Ask me about my views on feminism.

[TransmutingSoul]

But as for what's going to be the hardest? To be perfectly honest, I think it will be to completely get rid of sex and gender based roles within those faith based communities. This is not to say put women in leadership roles as tokens to representation. But make no leadership role dependent on what's between the legs. From Pastor to Elder to Bishop to House of Justice to Cardinal to Pope.

Personally I see the heart is the most important factor.

Regards Tony

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Can you give an example of how this has played out in practice?

(Full disclosure, I'm leery of intersectionality, but I'm open to having my mind changed.)

The most well known example is from where the original word was coined. In 1989 Kimberle Crenshaw saw that issues of gender and race were not separate issues, and that women of color in law cases (she's a lawyer) had doubled problems with discrimination. The majority of white women were only allowed to be secretaries in factory companies. But the majority of secretaries were white women. There was double the amount of discrimination issues for women of color.

Earlier we were discussing differences between feminist waves. Second wave feminism entailed a complete rejection of women subservient roles including housemaker roles. There was a long period where feminism really pushed women to get out there and start careers. When third wave and fourth wave started rolling in they went 'hang on a sec' because many women with disabilities were being left behind by this push, because many (especially those with invisible disabilities) couldn't just go start full time jobs. So questions started rolling out like how do we support independence and self actualization with women who either choose or by situation must take on domestic roles.

Similarly, in forth wave feminism has most of its presence online, with a highly technologically connected support network and distance courses in gender studies, and studies behind paywalls, which many women below the poverty line feel like they can't access. So questions of how to help women feel like they can be educated on current issues, supported and represented in a world where so much of those resources require regular access to internet has become a question.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That's a great question and I'm not sure I can give an adequately summarized answer. There's quite a lot that can be done, both for women and for men. And a lot of them are super important. Including the aforementioned encouraging emotional communication, empathy and sensitivity in men, as well as self-actualization and choice for women. And to keep an eye and ear out for when people need help, even if it's not a situation that you might be accustomed with (such as men and women of different social backgrounds in trouble).

But as for what's going to be the hardest? To be perfectly honest, I think it will be to completely get rid of sex and gender based roles within those faith based communities. This is not to say put women in leadership roles as tokens to representation. But make no leadership role dependent on what's between the legs. From Pastor to Elder to Bishop to House of Justice to Cardinal to Pope.

Thanks for your response ADA.

I work in an area of medicine (general practice) that has become increasingly female dominated with a very different demographic than even 20 years ago. About two thirds of doctors being trained for general practice are women. Part of the deal is the flexibility this area of medicine has that makes it easy to accommodate having a family. That is in contrast to some areas of surgery that are still male dominated.

We have friends who are a couple in England, the wife a surgeon and husband an intensive care specialist. They have children similar age to us and have had to make extensive use of nannies for the care of their children.

In my faith community we don't have priests or clergy but instead elected assemblies where we have excellent representation of both men and women at a local and national level. We're quite conscious of gender bias when it comes to electing officers such as chairman and secretary.

As you will appreciate, one of the criticisms of the Baha'i Faith is our elected international governing body is men only. I agree that would be very hard to change.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Thanks for your response ADA.

I work in an area of medicine (general practice) that has become increasingly female dominated with a very different demographic than even 20 years ago. About two thirds of doctors being trained for general practice are women. Part of the deal is the flexibility this area of medicine has that makes it easy to accommodate having a family. That is in contrast to some areas of surgery that are still male dominated.

We have friends who are a couple in England, the wife a surgeon and husband an intensive care specialist. They have children similar age to us and have had to make extensive use of nannies for the care of their children.

In my faith community we don't have priests or clergy but instead elected assemblies where we have excellent representation of both men and women at a local and national level. We're quite conscious of gender bias when it comes to electing officers such as chairman and secretary.

As you will appreciate, one of the criticisms of the Baha'i Faith is our elected international governing body is men only. I agree that would be very hard to change.

