Feminism - Need Help

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

My friend believes feminism is no longer needed in modern society. I have tried to convince him, but I am having no luck. He is a reasonable individual so I think he will eventually agree. He disagrees with anarchism and communism, but feminism, in my opinion, is not something radical that the most people are unwilling to accept. I could be wrong on this, however.

I tried going with the argument that women are underrepresented in positions of authority, but he said they might be uninterested in them. I also mentioned that, if equality existed, 50% of parliament should be women unless the genders are unequal (or close to 50%). He just responded with things about ridings and how people vote for the best candidate regardless of gender - it made no sense and didn't refute my argument at all.

However, I am bad at convincing people of things, and I am interested in hearing some suggestings on how to convince my friend and others that feminism is still essential these days.

[Goober Phish]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 3 2006, 11:16 PM
My friend believes feminism is no longer needed in modern society. I have tried to convince him, but I am having no luck. He is a reasonable individual so I think he will eventually agree. He disagrees with anarchism and communism, but feminism, in my opinion, is not something radical that the most people are unwilling to accept. I could be wrong on this, however.

I tried going with the argument that women are underrepresented in positions of authority, but he said they might be uninterested in them. I also mentioned that, if equality existed, 50% of parliament should be women unless the genders are unequal (or close to 50%). He just responded with things about ridings and how people vote for the best candidate regardless of gender - it made no sense and didn't refute my argument at all.

However, I am bad at convincing people of things, and I am interested in hearing some suggestings on how to convince my friend and others that feminism is still essential these days.
If I am understanding correctly about what your friend is saying about the best candidate getting voted in, regardless of gender, in a riding, then it makes perfect sense. There is at least three candidates in a riding, the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP. Out of those three candidates, the people of the riding are going to vote for whomever best represents their interests in Ottawa, regardless of gender. So if it is a riding that usually votes Liberal, then the Liberal candidate is going to win, regardless if the candidate is a male or female. In the last election, the NDP had 108 women candidates, the Liberals had 79, the Bloc had 23 (out of 75), and the Conservatives had 38. Elected, 12 out of 29 for the NDP, 21 out of 103 for the Liberals, 14 out of 125 for the Conservatives, and 17 out of 54 for the Bloc. (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/House/asp/WomenElect.asp?lang=E&source=hoc).

Before you go shouting that there should have been 50% of women candidates the answer simply is, not really. The fact of the matter is that the candidates should be the people who are most qualified for the job, not based on their gender, race, or religion. And I am in no way saying that males are more qualified than females. I would never say such a thing. I am just saying that to get a true picture of why there wasn't 50% you have to look at the candidates chosen and the runners up to see what really happened.

[LSD]

Goober Phish, pointing out that less women "chose" to run than men does not actually answer the charge of sexism, it just deflects the issue.

After all, obviously the next question is why didn't more women run?

And the answer to that is that the party electioneering machines are overwhelmingly run by and for men (white straight wealthy men, actually) and on top of that, the entire society is geared against women assuming positions of leadership.

Despite the claims of reactionaries and "masculanists" (:rolleyes:), women are definitely not societally viewed in equal terms as men when it comes to "government" and "power".

It is because of these sexist stereotypes that less women run, less women get elected, and less women make policy.


Before you go shouting that there should have been 50% of women candidates the answer simply is, not really. The fact of the matter is that the candidates should be the people who are most qualified for the job

What exactly "qualifies" one for a position in bourgeois politics? :lol:

I suppose that greed and unscruplousness are important "skill"s, but need one be corrupt going in, or should a general propensity be suffient? I mean we know that they all get there eventually, but maybe some experience in white collar crime would fascilitate the transition.

...or are you perhaps contending that parliamentary republicanism is "democratic"?? :o

[apathy maybe]

Part of the problem is that your friend is male (though many females do not see the point of feminism either). If he is white and straight they will not see much discrimination in 'Western' countries today.

Point out that women still have to do the majority of housework, they are still under paid, they are still in fewer positions of power.

Try and convince them that anarchism is the way to go. Feminism is a sub-set of anarchism (get rid of all hierarchy and discrimination).

[patrickbeverley]

Tell him that feminism is the only thing stopping society from slipping back into its old, patriarchal ways. Tell him that women's under-representation in positions of authority will always lead to injustices against them, no matter what the quality and integrity of the men trying to represent them. Tell him women still get paid less and have to put up with more bad treatment than men.

