equal

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Feminism is about gender equality, that's why it's called the 'Feminist' group.

why is this group called feminists if it see's both sexes as equal why not gender equality or something?

This semantic debate is asinine, but if you really want to know about why this movement is called "feminism" it's really damn simple. Women are disadvantaged by the patriarchy*, so it follows that in order for equality to be achieved women must be empowered and for this reason a gender equality movement acts, necessarily, in the interests of women. Thus "feminism".

The "wut about teh mens" types are an embarrassment to any true gender equality movement.

*Surely, though, this is blindingly obvious.

[FONT=Arial]True on most accounts, but there are activists and activities alike that establish sexism against men. One example off the top of my head is the Violence Against Women Act not bringing to attention violence against men. Of course you could also say this is sexist towards women by assuming they're the weaker gender in need of government aid. It runs both ways.
[/FONT]

Just on that,
I think it's important to note, if you're not quite sure what feminism is about, Red Anarchist of Love, that feminists recognise that gender roles disadvantage both men and women, though the male gender role is seen as superior.

[FONT=Arial]True on most accounts, but there are activists and activities alike that establish sexism against men. One example off the top of my head is the Violence Against Women Act not bringing to attention violence against men. Of course you could also say this is sexist towards women by assuming they're the weaker gender in need of government aid. It runs both ways. [/FONT]

You're missing the point. Yes, men are the victims of violence, but not because they are men, whereas women face gender-based violence all the time, at home, on the street, in wartime etc.

This is why specific attention needs to be drawn to violence against women- not in order to patronise women but to challenge the abuse and abusers (as well as the general societal attitudes that allow this shit to go on), and to empower women to get out of abusive situations.

Edit: And just extrapolating the logic of your point, surely you then think that feminism itself is patronising to women as it makes them appear to be "the weaker gender in need of government aid?"

You're missing the point. Yes, men are the victims of violence, but not because they are men, whereas women face gender-based violence all the time, at home, on the street, in wartime etc.

Well, I think that depends on what you mean by violence 'because they are men'.
I think there are an innumerable amount of circumstances in which men experience violence because it is expected of them. A good example would be in wartime, as you mentioned, when men are drafted into the military, or if they don't fight they are branded cowards.
Men tend to be not simply more often the perpetrators of violence, but also more often the victims of it, in at least Australia, because the male gender role is obviously one which is more violent, so whilst I recognise that violence against women 'because they are women' is in quite a different form from violence against men 'because they are men', I'm just saying that this is also something that can work both ways.
I'm not going to oppose something like the 'Violence Against Women Act', like GeneCosta, just bringing up some points.

there is also some "masculine" atmosphere on revleft, because the majority are men who don't understand what some women have to go through, though most men on revleft encourage the liberation of women from oppression. The feminist group, because it is all about gender, indirectly excludes members who create a macho-like, masculine atmosphere.

My first post in this group, btw, actually forgot I was a member;

why is this group called feminists if it see's both sexes as equal why not gender equality or something?

Because women are the disadvantaged ones here, as the victims of patriarchy. Men don't need saving. Therefore, the only way to achieve 'Equality' between women and men is to free women of patriarchy and similar oppressive features of Capitalist life. Feminism is gender equality.

...Well in my college the "Feminist group" is called the Gender Equality Organization...
(But maybe that has to do because in some places feminist is a negative term, like liberal )

Well, there are situations where males have some kind of disadvantages when compared to women. These situation are often more marginal but they have to be dealt with too; the patriarchal hierarchic system has actually given birth to things that can be nowadays found to be actually of rather discriminative nature towards male gender, best example being conscription, as female conscription is used only handful of countries nowadays, whereas men refusing to "serve their countries" can be even jailed as they do down there.

That's a major troutslap against whole concept of gender equality and as every other form of sexual discrimination, no matter what the gender of the victim actually is, has to be torn down.

[FONT=Arial]Saving implies that a group needs help from outside sources. Feminism is supposed to be empowerment, not saving. [/FONT]

Okay, granted.

However I think a combination of the encouragement of women independence by and for women themselves as well as men standing to fight against gender oppressiion is the most effective Feminist approach.

...Well in my college the "Feminist group" is called the Gender Equality Organization...
(But maybe that has to do because in some places feminist is a negative term, like liberal )

But I'm sure women liberation is the main concern, no?

The liberation of women and the liberation of men are two integral parts of one whole, I don't think either of them should be of greater concern than the other, specifically, though obviously women are as a group are more materially disadvantaged by present conditions than men. Oppression should be looked at from a perspective of human liberation, rather than women's liberation as separated from man's liberation - you can't have one without the other. Discrimination is ultimately upheld by the capitalist economic system, and social oppression occours on the basis of class and cannot disappear within the context of the capitalist system. A materialist understanding of social oppression is what should separate Marxist feminists from liberal feminists.
EDIT: I wrote this early in the morning when I was in a hurry so if I sound like a bit of a pedantic douche I apologise haha

I think it is for historical reasons that anti-patriarchy and gender equality activism and ideas are called "feminism". Originally, the people advocating something like this, and whose actions led to this, were actually defending what today might be called a stereotypical "feminine" ideal. In modern times however, the belief is much more that one is fighting for gender equality. This is arguably even truer at the more radical ends of it, which have diminished a bit unfortunately.

You're missing the point. Yes, men are the victims of violence, but not because they are men, whereas women face gender-based violence all the time, at home, on the street, in wartime etc.

I don't think this is actually true.

Just as the gender role of "woman" demands that every "she" be a passive recipient of violence, the gender role of "man" demands that every "he" put himself in stupidly dangerous situations and engage in a variety violence, often at great personal risk.

Men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes in general, assault, and murder than women. I think it is because they are men.

I'm not saying women aren't oppressed, just arguing this particular point.

