'd get more and more splits in philosophies and ideas? ... For instance, atheists can't speak for me either. Some of them pretend to actually know that there is no god/goddess/deity/whatever, while I just think there isn't one. Perhaps if less people went around speaking for others, I wouldn't get accused of the same kind of mentality.

Nonetheless, I am atheist and I am feminist. Just because there's other atheists and feminists that I disagree with doesn't make me any less of one.

As for picking out who's feminist and who isn't - it's simple. If you don't believe in equality for men and women, then you're not a feminist. This means the self-proclaiming "feminists" who want there to be women exclusively in power instead of men are not feminists. There's plenty of other examples that take these people outside of what feminism is, but then I'd end up with a list as long as bookitty's.

 

[bookitty]

It happens to all of us.



My definition is really bizarre? How? You could ask me.

Here, I'll try to explain. I really have no idea whether it will work.

My idea of sexual equality is when I can treat a female colleague the same way I treat a male colleague, offer her the same opportunities that I would give him, and vice versa.

Please explain to me why this is bizarre.



I understand that. (Though I did watch the video you posted in the other thread, and I thought it quite reasonable. Perhaps you will tell me that is a bizarre opinion as well?)

What may be the difference is that I don't see having these "not the same" worlds as acceptable, let alone something to celebrate.

Here's an example. Once upon a time, women were discriminated against in symphony orchestras. Applicants played in front of a panel of judges, traditionally male. So they made a change. They make the applicants play behind a curtain, which prevented the judges from seeing applicants but allowed them to hear them. All of a sudden, not only were women accepted, but people of various races too.

I find this a move in the direction of equality. Please explain to me how it is "really bizarre."

I think it's great. it has many applications. You could, for example, recruit speakers for a conference based on anonymous papers. That would be completely fair and would treat everyone equally. Or do the same thing at a custody trial where the judge never met the applicants and didn't know who was male/female.

Unfortunately the applications are limited. You can't say "Of the two, Mr. Brown is in better health, therefore, he should get pregnant" as the most obvious example. Human social interaction is weird. We judge each situation by a huge mess of experiences, messages from childhood, things we've learned as adults. Every human gets their own set but certain groups have some commonalities. Identifying and respecting these commonalities makes for smoother interactions.

Maybe if everyone in a specific social interaction was raised in a completely non-gendered environment with no outside information, they could get away with treating each other exactly the same way. But that way would seem very strange to someone like you or I who had been raised in a very gendered society.

 

[bookitty]

Dumb question--then why call yourself a feminist? I mean if the movement itself is so hard to define, why even use the word to define it? I guess that's the crux of my OP. I'm not trying to pigeonhole the movement or the people involved, I'm just trying to get an understanding of the chaos I experienced last weekend.

For example, I call myself an atheist--someone who just knows me as "atheist" can figure out several things about me, not the least of which is that don't believe in their god/gods/goddesses/small farm animal. They can also make incorrect assumptions, like I have proof about the absence of a god--which I can correct them by saying, "actually, most atheists consider the evidence and make their decision based on that evidence". I can even point them to websites that are much more articulate than I can ever be. Skepticism is another well-defined movement.

What do you want other people to think a contemporary feminist is?

Feminism is simply the idea that woman deserve equal rights on all social levels. How you explain that, the important parts of that and the main thrust of that will be different with each individual person.

In a perfect world - feminist would be a silly old archaic word that meant nothing because duh! of course everyone has equal rights.

 

[epepke]

Dumb question--then why call yourself a feminist? I mean if the movement itself is so hard to define, why even use the word to define it? I guess that's the crux of my OP. I'm not trying to pigeonhole the movement or the people involved, I'm just trying to get an understanding of the chaos I experienced last weekend.

That's a worthwhile point.

Most people would consider me both an atheist and a skeptic. I don't use either word to describe myself.

I am considered an atheist because I am not any kind of a theist, or a believer in any sort of deity. I do not call myself an atheist because I have noticed antisocial behavior, bad manners, inappropriate hostility, and intellectually dishonest arguments amongst atheists. I have notice how terrible many atheists are at community, how poorly they react to the suffering of other atheists. I do not want to be associated with them.

