Are you a feminist?

[mr.guy]

I notice is seems more acceptable for a male to be sexist than a female to be sexist...

Because men are apparently incapable of immersing themselves into nefarious schemes.
That's why the "homosexual agenda" is really just veiled feminism.

 

[Yerda]

I feel that feminism has done nothing to work on the many problems facing the male gender and therefore this is not a movement of equality but a movement of improving the quality of the situation for women.

It's still a movement for equality, Fluff, affording women the same rights as men. For example, men didn't need the right to vote on the grounds that they already had that priveladge.

As far as I know feminism in all forms completely rejects the substitution of a patriarchal hierarchy for a matriarchal alternative. A women overlord won't free women, to speak.

 

[lunamoth]

Feminism: A movement for granting women political, social, and economic equality with men.

Feminist: a supporter of feminism.

Of course I am a feminist. :curtsy: I believe men and women should be treated equally politically, socially and economically.

1) I do not bash men unless they individually deserve it and 2) I would be considered a stay-at-home mom (for now) as well, so I would never bash housewives or stay-at-home moms. That makes no sense to me that any one would criticize them for their choices. To me feminism is about giving women choices and opportunities not available before, not restricting them or making the choices for them.

Great answer. Feminist and stay-home mom here too.

lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

To some extent, I agree with the feminist movement. Equal pay, benefits, etc, etc., but I also was raised to open a door for a lady, ladies 1st, and NEVER hit a woman. Might be a bit old fashioned, but hey, I'm old myself!

Well, I think you can be a feminist and still favor good manners and be against violence.

lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

Good Lord! You mean there are no male tailors?

As for typewriters, hefty or not, I, a feminist, have hauled a few of those around. However, I'm of reasonable seize next to a hefty typewriter, and being born and bred on a farm, I was was strong enough to hoist and haul hefty typewriters.

Why should someone who is tiny and not muscular be branded as hypocritical because she can't lift a typewriter.

There are also men who can't do such things, too. They might be flabby, they might have bad backs, what is your bleeding point?

Typwriters! Ha!

Try carrying a 35-lb kid in one arm, a 40-lb kid in the other arm, and holding the leash of your 80-lb labrador in your teeth as you get the whole kit-n-kaboodle into the house in the snow.

lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

Feminism is still a needed movement because in this country and in many other places around the world women are either underpaid, undervalued, or out and out oppressed. And support of stay-home moms is an important part of feminism in this country anyway. OK, so I don't have stats, but last time I heards stats women and children made up the largest percentage of people under the poverty line in this country. And in countries where women are educated and given opportunities in business or employment the quality of life for everyone is raised.

Feminism today also means support for families: maternity and paternity leave, good child-care support (even families with stay-home moms can benefit from access to good child-care; mom needs to take care of herself a bit sometimes too). Equal compensation does not have to always mean equal pay when women have young kids; it can also mean job-sharing or part time work, something that is still very very hard to find in many professions. When I was still working, in science reasearch, I considered job-sharing with one of my colleagues who also had just started her family. In the end we figured out that we would both end up working almost full time but for half the pay. Not a good deal. Now she and her husband both work in academic jobs with flexible, if long, hours. I decided to stay home and my hub works about 60 hours a week.

lunamoth

 

[Fluffy]

It's still a movement for equality, Fluff, affording women the same rights as men. For example, men didn't need the right to vote on the grounds that they already had that priveladge.

The feminist movement did very little to gain suffrage for women. I am currently writing my history coursework on this very topic, from a British perspective, and have been forced to come to the conclusion that it was the war, not the suffragettes, nor even the suffragists, which won the vote for women. That coupled with the political advantages which a few key political figures stood to get from opening the vote to upper class women (ie the Conservative party).

I am not as fully aware of the situation elsewhere but I believe that it is quite evident that in the UK at least, women would have had the vote without any help from the feminist movement.

 

[Ðanisty]

I notice is seems more acceptable for a male to be sexist than a female to be sexist...

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I would find a masculinist movement sexist as well. The point is that a movement cannot reasonably call itself by one gender and claim to be promoting gender equality. (and no, I'm not going to get into the semantics argument over the terms sex and gender...)

 

[Pah]

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I would find a masculinist movement sexist as well. The point is that a movement cannot reasonably call itself by one gender and claim to be promoting gender equality. (and no, I'm not going to get into the semantics argument over the terms sex and gender...)

I am not only a supporter of the feminist movement, I am feminist as well. There are so few men who are not feminist to some degree.

There is a great deal to be said about the semantics. It is not an issue of male or female - that is biological. It is about the perception of what male/female means in society's eyes. A femine male, a manly female - which is not the feminist?

 

[Ðanisty]

I am not only a supporter of the feminist movement, I am feminist as well. There are so few men who are not feminist to some degree.

There is a great deal to be said about the semantics. It is not an issue of male or female - that is biological. It is about the perception of what male/female means in society's eyes. A femine male, a manly female - which is not the feminist?

Honestly, I have no idea what you're saying. I'm not getting into the semantics because it is as complicated as you are saying it is. I agree that the term female encompasses many different things...however, you can't say it encompasses all the same things as the term male. I'm well aware of how blurry the line is.

I don't like male feminists either. My point is that if it is about equality, it would take a neutral name.

 

[DakotaGypsy]

Well, Satan doesn't like women either.

As a matter of fact, Satan opposes contraception and the right to choose.

