What do feminists want?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

This is blatant sexist bigotry. Please retract it immediately.

Support your case because at the moment, I see nothing I need to retract.

...Coming immediately after your insulting sexist imaginary accusations, your disclaimers are laughable.

Are you or are you not a male?

...Have you ever considered the possibility that feminism has negative connotations, not because of any shortcoming of the males of the species, but because feminists often come across as knee-jerk sexist bigots?

I've considered and rejected it. There are many members of many groups whose own attitudes reflect badly on the group. But in this case, any unlikeable feminist is used as an excuse to paint the whole group. That's typical when bias is involved.

 

[shawmutt]

There are many members of many groups whose own attitudes reflect badly on the group. But in this case, any unlikeable feminist is used as an excuse to paint the whole group.

I'm careful not to confuse the forest for the trees, but there are a lot of unlikeable feminists on PZs blog

I think the issue, at least on that blog, is that there are too many smart people. I forgot where I heard it, it might have been on SGU, but two smart people arguing is about the worst situation you can have. Each has valid, well-thought out points, and can't figure out why their opponent doesn't get their point of view. Add internet magic, and it becomes a cesspit of name calling and accusations of poor reading/writing abilities.

 

[Rufo]

Is this thread intended for discussion of the issues linked in the OP, or the goals and ideals of feminism in general? The debate about the conversation in the elevator is very specific, and I don't feel it's really a matter of "feminists vs anti-feminists".

 

[JJM 777]

I still don't understand what "women's rights" means exactly.

Generally any statistical bias in favour of men in the society, any circumstances where men have more rights or better practical opportunity to do something or reach a powerful position etc. which is either forbidden from women or for other reasons rare for them to achieve, is where feminism would see an agenda for themselves.

Sometimes they obviously have a valid point about discrimination, for example back when women didn´t have the right to vote, etc.

In some other cases their mission becomes more controversial, when they attack statistical gender segregation which is based on actual natural differences between men and women (for example, hard physical work or the IT sector attracting more men than women, not because it is forbidden from women but because women are less interested in it) or traditional cultural or religious values loved by many (many more than there are feminists).

 

[shawmutt]

Is this thread intended for discussion of the issues linked in the OP, or the goals and ideals of feminism in general? The debate about the conversation in the elevator is very specific, and I don't feel it's really a matter of "feminists vs anti-feminists".

Goals and ideals of feminism in general. The rest of the OP is for backstory.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Goals and ideals of feminism in general. The rest of the OP is for backstory.

Well, good luck with that. There is no spokesperson for feminists that I'm aware of. There were a few leaders in the 60s like there were with the civil rights movement. But at this point you are talking about a very diverse population of women.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I want equal treatment.

I'd sugest that what you really want is equvialent treatment. If men treated you in exactly the same way as they did another man, I'd suspect that you'd end up being offended pretty quickly.

As much as some would like it not to be so, men and women are different and see things from different prespectives and with different understandings. Things that one guy says to another can have an entirely different meaning if they were to say it to a woman, and so men will moderate their behaviour accordingly. Likewise, some things that women would do or say with each other would be high inappropriate to say or do with a man.

As such it's biologically impossible for men and women to treat each other as equals. Equivalents, yes, not never equals.

 

[This is The End]

I want equal treatment.

Yes.

I'd sugest that what you really want is equvialent treatment. If men treated you in exactly the same way as they did another man, I'd suspect that you'd end up being offended pretty quickly.

As much as some would like it not to be so, men and women are different and see things from different prespectives and with different understandings. Things that one guy says to another can have an entirely different meaning if they were to say it to a woman, and so men will moderate their behaviour accordingly. Likewise, some things that women would do or say with each other would be high inappropriate to say or do with a man.

As such it's biologically impossible for men and women to treat each other as equals. Equivalents, yes, not never equals.

No, no, and no.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yes.

It's never going to happen, men and women have different biological switching, they do things and determine things differently. The whole idea that they can be the same is rubbish and in the end that means that the only way men and women are going to be able to get alone is to recognise that difference and moderate their behaviour about the other so as not to offend them or give out the wrong signals.

No, no, and no.

Sorry, you're wrong. Now don't get me wrong here, I'm all for women having the same oportunities, pay, political voice and so on and so forth, but at the end of the day, even when all those things are finally sorted out, men are still going to treat women in a different way than they treat another guys, and generally that's better. They won't say or do things to women that they would to another guy, trust me you're better off with that. Likewise women aren't going to, or at leass shouldn't, treat guys like they do their girlfriends, and if they do, they'll get the same backlash.

Men that actually do treat women like they treat other men are the very ones that feminists hate the most, often calling them misogynist and sexist. Honestly, you don't want any part of that world.

Perhaps I'm in a sort of unique position to see this, but the reality is that women need to understand that they can't and won't ever get men to act like they do. It doesn't matter what you do, men are different to you, they work in a different way. When you understand this, you'll understand what I am saying and also why equivalence is the best it gets.

