What does feminism have in common with the fight for racial equality and the fight for GLBTQ equality?
How does feminism differ from both of these movements?
How does feminism differ from both of these movements?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Feminism, Racial Equality, Queer Rights....comparisons and contrasts?
- Thread starter MysticSang'ha
- Start date
Horrorble
Well-Known Member
Intersectionality-the connection between different opressions is apart of feminist discourse. Feminism developed into a philosophy for equality for all. We can't just want freedom for women and not recognise that women are different from each other. What about the women who are also lesbians? Or women of colour? Or women who are also differently abled? What's the point of feminism if it doesn't address hierarchies between women ?
With regards to racial equality, I view feminism as having nearly complete overlap. There are aspects of feminism that have been criticized as focusing primarily on Caucasian middle class women, but for the most part there isn't any fundamental conflict.
For GLBTQ equality, I'm bothered. "GLB" equality has a lot of overlap with feminism but "TQ" is a far more controversial. Self-described radical feminists, generally as part of second wave feminism, are unfortunately one of the most transphobic demographics in existence, and while I think they're a minority they're not all that small. There are numerous social media platforms run by feminists that are entirely based on criticizing transgendered/transsexual people (primarily trans women, those that transition from male to female gender roles), some of them have written articles on major media platforms that targeted trans people, and there are some feminist organizations or events that specifically exclude trans women. Some feminists even lobbied the United Nations in order to reduce international transgendered/transsexual rights with the argument that expanding their rights harms rights of women.
As a feminist and an ally to the entire LGBTQIA spectrum, this conflict is something I'm particularly bothered by. In college I worked as a resident assistant on a residence floor catering to the trans community and became rather educated and supportive of the group. The bulk of the issue seems to be that a subset of feminists subscribe to social constructionism theory, and particularly the belief that gender is a purely social construct. Trans people by definition change their physical form and gender roles from male to female or female to male, which basically opposes the theory that gender is nothing more than a social construct to repress women. A subset of feminists view trans people as reinforcing gender stereotypes, or being agents of the patriarchy, and therefore respond quite aggressively towards them.
The empirical research has shown that male and female brains are indeed statistically biologically different, and that trans people do seem to have physical brains that in many ways more closely match their gender identity than their physical sex. So a female transitions into a dude because he had a dude's identity all along, and a male transitions into a woman because she always was one. The bulk of the science, facts, and research are on the side of trans people and their allies in this case, but the feminist gender construction theories themselves were put together many decades ago before much of the real research and understanding was available, and there is a dogmatic aspect to some of it.
I've really disliked seeing a subset of feminists opposing a smaller and particularly vulnerable minority of people because it goes against my idea (and the definition) of what feminism is. Fortunately the bulk of feminists, especially younger ones, are more accepting of gender nonconforming and transgendered people. I believe feminism is improved when it is not bound with the idea that biological gender is nonexistent or that trans or queer people are a threat, and I prefer not seeing conflict between feminists and any aspect of the LGBTQIA demographic.
Horrorble
Well-Known Member
@penuma. I agree with this for the most part, apart from evidence that there are significant differences between male and female brains. After reading "Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine" I'm very skeptical about findings which suggest a "male" brain and "female" brain.
Horrorble
Well-Known Member
I'm on my phone so I can't open it yet. Will you summarise?
Well I won't go far into a debate-ish mode since it's a DIR-type area but I'll point out a few things:
-That's one person's book, and it's not a peer-reviewed published study. I'd recommend reading several published studies if you're interested in the topic, in order to get a broad view. Especially the ones about how different some of the anatomical structures are.
