Why so much hatred for feminism?

[Skeptic Ginger]

[*]What does 'Western Country' mean?
[*]Why are you making this distinction?

Western culture is a common term, do your own research. And the distinction has been answered ad nauseum.

[*]Are you saying that there are countries where less gender equality results in more women in parliament?

Nope. That would be a false conclusion that a coincidence or a simple correlation had causality, and there is no evidence of causality there.

Or are you are simply carving away examples that are counter to your claim?

No, and this has been addressed ad nauseum.

Are you thinking this through? Your 'one key indicator' can mean multiple things - women don't want to be in politics, women voters prefer to vote for men, men are pushed into politics by women etc. What makes you assertion correct, and my assertions wrong?

You continue to argue this straw man, it has been addressed.

Don't say 'straw man' unless you can support it. I've already called you out twice for an explanation, and not having one, you've ignored it both times.

This has been answered ad nauseum.

Now please explain why I need to compare other measures of gender inequality to make the observation that rights-deprived women in India form a larger per I entered this conversation with the statement that India has much worse gender rights than all the developed countries. But what does that have to do with women in parliament?

This has been answered ad nauseum.


There's comes a point when talking to the child who keeps repeating, "but why?", that a parent needs to stop answering.

 

[bookitty]

Just because it's tiresome.

Yes, we're a patriarchal species, and yes, women have gotten the short end of the stick in a lot of significant ways -- I think John Lenon wrote a song about it once.

I suppose you could call that observation an "ism" but to me it's just part of the natural world and if we want a more fair and equal society, well, we do what we have to do. And if we don't, then we don't bother.

But I don't need a separate doctrine for that. It's just part and parcel of a larger notion of the world being a better place to live the more we all get treated fairly and stop believing that our primitive traditions are holy.

Why would I think women are an exception? Why would I think anyone is an exception?

And personally, having done time in academia, my experience with folks who do need to wrap the "treat women equally" bit in its own doctrine, well, it hasn't been great. It becomes the lens through which everything is viewed, and that just gets tedious after awhile.

I could take every statement made "from a feminist perspective" and substitute "from a humanist perspective" and all the valid points would remain valid.

I agree. As soon the US gets the abortion and birth control issue sorted out, I'll be free to call myself a humanist with a feminist background (or some such thing). Right now, my first priority is to insure that women have the right to control their own destiny and their own bodies.

 

[Piggy]

Or it is an argument for both humanism and feminism.

Regardless of your gut reaction to the terminology or whatever else comes to mind for you with feminism, there are some valid issues regarding women's rights, especially if you look worldwide. But even if you just look at women in the US, there are wrongs that affect women directly which need to be addressed. Do you propose those wrongs do not exist, are not worth changing, need a new approach, or simply need a new label? (Feel free to state your own reason if it is not listed here.)

Some in this thread suggest a women who is subject to a law requiring unnecessary medical procedures when she seeks an abortion, even a medically necessary abortion mind you, is wrong to complain because complaining is saying one has been victimized.

I'm all for taking the proactive route when it is available. For example I thought it was absurd to blame elevator guy in the elevatorgate incident for making a pass at a woman in an elevator, and instead thought the claim the said woman was somehow 'vulnerable' in a hotel elevator in a foreign country did more to harm women than the pass did.

But that doesn't mean there aren't other issues like the current religious right's insane attack on women's rights in which the perpetrators are indeed the group that needs to be addressed.

Trust me, Ginger, I've had plenty of exposure to feminist theory. More than I care to.

And as I said in the post you were responding to, I'm not saying that feminism is wrong, just that it's easy to dislike because it's tiresome.

Everything that you're discussing falls under the broad banner of egalitarianism and humanism.

If, like the OP, I want to say "I am a feminist" then I need to also be an African-Americanist and a disabledist and a little-peopleist and a childist and a poorist and a Hutuist and a Tutsiist and so on ad nauseam.

So I don't bother with it.

And in my experience (which you cannot simply discount, given the question in the thread title) folks who take up the feminist banner and view the world through the feminist lens tend to end up making mistakes precisely because of their narrow focus.

I recall reading a piece by a feminist semiotician a few years back, who claimed that the use of the word "troop" by the media during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, rather than "soldier", was evidence of some deep denial of the horrors of war, perhaps enhanced by having women in combat now.

In actuality, the word "troop" became popular so as not to offend (and neglect) members of the Air Force, Marines, Navy, and National Guard, who are not "soldiers".