Ask him why old, ugly women never appear on the TV until they're the victim of a terrorist attack. Ask him why there has never, ever been a female president of the USA. Ask him why women are expected to conform to an unattainable body image and then discarded as if worthless when they don't.

Show him all the articles in gossip magazines seeking to punish women for attempting to think for themselves. Wonder aloud why you see more and more young girls attempting to prostitute themselves to a misogynistic wank-fantasy men alone decide on.

Don't shut up till he changes his mind.

[TC]

In the West, there is almost complete economic parity between women without children and men without children, more women have bachelors degrees and masters degrees than men, women are less likely to be murdered, less likely to be the victims of violent crime, less likely to be imprisoned.

To the extent that theres institutional sexism in society, its not between women and men in general, its between mothers and fathers, as there is far more pressure and expectation for mothers to stay with children than for fathers, and this, statistically speaking, is what creates the often cited income gap (because mothers work fewer hours than fathers, and the expectation that they will do so also leads to additional descrimination).

But i think its really wrong to equate mother/father inequality with male/female inequality since that, in a way, equates being a woman with being a mother, which is percisely one of the things that feminism tried to deconstruct.

The fact that there are fewer women in high office is somewhat a reflection of this fact because the more intense the competition the more of a disadvantage having children is to mothers, whereas it is not such a significant disadvantage to fathers.

I also don't know if its particularly significant, because i hardly think that rightwingers like Condi Rice, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, or Alessandra Mussolini are automatically better equipted at making social policy simply because they're women; and besides, all bourgeoise politicans serve the same class interests regardless of gender or race.


and wow, patrickbeverley, practically ever line in that hyperbolic rant misrepresented the issues.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)and wow, patrickbeverley, practically ever line in that hyperbolic rant misrepresented the issues.[/b]


"hyperbolic rant"
... This phenomenon has been analysed in a new book by Ariel Levy called Female Chauvinist Pigs, in which she charts the rise of what she calls "raunch culture" - fashionable American women going to lap-dancing clubs, learning to strip and wearing T-shirtswith the Playboy logo or "Porn Star" emblazoned across their chest. "It sounds like a fantasy world dreamed up by teenage boys," ... when I ask what they wear to go out, one immediately says, "Well, if I went out in what I'm wearing now" - jeans and a T-shirt - "people would stare and go, why aren't you wearing some special, sexually provocative clothes?" ... Alice, a woman in her 30s, says she can't enjoy sex if she isn't properly waxed. "I'm always wishing I had the perfect porno pussy...it's making us more like prostitutes than lovers."

This is what I'm talking about. It makes me mad that women think they have to conform to this ideal. Of course there are pressures on men as well, but they're usually much less demanding - wearing the right kind of jeans or whatever.


Don't shut up till he changes his mind.

Always my preferred tactic. :D

Seriously, Tragic, what have I misrepresented here? Of course it was going to be ranty, of course it was going to be amplified - it's an attempt to persuade someone of something. But I would question your knee-jerk reaction to the idea that feminists have work left to be done.

[jess1031987]

i would call myself a revoulunationary and a communist but i think feminism is a middle class wank.

firstly, i do not give a stuff if women are under-represented in positions of authority. These 'women' are not sistas of mine. They are politicians, judges, etc etc. Any woman wanting to be one of them is my enemy, and not my sista.

women are opprpessed in the third world, but not in the first. women can afford to work less, have babies, live longer, have more spent on their health, are more likely to pass junior high, senior high and graduate from university. how are women oppressed.

'feminism' is a type of man-hataing ideology, used by upper middle class women as an excuse to hate working class men.

Jess

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by jess1031987
women can afford to work less, have babies, live longer, have more spent on their health, are more likely to pass junior high, senior high and graduate from university. how are women oppressed.

Do you think it was always this way? Women were not allowed to go to university before feminism existed. All the reasons "women are not oppressed" you have given came about only because feminists made it so.


i would call myself a revoulunationary and a communist but i think feminism is a middle class wank.

Actually, working class women have historically been very much involved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London_Federation_of_Suffragettes) in feminism.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:06 PM

OK, that's a bit over the top, I grant you. But what have I misrepresented here?
I can't believe you just replied to your own post! I guess you really must want a response from me so i'll give you one:




Tell him that women's under-representation in positions of authority will always lead to injustices against them, no matter what the quality and integrity of the men trying to represent them.