I am considered a skeptic because I have scientific skepticism and also because it has led me to reject a lot of supernaturalism. I do not call myself a skeptic because of what skeptics do. I don't like how Michael Shermer beat the global-warming bongos for far too long, just so that he could think of himself as being all skeptical and stuff, and how he got followers. I don't like how so many skeptics, though being reasonable about most drugs, insist, alongside naturopaths, that Medical Marijuana is special and must be smoked as the whole leaf. This goes to ridiculous extremes, such as in the Penn and Teller special where a bunch of immunocompromised individuals were inhaling marijuana smoke out of a bag and sharing the same mouthpiece, and it was presented as all medical and stuff. (The last time I brought this up, some bonehead said that they had cancer, and cancer was not communicable. Pheeeeuw!) Whatever it might have been in the early, heady days when The Skeptical Inquirer was a small format quarterly without advertising, now it has way too much cargo cult science for my taste.

So, while I might agree with some atheists and skeptics about most things, I do not want to be associated with the large number of boneheads within the movements, so I don't use the names to describe myself. I do not want to have to explain how I differ from Richard Dawkins or Paul Kurtz.

I do notice, however, when anything about feminism is mentioned that contradicts anything else about feminism (which means practically anything at all) there's a lot of hooting and hollering and screeching to the effect of "You're painting feminists with a broad brush! You, you, you...MALE!"

I can empathize with this. I like adrenaline, too. But I think I'll get my dose by going on the slingshot ride with Angela.

 

[Delvo]

it would be interesting to hear if RD draws a comparison to this incident as to why he doesn't debate creationists... to turn him into some sort of sexist villain is taking this to the point of idiocy.

And it's pretty much the same mental process on RW's part that started this whole thing. She meets one creep and turns it into a lecture for all male readers because all male readers would be just like him if an opportunity arose and need to be told not to be like him. She gets called on it by another woman and makes her the target of a one-sided verbal attack the next time she gets a public podium. So that's three different ways in just this particular case that she's tried to turn some individual into a paragon of all that's wrong with some large fraction of the population.

 

[bookitty]

My idea of sexual equality is when I can treat a female colleague the same way I treat a male colleague, offer her the same opportunities that I would give him, and vice versa.

Sorry. The reason this is bizarre is because you are defaulting to the masculine perspective. If you are in an enclosed space with a stranger, you want to be able to engage the woman the same way you would a man. i.e. approach them casually without a thought for how it might make them feel.

We know that both men and women experience violence and sexual assault. Wouldn't it make more sense to default, in this case, to a perspective more often shared by women. Which is to say that both genders should be approached carefully because the situation might be intimidating.

 

[epepke]

I think it's great. it has many applications. You could, for example, recruit speakers for a conference based on anonymous papers. That would be completely fair and would treat everyone equally. Or do the same thing at a custody trial where the judge never met the applicants and didn't know who was male/female.

We're way ahead of this in the physical sciences. We've been using initials rather than first names for a century. For example, my scientific name is E. Pepke. (Notice the similarity to my screen name?) Reviews are usually completely anonymized. I reviewed a lot of papers.

Unfortunately the applications are limited.

Yeah, they are. For a time at least, some approximations will be made. I'll grant that.

Right now, I'm just trying to get you to explain how my view of equality is "really bizarre."

You can't say "Of the two, Mr. Brown is in better health, therefore, he should get pregnant" as the most obvious example. Human social interaction is weird. We judge each situation by a huge mess of experiences, messages from childhood, things we've learned as adults. Every human gets their own set but certain groups have some commonalities. Identifying and respecting these commonalities makes for smoother interactions.

Maybe if everyone in a specific social interaction was raised in a completely non-gendered environment with no outside information, they could get away with treating each other exactly the same way. But that way would seem very strange to someone like you or I who had been raised in a very gendered society.

Science fiction is way ahead. Furthermore, you might be surprised at the degree to which I travel in circles that are not very gendered.

But let's get back to the above. Is there a possible way to discuss this such that either

1) You don't tell me that what I say is "really bizarre," or

2) You tell me why you think that.