-The idea that gender is a social construct was academically popular in the mid-20th century, but it led to a lot of disastrous results with many intersex children, and decades of research on animal brains, human brains, and experiments of nature pretty solidly rebutted that notion. So it's not as though the status quo has always been that male and female brains are different and that this book seeks to undo that; it was once a far more accepted idea that brain sex is unimportant or nonexistent apart from nurture, until consistent evidence changed the consensus. It's a rather politically-charged theory, but not one that is particularly established in medicine anymore. For example, based on the theory that gender is a social construct and is malleable, doctors tried things like having parents raise boys that were born with medical problems or intersex issues from infancy as girls (complete with castration and surgery to make the body appear externally female) and there was a massive failure rate. The established reason has had to do with the hormones in the womb of mammals that functionally masculinize a fetal brain or keep it feminized. The differences end up being subtle; it has little to do with, say, career-choices or personality, but more to do with instinctual recognition of one's own gender and a tendency towards certain mating habits.
-Based on the Amazon overview of the book, and particularly this part, "The neuroscience that we read about in magazines, newspaper articles, books, and sometimes even scientific journals increasingly tells a tale of two brains, and the result is more often than not a validation of the status quo. Women, it seems, are just too intuitive for math; men too focused for housework." Personally, I haven't really seen any articles in reputable places that conclude anything like that, nor would I suspect that there are modern published papers indicating anything to that extent. It sounds like she may be phrasing brain sex proponents in an exaggerated way, especially to appeal to the public, to kind of create more of a controversy than really exists. Male and female brains, even though they can find some differences, are very similar overall, with similar overall abilities, with considerable overlap.
-I'd certainly agree with her that using any sort of brain-based anatomical differences to enforce gender roles and social expectations would be a big problem, and that any differences that do exist seem to be exaggerated in society and by parents. But personally, based on what I've learned about neurobiology/neuroanatomy as well as trans people, I don't think it's wise for feminism to be typically linked with proposals that the brains are identical and that without the affects of specific nurture experiences boys and girls would be literally the same, or to base any of its conclusions or arguments for equality on that concept. I think it's entirely possible to support equality in all forms without the proposal of absolute sameness, and I certainly think reducing expectations of gender roles so that men and women are more free to engage in any sorts of activities that they want is always a good thing.
(And my bf is really good at housework. :yes
Sea Monkey
Pickle Juicer!
Feminism differ's as well uh... to the obvious I believe. It has in common that mostly you have strong-minded people fighting for equality. All people should be equal but that's another story.
Horrorble
Well-Known Member
Well I won't go far into a debate-ish mode since it's a DIR-type area but I'll point out a few things:
-That's one person's book, and it's not a peer-reviewed published study. I'd recommend reading several published studies if you're interested in the topic, in order to get a broad view. Especially the ones about how different some of the anatomical structures are.
-The idea that gender is a social construct was academically popular in the mid-20th century, but it led to a lot of disastrous results with many intersex children, and decades of research on animal brains, human brains, and experiments of nature pretty solidly rebutted that notion. So it's not as though the status quo has always been that male and female brains are different and that this book seeks to undo that; it was once a far more accepted idea that brain sex is unimportant or nonexistent apart from nurture, until consistent evidence changed the consensus. It's a rather politically-charged theory, but not one that is particularly established in medicine anymore. For example, based on the theory that gender is a social construct and is malleable, doctors tried things like having parents raise boys that were born with medical problems or intersex issues from infancy as girls (complete with castration and surgery to make the body appear externally female) and there was a massive failure rate. The established reason has had to do with the hormones in the womb of mammals that functionally masculinize a fetal brain or keep it feminized. The differences end up being subtle; it has little to do with, say, career-choices or personality, but more to do with instinctual recognition of one's own gender and a tendency towards certain mating habits.
-Based on the Amazon overview of the book, and particularly this part, "The neuroscience that we read about in magazines, newspaper articles, books, and sometimes even scientific journals increasingly tells a tale of two brains, and the result is more often than not a validation of the status quo. Women, it seems, are just too intuitive for math; men too focused for housework." Personally, I haven't really seen any articles in reputable places that conclude anything like that, nor would I suspect that there are modern published papers indicating anything to that extent. It sounds like she may be phrasing brain sex proponents in an exaggerated way, especially to appeal to the public, to kind of create more of a controversy than really exists. Male and female brains, even though they can find some differences, are very similar overall, with similar overall abilities, with considerable overlap.