Really? What injustices specifically are you talking about? Have male lawmakers just turned the clock back to 1850 while no one was watching?


I do believe this to be true: as far as representative democracy goes, the only way that "democracy" can be "representative" is if the various groups in society are "represented".

The only groups that ultimately have natural group interests are economic classes, and the only identity groups that are politically relevant are ones with a strong correlation with economic classes (such as racial groups); women and men as a whole do not have such a correlation...a correlation only appears when you add other characteristics like, parental status and age.


I don't really see how you can argue with this. You've sought to explain it by saying that mothers get paid less than fathers, but childless women also get paid less.

Gender Wage Gap Widening, Census Data Shows

The survey I've cited above focused on "full-time year-round women workers", which rather discounts your suggestion that the pay gap is due to "mothers working fewer hours".

Uh, no it doesn't. Working "full time" doesnt' imply working competitive, heavy, more-than-full-time that high paying careers on salery require for advancement, the census data includes mothers and mothers are very often unable or unwilling to work at such a competitive pace.

Surveying only childless women and childless men shows virtually the same earnings (childless women earn 98% of what childless men do)
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_1104DRCC.pdf

So in fact, the "gender wage gap" is, if adjusted for the type of lifestyle people choose to pursue, is quite tiny. Men do not get paid significantly more for the same work, so representing this as such is highly misleading.



Ask him why old, ugly women never appear on the TV until they're the victim of a terrorist attack.

Are you telling me you haven't noticed this?

Yep, haven't noticed that at all. I see tons of ugly and old women and ugly old women on television. Lots of ugly old men too. Most of the leading female characters in television series are young and attractive but most of the leading male characters are as well, and they always have unnattractive female and male supporting characters; and there are a number of television shows with old and/or unnattractive female leads.

What you're claiming is absolutely untrue. In fact i can't think of a single popular television series that doesn't have multiple ugly old women in it. So, again, misrepresenting the situation completely completely.


QUOTE
Ask him why there has never, ever been a female president of the USA.


What significance does that have?

There have been female presidents/prime-ministers of the UK, Canada, France, Federal Republic of Germany, German Democratic Republic, Norway, Portugal, Australia, Finland, New Zealand, People's Republic of China, Ireland, Iceland, Israel, India, south Korea, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Pakistan, Turkey, Bangladesh, the Ukraine, Poland, Haiti, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Peru, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Central African Republic, Jamaica, Liberia, and a lot of other countries.

That there hasn't been a female president of the US is an anomaly in politics, not a general rule, as female heads of state/government are hardly uncommon. By posing the question "why has there never, ever been a female president" it implies that women are excluded from high office which is just plainly untrue, so the statement was misleading.

The next US president will probably be female anyways.



Ask him why women are expected to conform to an unattainable body image and then discarded as if worthless when they don't.


This is again, a statement that utterly misrepresents the reality. Women aren't expected to conform to an unnattainable body image, we aren't even expected to conform to an attractive image, if anything i think the expectation is that most people, women and men, are not especially attractive.

To suggest that people are actually "discarded as if worthless" if they don't conform to an "unattainable" image would mean that since no one can attain the unattainable, *all* women are discarded as worthless, which is clearly not even close to being true.

Of course women who are attractive and have a decent body (on an attainable level), have an advantage in attracting desirable partners but the same is true of men, who are also valued more if they're more attractive and have a better body.


QUOTE
Show him all the articles in gossip magazines seeking to punish women for attempting to think for themselves.

"These stars think they're FAT. Have your say!" -Heat magazine cover

I think that's misogynistic, and I could find a whole lot more that are worse.

There are just so many things wrong with this.

First, heat isn't "punishing women for attempting to think for themselves", at all, and i've never seen an example of anything like that, it seems like something you simply made up.

Second, heat magazine's primary audience is women so to think of it as 'misogynistic' is rather retarded: if it was actually misogynistic it would go out of buisness.

Third, there is nothing at all misogynistic about encouraging genuinely fat people to lose weight, its healthy and makes them more attractive and applies as uch for both genders.

Fourth, heat magazine isn't punishing anyone, the article you referenced is about celebrities who think of themselves as fat, not that heat thinks of as fat, and in fact they are genuinely quite fat.