To finish, let's look at an example:

A man has been speaking at a conference and after chatting and drinks, heads to the elevator to head to his room. Another man runs after him and gets into the elevator, then says, "I found the stuff you have been talking about really interesting, would you be interested in coming to my room and discussing it futher."

Compare that to this....

A woman has been speaking at a conference and after chatting and drinks, heads to the elevator to head to her room. A man runs after her and gets into the elevator, then says, "I found the stuff you have been talking about really interesting, would you be interested in coming to my room and discussing it futher."

and then this...

A man has been speaking at a conference and after chatting and drinks, heads to the elevator to head to his room. A woman runs after him and gets into the elevator, then says, "I found the stuff you have been talking about really interesting, would you be interested in coming to my room and discussing it futher."

Get the difference and why men and women can never actually be equal.

 

[Dancing David]

The fact that often people with wildly differing opinions will defend each other because their opinions get lumped under a central umbrella term.

To be certain this is hardly unique to this discussion, but to fact that people with such a wide range of opinions self identify as feminist makes it an extreme example of it.

I wasn't trying to give the impression that I think there is only one true type of feminism. In fact that's the antithesis to the point I'm trying to make.

Sure, I was responding to shawmutt, sorry.

My point was that feminism and feminists are a heterogeneous bunch.

The original issue was equality.

Many people have used the term for many political issues since then, my favorite was at the domestic violence shelter that I worked at, they did not consider 'seniority' when making promotions (this was by the board not the HR person) because it was considered to have been a way men excluded women in the past. But the funny thing, it was only effecting the mostly women at the shelter. It was mainly an excuse for some board members to practice extreme cronyism.

So feminism is originally about equality for all genders, but of course gets subsumed by different politics of individuals.

Equality is a good thing.

 

[Dancing David]

It's never going to happen, men and women have different biological switching, they do things and determine things differently. The whole idea that they can be the same is rubbish and in the end that means that the only way men and women are going to be able to get alone is to recognise that difference and moderate their behaviour about the other so as not to offend them or give out the wrong signals.

In my eyes feminism is about social equality and fair treatment in social structures.

 

[Dancing David]

In general,

They oppose most general notions of the feminine,
and wish to assume most general notions of the masculine for women,
all resting upon a general foundation of antagonism to men.

Feminism is masculism.

It is women who demonstrate how they are against men and don't need men and don't like men by trying to be like men in every way.

Generally speaking.

No, I am a person who grew up with the 1970s wave of feminism, it is not about masculinization at all, you are funny.

 

[JJM 777]

In my eyes feminism is about social equality and fair treatment in social structures.

(What annoys men and women in feminism is the fact that) it seems to be
more than just about equality. It is about similarity. Feminists seem to aggressively oppose any and all gender roles, even when both men and women want to use them.

 

[Dancing David]

Goals and ideals of feminism in general. The rest of the OP is for backstory.

The goals is equality, ideals are individual. There are strange political agendas for all people. Feminism is not defined by extremes any more than any other group behavior, I support feminism for two reasons, one equality is good, two as a hetero male with 'feminine' behaviors I have often been trageted by many of teh same social structures that feminists want to change.

People forget this often that the same social pressures that subjugate or dominate women often have an even more restrictive standard on men. Now as a male person I do not face teh same structural barriers but as an atypical male I have faced many personal interactions (with men and women) where I am treated strangely because I am an atypical male.

Feminism occurs on many levels
-society
-culture
-institutional
-social structures (formal like employers)
-social groups
-inter personal

So many of the first goals were about social, employment and institutional equality.

This also included the sexual harassment laws, which I think are very important.

Now I want to acknowledge that I have not faced the institutional pressure and prejudice that women have faced. But the same cultural and social mores that said it was okay to denigrate women, and sexually harass women (which were much stronger in the 1960s and 70s) also led to me being challenged, harassed, insulted and persecuted by 'macho' men most of my childhood and young adult hood.

I was a scrawny little booger, I hated sports, for some reason I was identified as a fairy/queer/fruit/wimp/pussy/nerd even though I am not gay and I am very hetero. But macho men and boys felt it was okay to harass me, and torment me. So as an adult I understand what some of the social pressures and barriers women face, I did not fit the 'male stereotype' and therefore faced considerable emotional, verbal and physical harassment.

So for me there is also a payoff in feminism and equality.

 

[Dancing David]

(What annoys men and women in feminism is the fact that) it seems to be
more than just about equality. It is about similarity. Feminists seem to aggressively oppose any and all gender roles, even when both men and women want to use them.

For some , yes. I know many 'femme' women who have no desire to be male of masculine, yet they are feminists. Theer are feminists who are not as vocal and olitical as others.

The gender identity issue is a strange one. I do not understand it, but it is like 'lipstick' lesbians', it is part of the modern feminist movement where being 'femme' is okay, as well.

yes there are political extremes for many people, they do not define the center.

 

[PhantomWolf]

In my eyes feminism is about social equality and fair treatment in social structures.