I'm sorry, but academically, I see no need for feminism per se. Ditto goes for daily life. Call me a feminist if you like, but it's only because I'm a humanist, and if I weren't then I doubt I'd qualify.

 

[Piggy]

I agree. As soon the US gets the abortion and birth control issue sorted out, I'll be free to call myself a humanist with a feminist background (or some such thing). Right now, my first priority is to insure that women have the right to control their own destiny and their own bodies.

That seems reasonable to me.

 

[Francesca R]

So bumping off ol' Billy should result in the first female US President, correct? Or do you think that maybe democracies aren't that simple?

I don't really understand that. But first female premier has come in a number of countries via imputed heredity. When I read "India, Pakistan, Bangladesh" it flashed a red light for me since to a good degree all of them did. Cristina Fernandes (Argentina) is another example. But yes, democracies aren't that simple. Yulia Tymoshenko is a counter-example.

By the way, some more high profile women politicians who do not come from famous families.

Pratibha Patil: President of India
Mayawati: Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh, India
Sheila Dixit: Chief Minister, Delhi, India
Sushma Swaraj: Cabinet Member
Mamta Bannerjee: Chief Minister, West Bengal, India
Brinda Karat: Cabinet Member
Mehbooba Mufti: Chief Minister, Jammu & Kashmir, India
Uma Bharti: Chief Minister, Madhya Pradesh

Thanks.

May I ask your connection with India?

 

[truethat]

Trust me, Ginger, I've had plenty of exposure to feminist theory. More than I care to.

And as I said in the post you were responding to, I'm not saying that feminism is wrong, just that it's easy to dislike because it's tiresome.

Everything that you're discussing falls under the broad banner of egalitarianism and humanism.

If, like the OP, I want to say "I am a feminist" then I need to also be an African-Americanist and a disabledist and a little-peopleist and a childist and a poorist and a Hutuist and a Tutsiist and so on ad nauseam.

So I don't bother with it.

And in my experience (which you cannot simply discount, given the question in the thread title) folks who take up the feminist banner and view the world through the feminist lens tend to end up making mistakes precisely because of their narrow focus.

I recall reading a piece by a feminist semiotician a few years back, who claimed that the use of the word "troop" by the media during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, rather than "soldier", was evidence of some deep denial of the horrors of war, perhaps enhanced by having women in combat now.

In actuality, the word "troop" became popular so as not to offend (and neglect) members of the Air Force, Marines, Navy, and National Guard, who are not "soldiers".

I'm sorry, but academically, I see no need for feminism per se. Ditto goes for daily life. Call me a feminist if you like, but it's only because I'm a humanist, and if I weren't then I doubt I'd qualify.

Really wonderfully put. I forgot about how much I enjoy your posts Piggy.

 

[theprestige]

Pretty sure you know what I meant; Women's ability to carry (preferably male) children was considered their purpose rather than one option of many.

Given that it's an option that is utterly closed off to men, shouldn't we expect to see men over-represented in the demographics for all the other options?

 

[bookitty]

That seems reasonable to me.

I really don't think I'm alone in this. I've only recently (last three years or so) started calling myself a feminist again. In between my mid 20's and now, I referred to myself as merely an activist, with the occasional qualifier depending on what issue was taking up the most of my time.

The word "feminism" fell out of favor in that time. Most of us felt that the hard work had been done. There were still some problematic areas but they would be addressed by time and a new generation which took our progress as a given.

Nobody took the rise of the religious right very seriously. Of course we bemoaned the pandering of the GOP but we laughed at the PMRC, the evangelicals caught with their hands in the coffers (or honey pot), the ridiculous hissy fits over flag burnings and all that. It seemed so laughably backwards. Stuffy old men getting pissy because progress made them feel old.

So we dropped "feminist" and took up environmentalist, civil rights activist, liberal, anti-war and other "bigger" causes. In the 70's and 80's there was one huge group of voters to scare the politicians into being careful of stepping on women's rights. We don't have that anymore and it shows. States are eating away at access to birth control and abortion, women's bodies are back on the score card.

Once again, I identify as a feminist. I use that qualifier when writing to congress or the senate. I've added it my identity. I'd rather it wasn't necessary because it feels a bit limiting sometimes but I'm too worried that I've waited too long to do otherwise.

 

[KingMerv00]

Given that it's an option that is utterly closed off to men, shouldn't we expect to see men over-represented in the demographics for all the other options?

My comment referred to the (somewhat distant) past so I'm not sure if I follow the point you are trying to make.

 

[theprestige]

My comment referred to the (somewhat distant) past so I'm not sure if I follow the point you are trying to make.