And speaking of heat, its a perfect counter example for your utterly absurd argument, because heat magazines editorial stance has been consistently to attack skinny women:


Way Too Skinny! - Heat Magazine cover (http://www.visit4info.com/Restricted.cfm?id=21777&Redirect=www.visit4info.com/details.cfm?adid=21777)
Is Posh Putting Her Health At Risk - Heat Magazine Cover (http://www.visit4info.com/details.cfm?adid=32261)
Which Do Men Prefer, Skinny or Curvey? - Heat Magazine (http://www.visit4info.com/Restricted.cfm?id=22000&Redirect=www.visit4info.com/details.cfm?adid=22000)

The last cover article claims 85 out of 100 men they surveyed dislike skinny women!

If heat magazine makes anyone feel bad about their bodies its naturally skinny women!



Wonder aloud why you see more and more young girls attempting to prostitute themselves to a misogynistic wank-fantasy men alone decide on.


I think its utterly misogynistic and hateful of you to suggest that young girls who are trying to look attractive are "prostituting themselves" or arrogantly presume in such a phallocentric manner that how women want to look is "decided on" by "misogynistic wank-fantasy men". Moreover it suggests thats theres something wrong with wanting people to fantasize over you, as if being the object of sexual desire was 'degrading' or reduced girls 'purity' or 'chastity' or whatever conservative notion you want to defend in getting girls to cover themselves up.


This one comes mostly from personal experience, but I could find an article in the Guardian that backs this up.

That guardian article says no such thing you just extracted one fragment from a very long article that contains many opposing views.


This is what I'm talking about. It makes me mad that women think they have to conform to this ideal. Of course there are pressures on men as well, but they're usually much less demanding - wearing the right kind of jeans or whatever.


Do men have to be unusually tall, spend tons of time at the gym, have well defined but not overly built bodies, wear fashionable but not overly conspicuous clothing, be well groomed at all times and have naturally attractive facial features?

No, they don't *have to*, but it definately helps a lot in attracting partners so a lot of them *want* to.

Lol and i'd certaintly "demand" more when looking for a guy than just wearing "the right kindof jeans" lol!


QUOTE
Don't shut up till he changes his mind.

Always my preferred tactic.

Yah, i guess when things like logic and reason don't work for you can always resort to pure volume! Just force people to agree with you, great attitude.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:39 AM
i would call myself a revoulunationary and a communist but i think feminism is a middle class wank.


If your'e not a feminist then your'e not a communist. Equality doesn't stop at the kitchen; and equality is what feminism is all about. Feminism is the "Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes" (Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feminism)). If your version of communism or any transitional stage (if you believe in one) has positions of authority and women are underrepresented in them then your'e perpetuating inequality. Sure, I don't really care about the interests of elite women in current society, even though elite men do oppress them, but that doesn't mean equality for working class women should be thrown out the door.

Working class women, in both the first & thirld worlds, are oppressed in many ways. They are much more likely to be raped or otherwise sexually abused. Capitalists (usually male) pay female workers less and generally treat female workers worse than male workers, on average. Capitalists use advertising & media to instill body image problems in women, which they use to sell beauty crap to them. Women are more likely to be abused by their partners. Women are usually forced to bear more of the work for keeping up the home and taking care of children. There are more women in poverty than men. Things associated with male identities are normalized.

Of course, if you don't suffer from sexism its a lot easier to pretend it doesn't exist. Fish probably don't realize they're wet, either. If your'e priviledged due to patriarchy, which all men are, then you have an even greater incentive to pretend it doesn't exist. The same thing happens with many other forms of oppression. Many Americans don't think imperialism exists. Many capitalists respond to class oppression in a manner similar to how you respond to gender oppression.

Furthermore, by advocating this sexist bullshit you are actually aiding the capitalists, dividing the working class and undermining the communist movement. Capitalists don't treat female workers worse than male workers for no reason. Male workers will tend to deny that female workers are treated worse (or make up excuses to justify it), which will then create conflict between male & female workers and weaken the working class. In addition, sexism can also act as a release valve to lessen the likelyhood of rebellion by working class men by using women as a scapegoat. Some working class men will choose to take out their frustrations on women and/or blame them from some or all of the problems in their life (most of which are caused by capitalism, racism or the state) instead of rebelling against the capitalists, thereby strengthening the position of the capitalist class. By spewing this sexist bullshit you are attempting to rationalize your own priviledge which, uninentionally, strengthening our enemies.

