The humanistic feminism

[apathy maybe]

"Feminism meant the demand that women should, along with men, enjoy the human task and responsibility of making themselves." ( Feminism as Radical Humanism Pauline Johnson (St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1994) p1)
Feminism is about treating women as women, as equally deserving and receiving of respect and responsibility as men. That is to say, women aren't special.

Anarchism is a humanist project, that is to say it is for all humanity. It is not about creating a uniform humanity. It is about allowing all humans to create themselves in their own images, to expand their minds as they will. It equally includes women as well as men.

I think that if feminism is taken as trying to get women to be given the same considerations as men, then it fits well into the anarchist project. As such I support it, but it is only one part of the anarchist project. (Other parts, as I see it, include protection of the earth's component parts, and the obvious, bring about an anarchy.)

Thoughts on this?

[che's long lost daughter]

Is this like saying that because women are supposed to be special, they should not be treated like men which is to say, they should be inferior to men? I support feminism in a way as apathy maybe does but with regards to the defintion of feminism i.e. women are not special, well I think that is not right because every woman is special regardless and in the same ways, everyone else is. So does that not mean that feminism at that, take away the fact that women are "special". In fact, feminism puts women in high regard, as men's equals so that makes it clearer that women are special.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by che's long lost daughter@Mar 28 2006, 09:50 AM
...well I think that is not right because every woman is special regardless and in the same ways, everyone else is.

Special is a contextual word. Many people have special personalities and perspectives based on their worldview/knowledge. People are almost indistinguishable genetically though and are often even socialized similarly. Basically, we are all the same and all different, depending on the measure.

[apathy maybe]

Yes. When I used the word special, I was talking in a genetic broad sense.

I feel that women and men should not be treated differently, unless there is some good actual reason for this.

In the current society men and women are treated differently. Often feminists wish that men and women are continued to be treated differently, the idea of positive discrimination. I would hope that in an anarchist group or an anarchist society that this would not be needed.

And yes individually women are special, but so are men, and so are transsexuals and other non-women/men. But as a group, women are not more special then men, and thus are not deserving of more respect. Similarly men, as a group, are not more special then women, and are thus not deserving of more respect.

[rioters bloc]

women aren't any more 'special' then men. there is a need however to recognise that currently [i believe] that women are oppressed, discriminated against, and disadvantaged in many ways simply because of their sex. this is not isolated to any one group of women, or country, although of course there are various levels of the oppression suffered. in that sense, yes, i do believe women should be seen as different to men, in order to overcome said oppression. not different inherently, but different in terms of their position in society.

but youre talking about a post-revolutionary society, right?

in which case, i'd hope that notions of sex or gender wouldn't even exist anymore [eventually], and so there would be no group to treat differently. which is what most feminists i know aim for

[apathy maybe]

In the current crap society we live in, I think that anarchists and feminists should work together to abolish discrimination.

However, I am sorta skeptical about positive discrimination; I understand that it is needed in some cases, just that it is used more often then it should. (And no I can't give examples, sorry.)


I also showed this to a Marxist and he agreed that you could (should be able to) replace anarchism with Marxism in the first post.

[Mariam]

women are not special, well I think that is not right because every woman is special regardless and in the same ways, everyone else is.

Yes every individual is unique.
Women are special, men, bi's, homo's are special...and so on!!
Women are not seeking something like a miracle that can even turn them into biological equails to men...it's all about social, economic, and political equality.
It's up to women to find their way to abolish discrimination regardless of any other ideology they might adopt.
Anarchism, Marxism,or Comunism in general would perfectly fit to "abolish" discrimination.
And if you ask people why there is still a sub-need to discriminate women, they'll mention that women are emotional, sensetive, and maybe weak to handle what men do, so they wont fit in men's positions...and that's the easiest type of discrimination against women.

[Eleutherios]

Well, it's not entirely true that women are "weaker" than men. While they do have less upper body strength, they also have a higher tolerance for pain and temperature extremes than men do.

[Mariam]

Yes I agree with the tolerance part.
I remeber reading an extract by Eric Fromm (sorry not in exact words) saying that the war between genders is still going on, and men are making it look as stupid as the way they justify the war between countries....He says that men claim that women are not as brave as they are, while it's vice versa....Men claim that women are less realistc and again it's the opposite...Women are more thoughtfull than men when it comes to war and peace...
I'll try to find the exact words and post it later.
And that really supports what we are saying about women's liberation.

[Mika :: FUERUDEI No Chi]

I suppose it all depends if it's the kind of femmenist groups that doesn't alllow transsexuals in or not. Nah, in all seriousness, I suppose one could put femenism in there acarachist/revolutionary/ect. movements if ya take it as seriously.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by Adonis@Apr 4 2006, 07:33 AM
Yes I agree with the tolerance part.
I remeber reading an extract by Eric Fromm (sorry not in exact words) saying that the war between genders is still going on, and men are making it look as stupid as the way they justify the war between countries....He says that men claim that women are not as brave as they are, while it's vice versa....Men claim that women are less realistc and again it's the opposite...Women are more thoughtfull than men when it comes to war and peace...
I'll try to find the exact words and post it later.
And that really supports what we are saying about women's liberation.