 

[Pah]

Honestly, I have no idea what you're saying. I'm not getting into the semantics because it is as complicated as you are saying it is. I agree that the term female encompasses many different things...however, you can't say it encompasses all the same things as the term male. I'm well aware of how blurry the line is.

I don't like male feminists either. My point is that if it is about equality, it would take a neutral name.

Well, in the reach for equality. do not forget the differences and nuances of individuals.

Which sounds better - "She doesn't get equal pay" or "Neutered doesn't get equal pay"?

 

[Ðanisty]

Well, Satan doesn't like women either.

As a matter of fact, Satan opposes contraception and the right to choose.

You got something to back that up with?

Which sounds better - "She doesn't get equal pay" or "Neutered doesn't get equal pay"?

No offense, but nobody would say that and I'm not suggesting anyone should. You'd use a pronoun that describes the person you're speaking of. However, I don't think a lot of men would be comfortable having a women's group advocating for them (and I don't think a women's group would do it either.)

 

[Yerda]

The feminist movement did very little to gain suffrage for women. I am currently writing my history coursework on this very topic, from a British perspective, and have been forced to come to the conclusion that it was the war, not the suffragettes, nor even the suffragists, which won the vote for women. That coupled with the political advantages which a few key political figures stood to get from opening the vote to upper class women (ie the Conservative party).

I am not as fully aware of the situation elsewhere but I believe that it is quite evident that in the UK at least, women would have had the vote without any help from the feminist movement.

Perhaps your right. I don't think it makes a great deal of difference, it was just an example. The right of a women to vote being recognised still fits into your description of benefitting women without improving the material lot for men.

 

[Fluffy]

I don't like male feminists either. My point is that if it is about equality, it would take a neutral name.

Agreed. Something must be inherent in the system that specifically suggests equality and not helping women. The two might be practically the same but it will stop people with an agenda from leaping on the bandwagon and derailing the process.

Perhaps your right. I don't think it makes a great deal of difference, it was just an example. The right of a women to vote being recognised still fits into your description of benefitting women without improving the material lot for men.

That it does. I am not suggesting that women do not deserve the right to vote, just that I would be unable to accept that a movement that only focused on part of the problem was a movement of equality. It may bring about some equality at some point but I do not believe it will succeed in bringing about lasting equality because it doesn't look at the bigger picture.

 

[Yerda]

That it does. I am not suggesting that women do not deserve the right to vote, just that I would be unable to accept that a movement that only focused on part of the problem was a movement of equality. It may bring about some equality at some point but I do not believe it will succeed in bringing about lasting equality because it doesn't look at the bigger picture.

Yes. I see your point. There are branches of feminism that call the for the reconsrtuction of institutions and conventions that create hierarchy, I think that's a good way of looking at the bigger picture. Change the way society works. In any case I'm happy to go along with small steps that confer greater equality to all people.

 

[DakotaGypsy]

You got something to back that up with?

No offense, but nobody would say that and I'm not suggesting anyone should. You'd use a pronoun that describes the person you're speaking of. However, I don't think a lot of men would be comfortable having a women's group advocating for them (and I don't think a women's group would do it either.)

Just jerking your chain, Danisty. I think that the idea of Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, Beezlebub and anything else you might care to call the entity, is a bunch of humbuggery.

 

[DakotaGypsy]

http://www.now.org/issues/mothers/petition.html

Mothers Matter and Caregivers Count Petition
Please join NOW in supporting mothers and caregivers by adding your name to the petition encouraging real family values through public policies and workplace benefits that recognize and promote the value and work of caregiving and caregivers. Your signature will be added to the thousands of others from across the country and will be included as we deliver this petition to policy makers and employers when the time is appropriate.

Sign the "Mothers Matter and Caregivers Count" Petition!
We believe that it is time to recognize the economic contribution of millions of hard-working people in our nation who are caregivers. There are legions of mothers, fathers, grandparents, siblings, children, relatives and partners performing unpaid care work, most of whom juggle the demands of paid employment and the needs of family and loved ones. Our society also depends on millions of low-wage women workers -- such as child care workers and health aides -- who fill essential caring occupations and their work must be valued as well.

Families can no longer afford to let the country have a free ride on the continuous stream of care work they provide. It's time for America to acknowledge and accommodate the inevitability of human dependency and the importance of caregiving to the growth of our economy and our quality of life. Our lawmakers and our private business sector must work together to help working families and individuals provide care for the children, the ill, the frail elderly and disabled adults in their lives. NOW supports efforts to change our workplaces, educational institutions, the public service sector and our laws to reduce the economic risks and occupational penalties associated with caring work. Our national leaders MUST help make caregiving a more respected and less stressful endeavor through a national public education and appreciation campaign along with improved policies, benefits and programs.

I urge policymakers and businesses to join me in supporting policies and programs that enhance the qualitify of life for women and caregivers.

 

[Ciscokid]

Frankly, I THINK THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE PAID FOR STAYING HOME TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR KIDS. Advanced nations in Europe do precisely this sort of thing, and I am ashamed that my nation, the U.S., is so barbaric and backward in this regard.

Well we sort of do this in the US, it's called Welfare. :slap:

 

[DakotaGypsy]

Perhaps your right. I don't think it makes a great deal of difference, it was just an example. The right of a women to vote being recognised still fits into your description of benefitting women without improving the material lot for men.

What is your proof that giving women the right to vote did not benefit men? How did you do the measurements to come to that conclusion?

Why must anything that is done on behalf of women also benefit men?