[Morpheus]

Working "full time" doesnt' imply working competitive, heavy, more-than-full-time that high paying careers on salery require for advancement, the census data includes mothers and mothers are very often unable or unwilling to work at such a competitive pace.

And the fact that motherhood is treated in such a manner, while fatherhood is not, is a reflection of sexism.

[TC]

Morpheus writes

If your'e not a feminist then your'e not a communist. Feminism is the "Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes" (Dictionary.com).

Its obvious that Jess was characterizing the contemporary, first world radical feminist ideology, obviously no ones suggesting that there shouldn't be gender equality.


Working class women, in both the first & thirld worlds, are oppressed in many ways. They are much more likely to be raped or otherwise sexually abused.

Men are much much more likely to be victims of violence as i've mentioned. Putting undue emphasis on rape rather than murder is more a reflection of a greater interest in protecting women than men, which has its origins in paternalistic, patriarchal attitudes; trying to resurrect them just to make feminism more relevant when such attitudes should be dismissed is hardly progressive.


Capitalists (usually male) pay female workers less and generally treat female workers worse than male workers, on average. Capitalists use advertising & media to instill body image problems in women, which they use to sell beauty crap to them.

Please see my previous post for a refutation of both of these points.

And, why shouldn't people want to buy "beauty crap"? Wtf is wrong with that? I'd think a greater indication of gender equality wouldn't be women wanting less "beauty crap" but rather men wanting more "beauty crap" as they'd be more evaluated on equal terms (their looks and personality) rather than unequal terms (their income or status).


Women are usually forced to bear more of the work for keeping up the home and taking care of children.

Huh? Despite what the religious right might want, no one can force anyone to have children.


Things associated with male identities are normalized.

Things like, not expressing concern over your "body image"...seems like you're the one normalizing that thing associated with 'male identities.' Whether or not most men are like that in reality.


Of course, if you don't suffer from sexism its a lot easier to pretend it doesn't exist. If your'e priviledged due to patriarchy, which all men are, then you have an even greater incentive to pretend it doesn't exist. The same thing happens with many other forms of oppression. Many Americans don't think imperialism exists. Many capitalists respond to class oppression in a manner similar to how you respond to gender oppression.


Why are you assuming Jess is a guy? Given the name and post i assume s/he was a girl.

And anyways, if this logic is correct wouldn't all of the women who don't think theres serious socio-economic gender inequality be evidence against your point?


Furthermore, by advocating this sexist bullshit you are actually aiding the capitalists, dividing the working class and undermining the communist movement.

Actually i think what really divides the working class is the continued presumption that men and women have different class interests that you're perpetuating.


And the fact that motherhood is treated in such a manner, while fatherhood is not, is a reflection of sexism.

Sexism is descrimination against women (or, men i guess) , this is descrimination against mothers, thats not the same thing.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Tragic Clown (added bold)+--> (Tragic Clown (added bold))There have been female presidents/prime-ministers of the UK, Canada, France, Federal Republic of Germany, German Democratic Republic, Norway, Portugal, Australia, Finland, New Zealand, People's Republic of China, Ireland, Iceland, Israel, India, south Korea, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Pakistan, Turkey, Bangladesh, the Ukraine, Poland, Haiti, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Peru, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Central African Republic, Jamaica, Liberia, and a lot of other countries.[/b]

It helps if you get your argument if you get your facts correct :). (For a list see http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rulers20...omen_heads.htm) (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rulers20th/a/women_heads.htm))


Originally posted by Tragic [email protected]
Yah, i guess when things like logic and reason don't work for you can always resort to pure volume! Just force people to agree with you, great attitude.
When talking about discrimination, volume is one way to get your point across. Especially if you are not a great logician.

Tragic Clown
Huh? Despite what the religious right might want, no one can force anyone to have children.
You would be surprised...



(Sorry to have seemed to have just responded to your posts :))

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by TragicClown
I can't believe you just replied to your own post! I guess you really must want a response from me so i'll give you one:

Yes, I wanted a response. It's one thing to refute my post, but to dismiss it in one line is just arrogant. So - replying to my own post.


