What Does "Feminism" Mean to You?

[Revoltingest]

We should all remember that the OP title is "What does feminism mean to you"?
So if you're a feminist, & someone else's meaning is off putting, don't take it personally.
You are who you are, & you may even have identical values, but just differ in defining a mere label.

 

[Rakhel]

Everything if the woman doesn't have a choice on the matter.

wa:do

oh nothing at all so long as that is actually what she wants and she's not doing because she's forced to by societal gender roles.

Or a lifetime of religious indoctrination from church and family to brainwash her into narrowing her future expectations to fit that mold.

These shallow attempts to discredit feminism are getting really tiring.

I've been tired of it for the last week or so.

You've been on a roll, there, dust1n. I wish I could frubal you more.

This is what I'm talking about. If a woman chooses to stay in the kitchen, then it has to be because society or church indoctrination or brainwashed or forced. As if she can't make up her mind to do it, and has to be told to do it.

WTF?

 

[Revoltingest]

This is what I'm talking about. If a woman chooses to stay in the kitchen, then it has to be because society or church indoctrination or brainwashed or forced. As if she can't make up her mind to do it, and has to be told to do it.
WTF?

Do what you want to do.
[youtube]WkWqr1lAbjc[/youtube]
In Living Color theme - YouTube

 

[painted wolf]

This is what I'm talking about. If a woman chooses to stay in the kitchen, then it has to be because society or church indoctrination or brainwashed or forced. As if she can't make up her mind to do it, and has to be told to do it.

WTF?

Don't purposefully misquote me to twist my words... it's not nice. :tsk:

Do you have something useful to say in regards to what I actually said. :slap:

wa:do

 

[Mr. Skittles]

"Well, you asked where the male privilege was at, and I answer that question. In response, if a woman doesn't like that she is working somewhere but getting paid less for the same work comapred to male, she shouldn't try to change this and keep working, she should be homeless if she wants to. It's not that she was being discriminated against by an employer, or that patriarchy exists to some extent, but that she willfully took that position and that discrimination and that lower status. If she doesn't like this, she can go elsewhere. If she can't find this not happening anywhere, she should just not work. IF she has a kid, she should call child services and have it taken a away.

This is what I am inferring from your argument that women aren't taken advantage, patriarchy doesn't exist at all, and that women aren't being exploited in various ways, they are willfully accepting of it and are socially responsible.

Am I reading that right?


And patriarchy and socioeconomics aren't intertwined? Work for lower pay and be socially responsible, or do not participate in the economic system at all..."

You are missing the point. I don't know how any much more clearer I can be. I am merely saying we all have choices (with the exception of those who are forced in their situations). I mentioned the choosing to be poor because I am highlighting the fact that those of us in the work force are not forced to stay in our situation. I am not saying patriarchy or patriarchal influence doesn't exist, I am saying as working adults we all have choices. Nobody is forcing a prostitute to prostitute. Nobody is forcing a stripper to take her clothes off. Nobody is forcing a woman in risky situations such as picking up johns and having sex with them.

My argument in response to yours was refuting the notion of social pressures. If you work for a living as I do you understand that it is within our choice to not work, pay bills and simply go broke and get out out of my home. That is what I am saying. Sure there are exceptions to the rule but I do not agree that social pressures force women to be prostitutes, strippers, or porn stars.

"And patriarchy and socioeconomics aren't intertwined? Work for lower pay and be socially responsible, or do not participate in the economic system at all..."

I never said they weren't.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

It seems the argument to me can be summed as:

"How can a woman be exploited or objectified if she knows she is being exploited or objectified? Her knowing entails that SHE is socially responsible for being there."

I still haven't found an answer at least a good philosophical one at least here.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

Ya, I appreciate that. I'm gonna go read elsewhere for a few days, and maybe the topics will start moving to somewhere else. My responding just appears to be fueling an endless fire here. All they do after losing a debate about feminism is make another thread about feminism and try again to attack from a different angle. :sleep:



To answer the OP: Apparently, "Feminism" means to me just another buzzword, in which people have tried to amount everything about feminism into one bite-sized-candy-word, without actually reading any of it, for the purposes of feeling like they defeated something, because they failed to get laid or ... I don't know, I guess people want things to be simple when they aren't.. It's like Occam's razor bastardized.

I wonder who is losing the debate?

As far as our dialogue is concerned its an exchange of ideas. Those here that may agree with you does not determine you are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

All this time I didn't really address the OP in the fashion that I wanted so allow me to actually address what Feminism means to me.

For me, feminism is more of a theoretical philosophy than practical. I believe in some of the ultra-feminist circles there seems to be an exaggeration of patriarchal society. In looking at pornography some ultra-feminist believe that due to the pressures of a patriarchal society where a "woman's body is in high demand in the sex industry" women are thus forced in situations where the men benefit due to satisfying their innate urges. All unfound, untrue, and exaggerated claims.

I also believe feminism does not represent all women. As Rahkel mentioned earlier what if women refused to take a secondary role in family and prefer a more traditionalist format? some women here may say "if that is what the woman wants" but if traditional feminism is to do away with patriarchal standards then it must be at odds with traditional family or religious-traditional families. In addition, feminism does not actively represent women of color. Although there are women of color who are feminists, there is not enough literature focusing on the "double oppression" of women of color. Women of color not only had to support the family but also had to endure racism. Sure, there is mention of the issues of racism within feminist literature but there is not enough emphasis. How can feminist argue about equality among the sexes when there isn't even equality among ethnic groups?