However a lot see "fair treatment" as "exactly equal treatment" going right through to how opening a car door for a woman and not a man is sexism.

The thing is that men treat other men in a different way to how they treat women. True, when that negatively affects a woman's social position it needs to be changed, and I believe that is occurring, and needs to keep occurring. My point is for those that believe that men and woman or should be equal in all ways, they aren't and can't be. We are biologically disposed to be how we are, and trying to get girls to be one of the boys, or trying to make boys one of the girls is fighting millions of years of evolution.

There are some areas that men and women are just plain different. Yes some of us men display attributes and behaviours that are more female, and some females display those that are more male, but that all has roots in the biology of the brain as well.

True equality is an impossiblity, and until that is realised and what is looked for is equal ability to achieve goals and fair treatment rather than everything being equal, then things aren't going to change as much as many would like because there will be more resistance to it. You simily can't change biology that much.

One of the things I'd note as an example of this is that while women have now come to realise that they need their own space and time without the presence of men (such as in gyms) they have also now denied men the ability to have their space without women, in the form of men's clubs. There are those in the feminism movement who would like to see an irradication of masculism and make all men the same as women. It's this sort of thinking that leads to the we should all be equal, but it simply wrong and this is where I have issues.

David, it sounds like you and I are in similar places with our biology. I have what is sometimes termed as "a well developed feminine side" as well, in fact very much so. I stradle the male and female worlds and so can see the huge differences. I have had to learn to put on a mask so I can live in a male world and fit in with them when they are alone and can be open; it's vastly different to how they are when women are present. I get to see how women treat each other, and how men treat each other, and then compare it to how they both treat the other sex compared to that. Strangely women are more likely to try and treat men the way they treat other women, and then wonder why it blows up on them, men treat women very different to how they treat each other, which IMO is just as well as most women would be highly offended if a man treated them that way. These are differences that just can't be changed since it is part of the biology and who we are, and it's why we can never be "equal" as much as some want it to be like that. In the end equivalence is the best it can be (or if you prefer, equal in rights, but different in being), because the sexes will always be different, despite those of us the sit in the gulf between them not quite part of either world, but having a foot in both.

 

[ponderingturtle]

However a lot see "fair treatment" as "exactly equal treatment" going right through to how opening a car door for a woman and not a man is sexism.

The thing is that men treat other men in a different way to how they treat women. True, when that negatively affects a woman's social position it needs to be changed, and I believe that is occurring, and needs to keep occurring. My point is for those that believe that men and woman or should be equal in all ways, they aren't and can't be. We are biologically disposed to be how we are, and trying to get girls to be one of the boys, or trying to make boys one of the girls is fighting millions of years of evolution.

There are some areas that men and women are just plain different.

Yep as we see above women lack the mechanical ability to open the doors on automobiles as an example.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yep as we see above women lack the mechanical ability to open the doors on automobiles as an example.

Wow, what is it about this board that causes posters instantly jump right to the most absurd strawman possible when they can't actually refute an argument?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Wow, what is it about this board that causes posters instantly jump right to the most absurd strawman possible when they can't actually refute an argument?

I have no problem why someone would take issue on a personal level of being treated like either some kind of invalid/child/incompetent. If you were treated this way I suspect it would bug you as well.

 

[Aepervius]

Yeah, I was reading a lot of that nonsense. I don't really know what position you took, so I can't really respond to the request in the OP.

The whole thing was a lot of dumb drama. Watson was pursued and confronted when she was alone on an elevator early in the morning. That, alone, was a concerning move from whoever this guy was. He didn't say anything inappropriate in its own right (and most of Watson's other complaints are just stupid--"he should have known that I wanted to go to bed alone?"), but that's a really aggressive move and one that is fairly frightening.

If that guy had done something to her, we would be getting a littany of "she should have known better than to get on an elevator by herself at 4am" style rape-apologism.

That's the only thing I agree with her on. That guy did behave incredibly inappropriately and more than a little threateningly. That says nothing about "sexism in the skeptical community" (obviously there is quite a bit--that stupid situation isn't proof, nor is Watson's favorite type of evidence--e-mail messages and comments on YouTube), and the attempt to develop broad generalities from that event is silly.

The most obnoxious bit was singling out an individual at a conference unable to respond and importing internet bickering into a conference. I don't want to pay money to watch her complain about people on twitter.

I tend to disagree with that. I am sorry , but how many of us go in PUBLIC to ask a woman or a man to do the two "back" dance together ? No you do not do in public. You either ask in a place where you can speak to the woman without being overheard and laughed at, or you do it by whispering her if possible in public.

Asking a woman in a lift at 4am is not being incredibly insensible. If women are so fearful that at such time in an hotel they get asked by a man in a lift alone in a polite way (as opposed to what ? asking her when the lift is full of people ?) then maybe she should rethink if her fear are so warranted.

FYI I am not a rape apologist and I despise anybody finding an excuse for rape. But neither do i accept Watson's point that this was incredibly insensible.