Really? What injustices specifically are you talking about? Have male lawmakers just turned the clock back to 1850 while no one was watching?

South Dakota bans abortion, attempt to overturn Roe vs. Wade (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202424.html)

Abortion is being banned and you think there's no injustice in the law?


The only groups that ultimately have natural group interests are economic classes, and the only identity groups that are politically relevant are ones with a strong correlation with economic classes (such as racial groups); women and men as a whole do not have such a correlation...a correlation only appears when you add other characteristics like, parental status and age.

Actually, because unlike racial groups, there are actual mental differences between men and women, there is huge scope for "natural group interests" - the evidence is in the way women used to be treated across the world, and still are in some cultures.


This is again, a statement that utterly misrepresents the reality. Women aren't expected to conform to an unnattainable body image, we aren't even expected to conform to an attractive image, if anything i think the expectation is that most people, women and men, are not especially attractive.

To suggest that people are actually "discarded as if worthless" if they don't conform to an "unattainable" image would mean that since no one can attain the unattainable, *all* women are discarded as worthless, which is clearly not even close to being true.

Of course women who are attractive and have a decent body (on an attainable level), have an advantage in attracting desirable partners but the same is true of men, who are also valued more if they're more attractive and have a better body.

We've been through this before; I haven't got the energy for another round.


heat magazine's primary audience is women so to think of it as 'misogynistic' is rather retarded: if it was actually misogynistic it would go out of buisness.

But Heat promotes a chauvinistic idea of womanhood, so it is misogynistic. It promotes this idea to its primary, female, audience: that makes it even more dangerous!


there is nothing at all misogynistic about encouraging genuinely fat people to lose weight, its healthy and makes them more attractive and applies as uch for both genders.

There is if it stigmatises fat to the extent that it creates upon certain unstable people a pressure to starve themselves.


I think its utterly misogynistic and hateful of you to suggest that young girls who are trying to look attractive are "prostituting themselves" or arrogantly presume in such a phallocentric manner that how women want to look is "decided on" by "misogynistic wank-fantasy men".

Stop calling me misogynistic. No, seriously, stop calling me misogynistic! :angry:

Which one of us constantly opposes feminist viewpoints? Which one of us can think of no better use for a member title than to have a pop at "rad-fems"? Which one of us actually gets angry when people suggest working for a feminist cause?

And you dare to call me a misogynist? What is misogynistic about putting my support behind women's causes? What is misogynistic about looking around me and being concerned? What is misogynistic about seeing women as my peers and my equals and thinking that they are being treated in a way that's totally wrong?

The quotes I took from the Guardian article may have been out of context, but they're still a cause for concern. I look around me and I am frightened because there are too many women being hurt by this kind of shit. Now maybe I'm wrong to oppose that from a feminist stance, but you have no grounds at all to call me misogynistic. I would have much more justification to call you a misogynist, if you were male.


Moreover it suggests thats theres something wrong with wanting people to fantasize over you, as if being the object of sexual desire was 'degrading' or reduced girls 'purity' or 'chastity' or whatever conservative notion you want to defend in getting girls to cover themselves up.

You've completely misrepresented my point of view. I'm not opposed to women wanting to look good (I'm a heterosexual male - I'm overjoyed!). What I'm not happy about is women who seem to think their entire character has to be defined by what men want, which is a step backwards. Women who think 'if I say I'm a feminist, guys won't like me, I've got to be a good little girl'. But then, you wouldn't care about that, because you think it's anachronistic for women to be feminists.


Yah, i guess when things like logic and reason don't work for you can always resort to pure volume! Just force people to agree with you, great attitude.

Yes, and when you get bored of making unfounded accusations of misogyny, you can always try a deliberately obtuse and po-faced attack on a joke.

I don't know what it is that makes you so focused on fighting feminism, TragicClown, but I'm tired of it.

[GlassDraggon]

I have very mixed feelings about feminism. I definitely agree that gender should have NOTHING to do with the election of public officials. If Condoleeza Rice was running for the Presidency I sure as HELL wouldn't elect her. Even if she is a black female- she's still a capitalist neo-con *****.

I want to make one thing absolutely clear- I believe that all people are equal and that they should all be afforded equal human rights. There should be no class barriers due to gender, sexual orientation, race or economic status. That being said, I do not agree with many modern day feminists.