Isnt this just reverse sexism?

If I say men are inferior to women, it is still sexism. Your behavior is not determined by your gender, it is determined by your personality and identity.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+Apr 20 2006, 02:29 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ Apr 20 2006, 02:29 AM)

Adonis

@Apr 4 2006, 07:33 AM
Yes I agree with the tolerance part.
I remeber reading an extract by Eric Fromm (sorry not in exact words) saying that the war between genders is still going on, and men are making it look as stupid as the way they justify the war between countries....He says that men claim that women are not as brave as they are, while it's vice versa....Men claim that women are less realistc and again it's the opposite...Women are more thoughtfull than men when it comes to war and peace...
I'll try to find the exact words and post it later.
And that really supports what we are saying about women's liberation.

Isnt this just reverse sexism?
[/b]

There's no such thing as "reverse sexism" it's just sexism.

[VermontLeft]

Sexism is any discrimination based on sex.

Feminism is the fight against the sexism that currently pervades society.

Any anarchist/communist/socialist movement must include sexual liberation or else it isnt really fighting discrimination.

end of story

[Mariam]

QUOTE (bed_of_nails @ Apr 20 2006, 02:29 AM)

QUOTE (Adonis @ Apr 4 2006, 07:33 AM)

Yes I agree with the tolerance part.
I remeber reading an extract by Eric Fromm (sorry not in exact words) saying that the war between genders is still going on, and men are making it look as stupid as the way they justify the war between countries....He says that men claim that women are not as brave as they are, while it's vice versa....Men claim that women are less realistc and again it's the opposite...Women are more thoughtfull than men when it comes to war and peace...
I'll try to find the exact words and post it later.
And that really supports what we are saying about women's liberation.


Isnt this just reverse sexism?

There's no such thing as "reverse sexism" it's just sexism.

Sorry people I forgot to edit that post!!
Anyway...So He's discriminating men!!

[Nachie]

Originally posted by VermontLeft@Apr 20 2006, 02:42 AM
Any anarchist/communist/socialist movement must include sexual liberation or else it isnt really fighting discrimination.

Fuckin' A!

I'm posting here the sections on anti-sexism and queer liberation from the Red & Anarchist Action Network's principles and direction because I think they're relevant:

ANTI-SEXISM

RAAN rejects the blatant as well as underlying patriarchy of bourgeois existence as a fundamental pillar upon which this oppressive society rests, and strives to destroy it through an understanding of the historical forces that have caused it to be. This is not to say that we subscribe to the reactionary ideal that patriarchy will be destroyed the moment our relations cease to be mediated by property. Systems of domination have existed before primitive accumulation, and will continue to haunt us after the fall of capital, unless specific attention is paid to the way that they appear, even in revolutionary societies and situations.

As anarchists and communists, we also reject the traditional concepts, appearances, and roles of "gender" (while the existence of gender isn't bad, the way it is enforced by the hegemony is). The sexualist oppression exerted over us by capitalism does not only affect half of humanity, but all of us simultaneously. We are feminists, yes. But this does not limit our struggle to that for the liberation of women. Freedom from sexism involves dismantling the assigned roles forced upon every member of humanity.

QUEER LIBERATION

Inseparable from our struggle towards the abolition of sexism and gender roles is the inherent freedom from sexual categorization that these victories will bring.

We will not live our lives within the boundaries of "the" preordained sexuality, set down for us by Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim) morality. We seize the chance to associate in revolutionary communities free from the cages of race, class, and sex; and in so doing, to pursue our true natures and individual desires in a world where homophobia and heterocentrism have ceased to exist not because we have abolished them, but because they have lost all meaning.

--------------------------------------------------------

Also we are committed to the building of "safe spaces and inclusionary mechanisms" within formal collectives, such as circles where survivors of abuse can find support within our radical communities, or males can deconstruct their own privilege together. For more about this, check out our Principles of Organization

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by apathy maybe@Apr 4 2006, 03:10 PM
However, I am sorta skeptical about positive discrimination; I understand that it is needed in some cases, just that it is used more often then it should. (And no I can't give examples, sorry.)

i really can't think of any examples in current australian society where 'positive discrimination' is unncecessarily used.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Adonis@Apr 4 2006, 08:24 AM
women are not special, well I think that is not right because every woman is special regardless and in the same ways, everyone else is.