Earlier today?! Earlier today is now the "somewhat distant past"? Really? Really?

Okay, snarking aside, I wasn't trying to make a point so much as ask a question.

I guess the idea I'm considering--and that I'd be interested to see your take on--is that since women have more options than men, looking at relative differences in gender representation in each option may not tell us what we think it does. E.g., it may not tell us that society is particularly sexist, nor that women make choices due to sexist sociological conditioning.

I mean, at a certain point, so what if there are more men among the ranks of CEOs? It's not like they have the option of joining the ranks of mothers instead. Men's choices are more limited; is it any wonder that they focus on the choices they do have?

 

[Dipayan]

Woah. That caught me off guard. You are implying that a majority vote can make something not sexist and that so called benevolent sexism doesn't exist.

Not an argumentum ad populum. I'm saying that there are degrees. Some 'radical' feminists believe that a woman shaving her legs before a date is sexist. I'm sure there are many feminists who do not agree to this. Similarly if the majority of women preferred to vote for men, for reasons which might be as simple as 'I find him hot', the minority of women screaming 'Sexism!' would be termed 'radical'.


Disclaimer: These are merely imaginary situations to make a point. I'm not saying that these could be possibly valid reasons for the imbalance in parliament.

That's like saying it wouldn't have been racist if the majority of non-Asians belived Asians were inherently better at martial arts, wall building, and noodle cooking and then pushed them into appropriate jobs.

Except that I'm not positing a situation where men are inherently better at governance. I merely suggested a scenario where women vote for male candidates. The reasons could be personal and numerous.

Are you sure we are using the same definition of sexism? To me it is the irrational attribution of qualities as inherent to one gender over the other and the actions based on those attributions.

You mean things like women shaving and putting on make-up before going for dates? Or do you mean the unspoken rule that you should never hit a woman, no matter what she has done? While both these fit the definition of sexism, most women (and men) would agree with the latter and disagree with the former, maybe calling it 'empowerment'.

Disclaimer: Not suggesting that men beat up women who are shaved and have make-up on.

Not looking? I've asked several times for people to present alternative ideas.

Apologies, I was having this conversation specifically with Skeptic Ginger.

I am not very well versed with the general human biology, or the neurological differences between the sexes in particular. So unfortunately I'm not sure how much of a debate I can have about it.

I'm pretty sure you are kidding but if you want to talk god, your first step is to go to the religion forum and prove he/she/it exists.

Knew I should have put in a little disclaimer!

As for our preferences being irreversible, that's provably wrong. For hundreds (thousands?) of years, women were de facto housewives and baby-factories. In the blink of an eye, those attitudes suddenly found themselves unfashionable. Irreversible indeed.

I hoped the god reference would make it clear that I don't really consider the given options to be valid. I guess I messed up there!

 

[KingMerv00]

Earlier today?! Earlier today is now the "somewhat distant past"? Really? Really?

Okay, snarking aside, I wasn't trying to make a point so much as ask a question.

Um...I meant that women were treated like baby machines in the somewhat distant past, not that the post was written back then.

Nevermind...language sucks.

I guess the idea I'm considering--and that I'd be interested to see your take on--is that since women have more options than men...

I don't like the definition of "option" you are using. You assume that just because a woman is physically and legally capable of (for example) becoming a CEO, it is automatically a socially realistic option. To follow the rest of your post to it's logical conclusion, you have to assume the point you are trying to prove: that women are treated and socialized equally. That's circular logic.

...looking at relative differences in gender representation in each option may not tell us what we think it does. E.g., it may not tell us that society is particularly sexist, nor that women make choices due to sexist sociological conditioning.

I mean, at a certain point, so what if there are more men among the ranks of CEOs? It's not like they have the option of joining the ranks of mothers instead. Men's choices are more limited; is it any wonder that they focus on the choices they do have?

That doesn't explain anything. Why aren't men choosing to be stay-at-home parents, elementary school teachers, nurses, secretaries, housekeepers, etc? Because they can't have babies?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trust me, Ginger, I've had plenty of exposure to feminist theory. More than I care to.

I do trust you. You're from Ralph's side of the island. But watch out for cliffs.

And as I said in the post you were responding to, I'm not saying that feminism is wrong, just that it's easy to dislike because it's tiresome.

Everything that you're discussing falls under the broad banner of egalitarianism and humanism.

Yes, I would agree. There is good evidence that the more oppressed women are in a culture, the worse off the country is, but I don't want to sidetrack the thread.