I work in physical therapy and massage which is similarly female dominated. Part of that though is unfortunately patient comfort. More patients, both men and women, are comfortable with female PTs and MTs because they prejudicially believe females will be more nurturing and less abrasive, coupled with less men being comfortable with being touched by other men due to 'same-sex touch=homosexuality=icky'. This is why I think feminism is good for men too. Accepting that it's perfectly fine, healthy and constructive for men to also be nurturing, gentle and give physical comfort and aid without it being a sexual thing. For a man to exhibit traditionally feminine behaviors is not weak, bad or excludes them from 'manhood.'
There's also a section of patients who prefer male therapists because they don't believe female therapists will or could give adequately firm massage or are strong enough to handle their PT exercises and adjustments, which is also unfortunately prejudicial.

 

[SomeRandom]

As a mathematician, one of my goals is to encourage women who show some interest/ability in math and/or science.

When I started teaching almost 40 years ago (!), there were very few women who took calculus. And, almost uniformly they had been told by *some teacher* that they didn't need to worry because 'girls aren't good at math'.

It has been a long time since I've heard anyone say they have been told that (among younger women, anyways). And the number of women in upper level math is increasing every year.

So, there is some level of success.

I recall most of my friends (of both genders for what it’s worth) despising maths, regardless of grades. I was more indifferent to it, but did well. It’s so......formulaic, for lack of a better term. Hard to make appealing to most people I think.
Incidentally most of my maths teachers were female. As were my science teachers now I think of it.
Now chemistry? That was fun!

 

[Dawnofhope]

I work in physical therapy and massage which is similarly female dominated. Part of that though is unfortunately patient comfort. More patients, both men and women, are comfortable with female PTs and MTs because they prejudicially believe females will be more nurturing and less abrasive, coupled with less men being comfortable with being touched by other men due to 'same-sex touch=homosexuality=icky'. This is why I think feminism is good for men too. Accepting that it's perfectly fine, healthy and constructive for men to also be nurturing, gentle and give physical comfort and aid without it being a sexual thing. For a man to exhibit traditionally feminine behaviors is not weak, bad or excludes them from 'manhood.'
There's also a section of patients who prefer male therapists because they don't believe female therapists will or could give adequately firm massage or are strong enough to handle their PT exercises and adjustments, which is also unfortunately prejudicial.

I can see the role of massage therapist having a different place across cultures as well as gender. An Indian friend's father (a professional) used to have regular massages but only from a male masseuse. In my culture not too many men would have a personal massage, at least not that they talk openly about. Maybe American culture is more open.

Women on average will proactively consult with a GP twice as much as men. There are certain consultations that women would much prefer to see another woman and vice versa.

When it comes to talking about stuff or being touched there's a lot of gender differences as to who we feel comfortable talking too or being touched by.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have a general interview thread floating in here somewhere but I thought I'd do one for this too. This won't be a back-and-forth debate, just question and answer. But I think it'll will be good for me to put my thoughts on the subject to words as well as good for whomever is curious.

Fire away.

What are your views on feminism?

#youaskedforit
#inappropriatehashtag

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As you will be acutely aware religion has a long and infamous history of suppressing woman's rights. What are some of the most important lines of action faith communities can take to promote feminism?

Wow...
This is such an insightful question.

Does it sound corny of me to suggest posts like this are the first important lines of action??
Probably...

Still, whatever. I respect your ability to be both open minded and of faith.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you envision the growth of feminism internationally, especially in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, or China?

 

[Earthling]

To me, feminism is as much for men as it is for women. Realizing that men embracing aspects of femininity does not equate 'becoming women' or, the worser view, 'becoming weak.' I think men and women need to work together to de-stigmatize men paying attention to things like mental health issues. Things like embracing emotional connections with family and friends including forming emotionally communicative relationships with other men. And things like removing the knee-jerk misogyny and homophobic reaction when hearing about other men being empathetic, sensitive or introspective. Ditto when women exhibit assertiveness, independence or being sexually virile.

It seems to me as if feminism to you is basically that men should be like women but women shouldn't be like men. Is that accurate?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It seems to me as if feminism to you is basically that men should be like women but women shouldn't be like men. Is that accurate?

The post you quoted explicitly says that is not accurate.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How do you envision the growth of feminism internationally, especially in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, or China?

China already has a pretty strong feminist movement, but it's very different from Western feminism because 'men' and 'women' were already traditionally held as social constructs so there's less of a naturalist argument being made against disruptions of gender roles.