-I'd certainly agree with her that using any sort of brain-based anatomical differences to enforce gender roles and social expectations would be a big problem, and that any differences that do exist seem to be exaggerated in society and by parents. But personally, based on what I've learned about neurobiology/neuroanatomy as well as trans people, I don't think it's wise for feminism to be typically linked with proposals that the brains are identical and that without the affects of specific nurture experiences boys and girls would be literally the same, or to base any of its conclusions or arguments for equality on that concept. I think it's entirely possible to support equality in all forms without the proposal of absolute sameness, and I certainly think reducing expectations of gender roles so that men and women are more free to engage in any sorts of activities that they want is always a good thing.
(And my bf is really good at housework. :yes
I actually agree that gender identity is for the most part innate and sexual orientation is for the most part innate. What I mean is that I'm skeptical that there are significant differences between a male and female brain beyond that.
And I don't know if it's even accurate to call them a male brain and a female brain if the only significance is gender identity.
I believe the similarities are there is a long road ahead and every advancement has been hard earned. Oh, and by the way, I am a feminist.
Well I'd agree that any differences beyond gender identity and sexual orientation are not very significant.
There are some interesting studies with brain activation patterns, performance and white/gray matter differences, but it's not something I'd view as significant today for any practical purpose of gender roles, gender stereotypes, etc. That part is out of the realm of what I was meaning anyway; I just think feminism should be trans/queer/intersex inclusive, which is usually but not always the case.
Horrorble
Well-Known Member
I agree with this but I also agree that oppressed groups should be entitled to organise separately as well as create inclusive spaces, and those spaces be respected.
I haven't read literature by people like Shelia Jefferys for example but I have heard she has abhorrent views of trans people. I'm ashamed to say I have also been sucked into some anti-trans feminsts views before but I'm glad it never stuck with me. It's sad that some feminists like her can't find compassion for our trans sisters who are also at high risk of been raped/sexually assaulted, impoverished and prostituted.
I KNEW it! :bounce
Alceste
Vagabond
Politically back in the '70s and before when Betty Friedan held anti-gay perspectives, mainstream activist feminists were wanting to distance themselves from the queer community to garner the best political advantage they could get. But because back in early 20th century America where the masses were still overtly segregationist against people of color, and when the masses were still overtly homophobic, feminism was adapting politically so that it wouldn't be considered more distasteful than it already was.
IMO, feminism in its mainstream has shot itself in the foot a few times politically by underestimating the institutional bigotry present in current culture in regards to people of color and in regards to GLBTQs.
Things have changed, I think, with Third-Wave. It's become more concerned with global issues with women and girls as well as with GLBTQ rights and protections. We'll continue to see the movement adapt, surge, falter, sputter, stagger, and stride as culture also evolves to recognize what are inalienable human rights.
I agree, It is hard to understand folks like this. Another issue I have is when it was wrong for a man to do something and then the woman turns around and does the same damn thing.
Women's rights are about equality not getting even. This could be where some ladies got labeled "man haters". It does the whole movement a disjustice and slows advancement.
I know one specific example is when some women don't like strip clubs, but then turn around and flock to see the Chippendales or Magic Mike.
I tend to see it partially as a generational thing, though, as well as symptomatic of the infancy of the Sexual Revolution. A lot of women I know don't hold such resentment toward strip clubs and even frequent them themselves. Hubbie sat down with me to watch Magic Mike. Not saying the people I know are a broad sample of how people are, but it offers a glimpse.
Back then there also was advertising aimed squarely at women telling them they weren't a cookie cutter size 0 model with perfect skin and teeth, but the ad agencies are now beginning to target men, too. Now we have men who are self-critical of how they don't have six-pack abs or a full set of hair. I can see men who will begin to show envy and jealousy in the same manner that some women who envy and jealousy.
And finally part of todays movement is the controversial "raunch culture" to where women are taking up the banner of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mindset. So they'll do what they would see men doing around them...go out and get drunk and sleep around for starters.