Women are not seeking something like a miracle that can even turn them into biological equails to men...it's all about social, economic, and political equality.
It's up to women to find their way to abolish discrimination regardless of any other ideology they might adopt.
Anarchism, Marxism,or Comunism in general would perfectly fit to "abolish" discrimination.
And if you ask people why there is still a sub-need to discriminate women, they'll mention that women are emotional, sensetive, and maybe weak to handle what men do, so they wont fit in men's positions...and that's the easiest type of discrimination against women.

Yes every individual is unique.
Women are special, men, bi's, homo's are special...and so on!!"

Bis and homos isnt a gender its a sexual preference. And sexual preferences arent special since most of the time they are irrelevant.

But women are special. We carry babies, we push them out and we care for them in their most vulnerable time. And some people might take that for granted, but that is a special and tedious sacrifice. We should be treated special, all the pain in being a woman.

Im not saying we cant open our own doors and do our own work, duh. Im a woman, but people should respect us for just that- we are women.

And people should respect men for being men.
But dont take the gender out of the respect for the women all the time, because our mommas are women, and they are mommas cause their women.

[TC]

Originally posted by rioters bloc@Jun 17 2006, 07:31 AM

i really can't think of any examples in current australian society where 'positive discrimination' is unncecessarily used.

I've only lived in the US and UK so i might not know as much about australia, but women in australia are legally entitled to retirement benefits earlier than men, substantially fewer men attend university, family courts favor women in child care and custody related disputes, domestic violence laws legally favor women, and the media, government, and research focuses almost exclusively on female victims of domestic violence, despite the fact that domestic violence against males is also common, there are virtually no shelters for battered men and male victims of domestic violence are much more likely to be subject to ridicule and/or ignored by law enforcement increasing the problem of underreporting, there is more money spent on women's healthcare than on men's healthcare despite the fact that the life expectancy gap favoring women is actually increasing, so clearly men's healthcare has been suffering relatively.


Some men's groups and some equity feminists also complain about the way men are portrayed in the media, as sterotypically incompetent, bad at relationships, homer simpson type buffoons, etc...but, not to be dismissive, i really don't think that claims of 'media analysis' can actually be taken seriously, since they are all based on limited selection in scope and self-selection, and most importantly, subject entirely to the interpretation of the viewer with no objective measures, so its often possible to interpret the same material multiple ways which undermines the validity of any object claims about the material.

Raisa writes

Bis and homos isnt a gender its a sexual preference. And sexual preferences arent special since most of the time they are irrelevant.

Um, sexual preferences are relevant when you're selecting sex partners, when you're flirting, when you're attracted to someone and trying to figure out if they're attracted to you, how to seem more attractive to them...and as far as i'm concerned those are also the the only times when gender is relevant.

But women are special. We carry babies, we push them out and we care for them in their most vulnerable time. And some people might take that for granted, but that is a special and tedious sacrifice. We should be treated special, all the pain in being a woman.

You're describing mothers not women and the notion that being a woman is about being a mother, or that being a mother is somehow an appropriate goal or purpose for women, is extremely reactionary and comes from the most patriarchal, traditional notion of female gender roles.

And its not special. Patriachal society has been making a huge effort to make women think its special because otherwise far fewer women would want to do it, and that would undermine capitalist (but not socialist) economy.

And people should respect men for being men.

Why? What respect are people possibly entitled to on account of their gender that they're not entitled to on account of their humanity?

But dont take the gender out of the respect for the women all the time, because our mommas are women, and they are mommas cause their women.

That makes such little sense. Being a parent is not a gendered role, men and women can both do it equally, the fact that their are different terms for male parents and female parents doesn't mean its a gendered activity (except to those social conservatives who would make it one&#33. Moreover i don't see why being a parent should entitle someone to any special respect.

[bcbm]

Can we stick to using "sex" when we're describing one's biology? While there is overlap between sex and gender, I think sex is the preferable term for this discussion.

Your behavior is not determined by your gender, it is determined by your personality and identity.

Erm, current science on the subject suggests its a little of both. Actually, probably more biological. Men and women do reactly differently to different stimuli and situations.

[TC]

Originally posted by black banner black gun@Jun 17 2006, 11:35 AM
Can we stick to using "sex" when we're describing one's biology? While there is overlap between sex and gender, I think sex is the preferable term for this discussion.

"Gender" is the appropriate word to use when speaking about social and cultural aspects, "sex" is used in biological, medical, and physical aspects. Since we're talking about the former not the later, it makes sense to use the term 'gender'

Erm, current science on the subject suggests its a little of both. Actually, probably more biological. Men and women do reactly differently to different stimuli and situations.

That statement is so widely sweeping that its rather meaningless. "Behavior" covers a lot of ground. However, i think, there are only a very few areas where social imperatives will not take priority in people's behavior over biological ones, the exceptions maybe being issues of survival and sexual preference (but not behavior). To whatever extent that biology matters, social necessity almost always matters more.