Prior to women being allowed into the mainstream workforce- the men who were working were paid substantially higher wages because they were the sole providers for their families. Then the floodgates were opened and women over-saturated the work force so quickly that there wasn't time for economic analysis or legislation. So what happened was- corporations and businesses had twice the work force willing to work for half the wages. So now, both parents have to work in order to make a decent living. So now, while mommy and daddy are off working 12 hour days, little bobby and susan are being raised by a corporate day-care facility.

Women received the right to work over night. In exchange, many women lost the right to stay home and take care of their children and even their infants (many mothers only receiving 6-8 month maternity leave). They also cut men's salaries nearly in half- and are now working for between 20% and 40% less than that. The early feminists certainly could not have foreseen the injustices they were bringing down on themselves and I'm sure they had the best intentions for everyone (not just women). But for modern day "feminists" to ignore all of that is ridiculous.

So I can definitely see where your friend may be coming from. I support equality for all people. But I'm leary of supporting "feminism". Simply because many of the modern day "feminists" that I've talked to have very very narrow perspectives and seem to readily seek martyr status. I've never been fond of self proclaimed martyrs. On the other hand, the men and women who are working on bridging the wage gap and greating gender equality in the work place have my FULL support and gratitute. I think it's all a matter of perspectives.

Regards,
-Rod


P.S.
Hope this doesn't ramble too much- it's 3AM and I was heading to bed when I saw this thread. But I wanted to add my two cents.

[GlassDraggon]

By the way-
Why all the hostile argument? We're all on the same side!
Everyone is just voicing their perspectives- none of which are "wrong".
Hostile argument just hurts peoples feelings. It's totally non-productive.

[GlassDraggon]

Sorry...accidentally double posted :-(

[patrickbeverley]

You say this:


Originally posted by GlassDraggon
I support equality for all people.

But you also say this:


Then the floodgates were opened and women over-saturated the work force so quickly that there wasn't time for economic analysis or legislation.

You believe people are equal and should be afforded equal rights, but that women getting work on the same basis as men was a bad thing?


Sorry. That was a cheap shot. I know exactly what you mean, and a lot of early 20th-century socialists agreed with you - that male workers would be fucked if employers stopped paying a "family wage" to men who worked for them. But while women were not "allowed into mainstream employment" it was inevitable that they were seen as second-class citizens. How could they not be?

You have to look at the timing of Britain's women gaining the vote. It took place straight after World War I, when women were being employed in the factories because the men were at war. Until people realised that women could work, their rights were thought of as somewhat unimportant. Of course, militant campaigning had a lot to do with the vote as well, but the close link between work and status has always ensured that feminism has had a close relationship with employment.

Fair employment practices should not be reliant on unfairness in other areas of society.

[GlassDraggon]

Great points.

I agree. To me, it isn't a matter of whether or not women should have equal rights. My disapproval lies in the rashness and haste with which those laws were passed. Like a starving woman in the desert who suddenly stumbles across a berry bush. She isn't very likely to stop and consider whether or not the berries are poisonous.

In the course of a great conversation on this same topic, my girlfriend's father and I compared it to the emancipation of slaves. For the sake of the point, make the assumption that the Civil War really was over the freeing of slaves (which isn't what I'm debating). If this is true, then 618,000-700,000 people died and slavery still wasn't really abolished. In reality it probably cost the former slave owners less to pay the slaves a pittance salary than it would've to keep them housed and fed. Yet in Spain, slavery ended with very little bloodshed 17 years later (give or take a year) and with fair success.

Just another example of America's impatience and brashness. Sure, we were 17 years ahead of Spain...but we were also 600,000-700,000 lives shorter. But in reality, we still have people who refuse to go north of the Mason-Dixon line. Not to mention the ones who still fly the confederate flag while spewing racism from under the white bedsheets on their heads. The Emancipation Proclamation may have been signed in 1863 and the Civil War may have ended in 1865. But racism and slavery is still prevelant in America. If you don't believe it, just look at the percentage of "non-whites" in our prisons.





1---(During slavery in slave owning states: 26% of total population were slaves)
2---(Today, the inmates in our prisons are 65% "non-white". In approximatly equal cases regarding the dealing of cocaine, a white man will receive an average of 4 years in prison while a black man will receive 6 years. Much more in article.)