Men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes in general, assault, and murder than women. I think it is because they are men.

It's not because they are men, its because society finds it more acceptable for men to be more aggressive. Males are encouraged to be competitive and to use violence. Also, most attacks on men are commited by other men.

I don't think this is actually true.

Just as the gender role of "woman" demands that every "she" be a passive recipient of violence, the gender role of "man" demands that every "he" put himself in stupidly dangerous situations and engage in a variety violence, often at great personal risk.

Men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes in general, assault, and murder than women. I think it is because they are men.

I'm not saying women aren't oppressed, just arguing this particular point.

But you forget one thing: where do you think your gender role comes from? Sure, there are differences, but since when do men still have a major advantage because of their muscles and sense of coordination (for example)?

But you forget one thing: where do you think your gender role comes from? Sure, there are differences, but since when do men still have a major advantage because of their muscles and sense of coordination (for example)?

I don't think I understand your question or it's relevance to my post. Would you please elaborate for me?

"It's not because they are men, its because society finds it more acceptable for men. . ."

?

Even if they are taking damage from each other, because society endorses it, they are still taking damage because society endorses it. Society finds it more acceptable for men, as men, to hurt and be hurt in reciprocally violent ways. Men take a lot of damage due to this part of their gender role. Because society finds it more acceptable for men. . . because they are men.

I'm clearly not getting your point. . .

You concluded by saying: it's because they are men. That is a static view of gender roles. Men and women do differ from each other, but it is society, the mode of production, that plays an important role in defining gender roles. While in primitive societies men were regarded as hunters, today men need to have successful careers. While in slave societies women were not allowed to leave the house or to have a job; today more and more women need to go out of the house to work. So men and women are different, but the quality and quantity of these differences depend on the development of our modes of production. Different types of societies, or modes of production, create different gender roles. Though, there are roles that stay the same for long periods of time: not because men are men/not women and women are women/not men, but because of role that is forced upon both sexes by the ways we have or means we need to sustain ourselves.

So It's not all about biology, it's mostly material development. It all started with the transgression of the Paleolithic hunter-gatherer societies to the Neolithic revolution which create agricultural societies. This revolution was a counterrevolution in terms creating inequality between sexes. It made women slaves of men through the small but important fact that men were working with cattle (the Roman word for money is Pecunia, which has ties with the word pecus: cattle). Another thing is war: because the Neolithic created uneven development (some farmers were more successful than others) wars were waged between different groups/clans. And men are the most convenient weapons to use in war. This uneven development made an end to societies controlled by families, which also meant the end of societies without states. Wars and conflicts between classes (the propertyless and the rich) cannot be solved through family bonds. Families are even fighting each other. So states develop, and these states were used by the ones who owned lots of cattle, pieces of land and wealth to keep the poor down. They hired weaponed men, militia, to oppress the rebellious poor. And militia again means men. Also the state is one controlled by rich men, who institutionalized gender roles through laws and force.

You see: the material development from classless and stateless societies to class and state societies meant the enslavement of women and the propertyless (women are automatically propertyless in such circumstances). Only breaking the chains of capitalism (another class society), freeing the means of production from capital and ending the oppressive state is going to end the enslavement of women and discriminatory gender roles.

I quite agree about the historical/cultural, rather than biological, nature of gender roles, and about the destructive and opposition-worthy nature of patriarchy.

However non-biologically based, though, those gender roles are for the most part assigned according to biological features. A claim was being made that "woman" was the only gender role subjected to violence in a gender-specific way; this was the claim I was disputing.

I believe the exact phrase was that women are oppressed with violence "because they are women."

I posit that it is as much the social role that leaves women vulnerable to violence as the biological one; as support, I offer that

1) fighting back Dramatically improves chances of surviving a sexual attack less harmed, and there are extremely strong cultural injunctions against this for female gendered people

2) ongoing acceptance of domestic violence and marital rape by communities, one of the major factors that keeps women from leaving violent relationships, is an outgrowth not of women's biology, but of their social role

To summarize, the fact that women are more likely (possibly excluding prison rape) to be sexually attacked, battered, and constantly harassed may be a function of biology; the fact that functional social structures are almost never formed to protect them or remove them from violent situations that have revealed themselves, is a function of sociology. I don't know the statistics, but it is my experience that ongoing situations are the context for the majority of violence against women.


So, to recap; in so far as women suffer certain kinds of violence because they are women, men also suffer certain kinds of violence because they are men.

To summarize, the fact that women are more likely (possibly excluding prison rape) to be sexually attacked, battered, and constantly harassed may be a function of biology; the fact that functional social structures are almost never formed to protect them or remove them from violent situations that have revealed themselves, is a function of sociology. I don't know the statistics, but it is my experience that ongoing situations are the context for the majority of violence against women.


So, to recap; in so far as women suffer certain kinds of violence because they are women, men also suffer certain kinds of violence because they are men.

I understand what you mean, but I cannot totally agree.

The problem is that we're not sure about the first claim (the "biological" part), again because of the important "sociological" factor. How can we be sure that the fact that women suffer more from harassment is biologically determined, when we are unable to ignore the economic and social factors that play an important role in determining the "quantity" and "quality"; the how and why; the characteristics and forms of certain gender roles and attitudes?

The problem is that we're not sure about the first claim (the "biological" part), again because of the important "sociological" factor. How can we be sure that the fact that women suffer more from harassment is biologically determined, when we are unable to ignore the economic and social factors that play an important role in determining the "quantity" and "quality"; the how and why; the characteristics and forms of certain gender roles and attitudes?

We cannot be sure - and it is too dangerous to assume that it is biological.

- August

I don't actually see that it matters whether it's biological or social; both genders have biological and social characteristics, and no one should be subject to violence due to either of them.