If, like the OP, I want to say "I am a feminist" then I need to also be an African-Americanist and a disabledist and a little-peopleist and a childist and a poorist and a Hutuist and a Tutsiist and so on ad nauseam.

So I don't bother with it.

No one is asking you to. But if I choose to address certain issues I think matter categorically more to women, why should that annoy you?

And in my experience (which you cannot simply discount, given the question in the thread title) folks who take up the feminist banner and view the world through the feminist lens tend to end up making mistakes precisely because of their narrow focus.

Not to discount your personal experience but I find you adopting the typical stereotype of what feminism is about rather than more carefully evaluating the issues.

If I were to answer my question then, I'd think you would be saying "need a new approach, or simply need a new label". That's reasonable. But buying the stereotype, not so much.

I'm sorry, but academically, I see no need for feminism per se. Ditto goes for daily life. Call me a feminist if you like, but it's only because I'm a humanist, and if I weren't then I doubt I'd qualify.

Do you think such things as human sex trafficking, the risk of dying in childbirth in Afghanistan, or something as simple as unequal pay for equal work (note I said equal work there, not gender based wage statistics) are both feminist issues and humanist issues or only the latter?

 

[Dipayan]

I don't really understand that.

I was suggesting that following the heredity logic, knocking off Bill Clinton might make Hillary the President.

May I ask your connection with India?

Of course, I was born in India and travel there a fair amount for work.

 

[bookitty]

I was suggesting that following the heredity logic, knocking off Bill Clinton might make Hillary the President.



Of course, I was born in India and travel there a fair amount for work.

So you're aware of the abortion and infanticide of females, the wide-spread sexual harassment/molestation known as eve teasing, the tradition of dowries, and all the other examples of gender inequality in India. But you can't understand why looking at one simple area doesn't give the whole picture?

 

[KingMerv00]

Not an argumentum ad populum. I'm saying that there are degrees. Some 'radical' feminists believe that a woman shaving her legs before a date is sexist. I'm sure there are many feminists who do not agree to this. Similarly if the majority of women preferred to vote for men, for reasons which might be as simple as 'I find him hot', the minority of women screaming 'Sexism!' would be termed 'radical'.


Disclaimer: These are merely imaginary situations to make a point. I'm not saying that these could be possibly valid reasons for the imbalance in parliament.



Except that I'm not positing a situation where men are inherently better at governance. I merely suggested a scenario where women vote for male candidates. The reasons could be personal and numerous.



You mean things like women shaving and putting on make-up before going for dates? Or do you mean the unspoken rule that you should never hit a woman, no matter what she has done? While both these fit the definition of sexism, most women (and men) would agree with the latter and disagree with the former, maybe calling it 'empowerment'.

I THINK I get what you are getting at. I agree that sexism can cause severe harm or essentially no harm at all.

On one end of the scale, you have the attribution that pink is for baby girls while blue is for baby boys (it used to be reversed BTW). Personally, I don't see this by itself as a big deal. The babies have no clue what's going on and one color isn't objectively better than the other.

On the other end, you have the attribution that women should always obey men or that men are out of control, violent rape-o-trons. I don't think we need to discuss why these are bad.

Obviously, dispelling extreme sexism has priority. Ideally, it would be stamped out entirely. When it comes to things like leg shaving, makeup, and the color pink, the goal isn't really to stamp out the behavior itself but to make all options socially acceptable. As it stands now, women (celebs in particular) are looked down upon for not shaving their legs or wearing makeup and men who cry are considered weak. In MY ideal world the decision to shave, wear makeup, cry, and dress in pink should be nobody's damn business. I especially don't want those options to be arbitrarily divided along gender lines.

I think choosing a president based on arbitrary sexual characteristics is pretty solidly on the "bad" side of the scale IMO. I'd like to see it removed entirely...peacefully and through education, not excessive shaming or violence.

The "never hit a woman" meme is utter horse ****. All things being equal, hitting a man is just as bad as hitting a woman. It shouldn't be done at all unless you have a damn good reason such as self-defense. One does have to take physical differences into account when measuring how much force is appropriate but that applies to both genders. For example, a 250lb body building woman in her prime probably shouldn't be drop kicking 105 year old, 80 lb man in the face unless absolutely necessary.

Disclaimer: Not suggesting that men beat up women who are shaved and have make-up on.

Heh.

Apologies, I was having this conversation specifically with Skeptic Ginger.

S'cool.

I am not very well versed with the general human biology, or the neurological differences between the sexes in particular. So unfortunately I'm not sure how much of a debate I can have about it.