1. members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html (many similar articles on google)
2. http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/...encingguide.php (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/11/sentencingguide.php)

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:18 PM
i would call myself a revoulunationary and a communist but i think feminism is a middle class wank.

firstly, i do not give a stuff if women are under-represented in positions of authority. These 'women' are not sistas of mine. They are politicians, judges, etc etc. Any woman wanting to be one of them is my enemy, and not my sista.

women are opprpessed in the third world, but not in the first. women can afford to work less, have babies, live longer, have more spent on their health, are more likely to pass junior high, senior high and graduate from university. how are women oppressed.

'feminism' is a type of man-hataing ideology, used by upper middle class women as an excuse to hate working class men.

Jess
Feminism is a "middle class wank?"

So obviously the objectification of women through pornography, the issuing of a certain class status within society (i.e. the kitchen. Tell me the last time you saw a male cleaning the kitchen, or cooking dinner, in a commercial.), the lower pay for the same work, and the inherent discriminate and misogynistic attitude portrayed by commercial capitalism in the first world, those who oppose these things are just "middle class wanks?"

Is it that we still need someone to cook dinner and make babies after the revolution? :rolleyes:

[Face the music]

TragicClown

And speaking of heat, its a perfect counter example for your utterly absurd argument, because heat magazines editorial stance has been consistently to attack skinny women

At the same time it attacks skinny women, it gives women advice how to loose weight and makes fun of celebrities who are caught without make up or with cellulite? Ironnic? I think so. And if skinny women are attacked, aren't they still sending out a message that there is something wrong if you are not an accepted shape? And while it pretends to make fun of celebrities having cellulite or not wearing a make up so we can feel better about having it ourselves, it still laughs at it! It's a shizophrenic message of a type...

a parent: ' why have you drunk this milk, you little shit?'
a child (feels really bad about himself, promises that he'll never drink milk so the parent won't call him little shit and will not be nasty)

ten minutes later:
parent: 'why haven't you drunk this milk, you little shit?'
child (completely bewildered and crushed and being torn in two being given two opposing commands how to behave)


Fourth, heat magazine isn't punishing anyone, the article you referenced is about celebrities who think of themselves as fat, not that heat thinks of as fat, and in fact they are genuinely quite fat.

You're a communist and you do not see it as a piece of commercial dishonesty with no other objective but to sell? Are you even serious not seeing thru that shit?



Second, heat magazine's primary audience is women so to think of it as 'misogynistic' is rather retarded: if it was actually misogynistic it would go out of buisness



Even if it's for women, it can pass out the sexist attitudes so the more to placate them and hammer acceptance of sexist attitudes into them. Of course what better way to keep women down than that way... a deceit of trust. It's by women for women (more than likely owned by dude) but raping their free will and non comformity nevertheless.



If heat magazine makes anyone feel bad about their bodies its naturally skinny women!

Holy shit! And that's ok? You take it as counter-argument - this piece of utter and complete bullshit?

Is this not teaching women that there is something wrong with their shape?
Weight is not an issue unless it's destroying your health. If a woman is naturally skinny why the fuck she should be attacked for it? What is this other than a piece of garbage preaching 'norm', guilt, self-hate to women? Tell me any reason why I as a naturally slim woman should feel bad about my body? I love my body! It's been there for me since the day I was born till the day I will die. It allowed me to do things I like. Not even my mother will be there when I die, but my body will! And why should I love myself only when I use this and that make-up, or why should my life be worth something only when I'll make it as some celeb?

I cannot seriously believe that on this website I'd find somebody defending that piece of utter and complete bullshit Heat magazine and it's likes advocate and stand for.

They're not for women, they're against women. A woman who is happy with who she is is a woman in her power and as such poises a threat to patriarchal orders because she will not submit but stand up for her rights and for rights of others.



Actually i think what really divides the working class is the continued presumption that men and women have different class interests that you're perpetuating.

Yes, that means for you completely ignoring material reality of how things are. Along that line latinos should stop fighting against racism/for their equality because they're claiming to have different class interests than the white portion of working class?

And as to Jess claiming that feminism is male-hating is bullshit. Demanding equality doesn't mean hating men. Sure, there are streaks of feminism that go into extreme where they cease to demand equality but dominance. Also a lot of men call themselves 'feminist'...are they self-hating? I don't think so. They just recognise the unequality within society that had stood on patriarchal values and fight for the balance to be established.