However, those social construct gender roles are still a very real part of Chinese culture an authoritarian view makes pushing back against anti-feminist, anti-LGBT etc policy slow.

In fact I think the speed of growth of feminism in all these countries will depend heavily on the amount of authoritarianism within it.

 

[Earthling]

The post you quoted explicitly says that is not accurate.

Yes, it does. It seemed contradictory to me in that regard, but you are really talking about change, and that may be why it seemed contradictory. I know you didn't want a back and forth, and I'm trying to tread the thin line that can exist between debate and learning through questioning, so I will break down your statement and show you where I'm coming from, because to me, having always believed that there should be equality and fairness among all people, but having recently discovered in a profound manner, the complexities that involves through the popular speaker Jordan Peterson who deals primarily with the subject of ideological possession, the masculine and feminine having been only as late as the 1960's a linguistic rather than human construct.

So, if I'm pestering you just dismiss this. No harm, no foul.

You said: "To me, feminism is as much for men as it is for women. Realizing that men embracing aspects of femininity does not equate 'becoming women' or, the worser view, 'becoming weak.' "

This is in line with what I hold as traditionally important. I always thought that the gender roles assigned to us, the pink and blue, so to speak, which only came about in the 1980's, was harmful, unrealistic and counterproductive. Pretentious, even.

Then you said: "I think men and women need to work together to de-stigmatize men paying attention to things like mental health issues." Which completely blew me away. The more I thought about it the more it alluded me. But you go on to elaborate. "Things like embracing emotional connections with family and friends including forming emotionally communicative relationships with other men. And things like removing the knee-jerk misogyny and homophobic reaction when hearing about other men being empathetic, sensitive or introspective."

Which, to me, was contradictory because you are describing the stereotypical male and how they should change to be more like the stereotypical female. Imagine defining my views on (perhaps to coin a phrase) masculism, as being a suggestion that women should avoid the stereotypical female for the stereotypical male. This interpretation of mine of your views is compounded by your conclusion which seems to me, to be just that. The suggestion that part of your view of feminism is that the stereotypical female not become the stereotypical male. You say: "Ditto when women exhibit assertiveness, independence or being sexually virile."

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yes, it does. It seemed contradictory to me in that regard, but you are really talking about change, and that may be why it seemed contradictory. I know you didn't want a back and forth, and I'm trying to tread the thin line that can exist between debate and learning through questioning, so I will break down your statement and show you where I'm coming from, because to me, having always believed that there should be equality and fairness among all people, but having recently discovered in a profound manner, the complexities that involves through the popular speaker Jordan Peterson who deals primarily with the subject of ideological possession, the masculine and feminine having been only as late as the 1960's a linguistic rather than human construct.

So, if I'm pestering you just dismiss this. No harm, no foul.

You said: "To me, feminism is as much for men as it is for women. Realizing that men embracing aspects of femininity does not equate 'becoming women' or, the worser view, 'becoming weak.' "

This is in line with what I hold as traditionally important. I always thought that the gender roles assigned to us, the pink and blue, so to speak, which only came about in the 1980's, was harmful, unrealistic and counterproductive. Pretentious, even.

Then you said: "I think men and women need to work together to de-stigmatize men paying attention to things like mental health issues." Which completely blew me away. The more I thought about it the more it alluded me. But you go on to elaborate. "Things like embracing emotional connections with family and friends including forming emotionally communicative relationships with other men. And things like removing the knee-jerk misogyny and homophobic reaction when hearing about other men being empathetic, sensitive or introspective."

Which, to me, was contradictory because you are describing the stereotypical male and how they should change to be more like the stereotypical female. Imagine defining my views on (perhaps to coin a phrase) masculism, as being a suggestion that women should avoid the stereotypical female for the stereotypical male. This interpretation of mine of your views is compounded by your conclusion which seems to me, to be just that. The suggestion that part of your view of feminism is that the stereotypical female not become the stereotypical male. You say: "Ditto when women exhibit assertiveness, independence or being sexually virile."