Knew I should have put in a little disclaimer!



I hoped the god reference would make it clear that I don't really consider the given options to be valid. I guess I messed up there!

Good to hear. Have any that you think might be acceptable AND supported by evidence?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Feminists are sexists.

It's no more luvable by incessantly cloaking itself in victimhood.

 

[KingMerv00]

Feminists are sexists.

It's no more luvable by incessantly cloaking itself in victimhood.

The drive by poster completes another cycle around the block.

 

[Dipayan]

Using an arbitrary cutoff of only the last 14 PMs...

You mean the 'arbitrary cut-off' that is the Indian Independence? You realize that India has HAD only 14 PMs in its history, right?

Also, using your logic, why did you not include America under the British rule when you were discussing number of Presidents in post #545?

Just a coincidence then, 235 years of all white men Presidents

Hypocrite much?

Using an arbitrary cutoff of only the last 14 PMs requires an underlying assumption that all of Indian culture was tossed out and society went through some kind of instant gender equality change when the Brits pulled.

Evidence I made this claim. Show me the post. Please. I beg you.

Your claim "women make up 22% of India's Prime Ministers" is based on an arbitrary cutoff point of 1947. If you go back a decade in the US half the Presidents were black.

So which year should we go back to for the US? Let me guess... 1776! Would that have anything to do with the fact that it was the year US got its independence? Surely not?

Saying 50% or 8% of US Presidents were black presents a false picture of racism in the US.

Why would this say anything more about racism in the US than the fact that the last 4 NBA MVPs were Derrick Rose, Lebron James, Lebron James and Kobe Bryant?

You keep tying to compare vastly different cultures and you cannot legitimately do that in this case.

Comparing Sweden (democracy) to Saudi Arabia (monarchy) is pointless, because women have more rights in Sweden vis a vis Saudi Arabia. So, as per logic, there are more women leaders in Sweden.

What I am pointing out is an anomaly. I am comparing two of the largest democracies in the world, and the one with more gender rights has significantly less women leaders than the one with more gender issues. I'm wondering, why is this?

So, before 1991 ALL the local leaders in India were male, not exactly evidence of gender equality. But then after some equality was IMPOSED by law, it turned out where things got better

I'm happy that you are reading! But since you are interpreting it to mean what you want it to mean, let me clarify.

From 1991, only LOCAL leadership had a quota system. Local leadership meaning the political systems in villages. This did not hold true for the national government system, which by the way had already had about 8 years of female prime ministership. Since we are talking about national governance, I don't see the relevance of this point of yours. Do note that none of the Indian female politicians mentioned in this thread yet have come up from the village government route.

It's your straw man. You keep trying to compare a single key indicator between the two distinctly different countries.

I don't think you understand my position because you keep insisting that I'm claiming that India has gender equality. I am not. I am merely wondering how it is that a country with severe gender issues such as India has more female leaders than a more developed country such as the US. And whether this could give us some pointers as to whether women in governance is not just a sexism issue, but something more...

 

[crimresearch]

Trust me, Ginger, I've had plenty of exposure to feminist theory. More than I care to.

And as I said in the post you were responding to, I'm not saying that feminism is wrong, just that it's easy to dislike because it's tiresome.

Everything that you're discussing falls under the broad banner of egalitarianism and humanism.

If, like the OP, I want to say "I am a feminist" then I need to also be an African-Americanist and a disabledist and a little-peopleist and a childist and a poorist and a Hutuist and a Tutsiist and so on ad nauseam.

So I don't bother with it.

And in my experience (which you cannot simply discount, given the question in the thread title) folks who take up the feminist banner and view the world through the feminist lens tend to end up making mistakes precisely because of their narrow focus.

I recall reading a piece by a feminist semiotician a few years back, who claimed that the use of the word "troop" by the media during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, rather than "soldier", was evidence of some deep denial of the horrors of war, perhaps enhanced by having women in combat now.

In actuality, the word "troop" became popular so as not to offend (and neglect) members of the Air Force, Marines, Navy, and National Guard, who are not "soldiers".

I'm sorry, but academically, I see no need for feminism per se. Ditto goes for daily life. Call me a feminist if you like, but it's only because I'm a humanist, and if I weren't then I doubt I'd qualify.

Seriously? Academically, you see no need to go back and do the research on heart attack epidemiology using female test subjects, instead of just settling for the old conclusion that only men should take precautions?

Seriously??

Because once again, that sort of work is about as 'feminist' as it gets.