I'm just going to come right out and start with I absolutely do not agree with Jordan 'birth control began the downfall of western civilization' Peterson's views. I find the man's view on sex and femininity/masculinity to be absolutely vile. I reject the hierarchical structure of feminine/masculine dynamics with which he slaps on crude inaccurate Taoist trappings (male order/female chaos) as just another form of pretension and counter productivity. I believe that attitude contributes to male and female stereotyping, which should be avoided. Being male does not mean lack of femininity and being female does not mean lack of masculinity.

Taking on feminine behaviors does not mean 'becoming female' and visa versa. Societal perpetuation of the 'lower hierarchal place of feminine traits' (re: anti-feminism) causes men to reject any amount of completely healthy and normal self-care and communication because it's perceived as 'stereotypically female' and that's 'bad.' And I think that view is distressing and should be faught against. Ditto women rejecting normal self-actualization and functioning with independence because it's perceived as 'stereotypically male' and that's 'bad.'

 

[icehorse]

The most well known example is from where the original word was coined. In 1989 Kimberle Crenshaw saw that issues of gender and race were not separate issues, and that women of color in law cases (she's a lawyer) had doubled problems with discrimination. The majority of white women were only allowed to be secretaries in factory companies. But the majority of secretaries were white women. There was double the amount of discrimination issues for women of color.

Earlier we were discussing differences between feminist waves. Second wave feminism entailed a complete rejection of women subservient roles including housemaker roles. There was a long period where feminism really pushed women to get out there and start careers. When third wave and fourth wave started rolling in they went 'hang on a sec' because many women with disabilities were being left behind by this push, because many (especially those with invisible disabilities) couldn't just go start full time jobs. So questions started rolling out like how do we support independence and self actualization with women who either choose or by situation must take on domestic roles.

Similarly, in forth wave feminism has most of its presence online, with a highly technologically connected support network and distance courses in gender studies, and studies behind paywalls, which many women below the poverty line feel like they can't access. So questions of how to help women feel like they can be educated on current issues, supported and represented in a world where so much of those resources require regular access to internet has become a question.

Ok. for the sake of discussion, let's say that we agree that a disabled black woman faces more challenges than - say - a black man. Now what? Does the disabled black woman have more moral authority? Should our policies be adjusted to try to make the playing field level for this individual?

I'm trying to understand what happens in practice...

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ok. for the sake of discussion, let's say that we agree that a disabled black woman faces more challenges than - say - a black man. Now what? Does the disabled black woman have more moral authority? Should our policies be adjusted to try to make the playing field level for this individual?

I'm trying to understand what happens in practice...

The latter. Specifically that effective policy needs to consider that accessibility for the group you're trying to help is varied depending on numerous layers of advantage and disadvantage.

 

[icehorse]

The latter. Specifically that effective policy needs to consider that accessibility for the group you're trying to help is varied depending on numerous layers of advantage and disadvantage.

Is there any sense of how thinly to slice these groups? We could take this to silly extremes. For example we could worry about the physically disabled, dyslexic, color-blind, height challenged, autistic, black woman demographic. If we go to those sorts of extremes, then ultimately, everyone has their own category. So I understand that that's going too far. The question is, how do we know when to stop slicing and dicing our categories?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Is there any sense of how thinly to slice these groups? We could take this to silly extremes. For example we could worry about the physically disabled, dyslexic, color-blind, height challenged, autistic, black woman demographic. If we go to those sorts of extremes, then ultimately, everyone has their own category. So I understand that that's going too far. The question is, how do we know when to stop slicing and dicing our categories?

I don't think there's going to be a hard line. For policy making there will be time limits per policy for which to hear questions and concerns from multiple demographics, budget and resource limits for addressing as much as reasonably possible, and opportunities for future revisions to improve. Where those are and how many needs we can cover will be situational. But I think we should strive to make policy accessible by as many people as we reasonably can. And where we can't, be mindful of how policies effect different demographics and always be asking how effective the policy is in reaching all ofthe intended groups.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What are your views on feminism?

#youaskedforit
#inappropriatehashtag

It's great!
#shortestdelivery
#inapproriatehashtag

 

[Prestor John]

I have a general interview thread floating in here somewhere but I thought I'd do one for this too. This won't be a back-and-forth debate, just question and answer. But I think it'll will be good for me to put my thoughts on the subject to words as well as good for whomever is curious.

Fire away.

No.