Lastly, as Dust1n mentioned the word feminism is merely a buzzword, which ought to be done away and replaced with humanism. If the sole goal is to have equality among the sexes then philosophies relating to specific genders should be done away and labels which are more appropriate to bridge the gap between men and women are to be in place. Humanism is the most appropriate philosophy for the struggle of women-and men. I mention men because although feminist may argue that we still live in a society where there are gender gaps in pay, workplace biases etc we also live in a society where in some sectors favors women.

For example custody battles. Men are continuously losing this battle even if they are responsible fathers. It is unfair that courts have this unwritten belief that children are better off with their mother. On the contrary, children are better off in a situation where two active parents who are responsible adults are involved. To me, feminism is nothing more than a theoretical philosophy based on historical struggles women went through yet is not addressing all the societal issues all women of all cultures go through.

It seems western feminism seeks to try to unite all women of various cultures under the banner of its own philosophy, but it does not understand generations of religious influence of cultures. So I say do away with feminism and let us unite under humanism.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This is what I'm talking about. If a woman chooses to stay in the kitchen, then it has to be because society or church indoctrination or brainwashed or forced. As if she can't make up her mind to do it, and has to be told to do it.

WTF?

I was a stay at home mom for nearly 10 years. It was my choice, and I did all the chores willingly. This was my choice and was between me and my husband only.

It was not because some belief system ordained that my staying home to care for the kids was the natural order of things and that it's how it's supposed to be.

 

[dust1n]

This is what I'm talking about. If a woman chooses to stay in the kitchen, then it has to be because society or church indoctrination or brainwashed or forced. As if she can't make up her mind to do it, and has to be told to do it.

WTF?

Which one of us implied that, exactly?

 

[dust1n]

You are missing the point. I don't know how any much more clearer I can be. I am merely saying we all have choices (with the exception of those who are forced in their situations). I mentioned the choosing to be poor because I am highlighting the fact that those of us in the work force are not forced to stay in our situation. I am not saying patriarchy or patriarchal influence doesn't exist, I am saying as working adults we all have choices. Nobody is forcing a prostitute to prostitute. Nobody is forcing a stripper to take her clothes off. Nobody is forcing a woman in risky situations such as picking up johns and having sex with them.

Well, it might be debatable in a lot of cases that prostitutes are pretty much trapped in prostitution, and are forced to pick up johns and have sex with them... they are called pimps. Even in the other thread about legal prostitution, accounts from prostitutes in legal brothels in Nevada seem to indicate that these things continue to some degree.

I mean, I don't really know what to say? We can all choose to walk away from a job, but it isn't really that practical to do so. It would often mean choosing between that job (at least until other employment can be found) or simply disregarding all one's responsibilities. It isn't always so easy to escape a situation.

My argument in response to yours was refuting the notion of social pressures. If you work for a living as I do you understand that it is within our choice to not work, pay bills and simply go broke and get out out of my home. That is what I am saying. Sure there are exceptions to the rule but I do not agree that social pressures force women to be prostitutes, strippers, or porn stars.

I not only work, I've also been homeless. I just don't see the idea that anyone can just easily be homeless and become a panhandler...

I never said they weren't.

I guess not, but I wonder why earlier you wanted me to not use socioeconomics when discussing the topic?

 

[dust1n]

I wonder who is losing the debate?

As far as our dialogue is concerned its an exchange of ideas. Those here that may agree with you does not determine you are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong.

Sorry, not you. This topic has been huge in the last three weeks, and this conversation is far better than others I have been engaging in recently.

 

[dust1n]

I still haven't found an answer at least a good philosophical one at least here.

?

If you are a working woman and you get paid less for your job than a man (discrimination), knowing this doesn't entail that the discrimination is gone.

If you are a woman who is being exploited by a pimp and extorted and faced with violence, being aware of this as a woman doesn't mean you are no longer being exploited by a pimp and extorted and faced with violence.

If you a woman who is a model who objectifies herself and she becomes aware that she is objectifying herself and continues to work, the awareness doesn't mean she isn't objectifying herself anymore.


Are these not valid? Why not?

 

[dust1n]

Lastly, as Dust1n mentioned the word feminism is merely a buzzword, which ought to be done away and replaced with humanism.

Whoa! I know it wasn't intentional, but this makes me look like I said everything after the comma! :gulp:

 

[Mr. Skittles]

Sorry, not you. This topic has been huge in the last three weeks, and this conversation is far better than others I have been engaging in recently.

Ok sorry for the misunderstanding...I'm new so I didn't realize this was an ongoing topic.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I feel like the terms feminist and sexest get jumbled.
I think of the word feminist as being for women.
Sexest is like being racist, being biast in a person's opinion on account of a person's gender.

 

[work in progress]

For me, feminism is more of a theoretical philosophy than practical. I believe in some of the ultra-feminist circles there seems to be an exaggeration of patriarchal society. In looking at pornography some ultra-feminist believe that due to the pressures of a patriarchal society where a "woman's body is in high demand in the sex industry" women are thus forced in situations where the men benefit due to satisfying their innate urges. All unfound, untrue, and exaggerated claims.

At first, I thought you were defending porn and prostitution so vigorously -- blindly ignoring the examples of coercion involved, because you like hookers and porn too much. Now, I'm thinking you must be making your money here if it's that important to you.

In addition, feminism does not actively represent women of color. Although there are women of color who are feminists, there is not enough literature focusing on the "double oppression" of women of color. Women of color not only had to support the family but also had to endure racism. Sure, there is mention of the issues of racism within feminist literature but there is not enough emphasis. How can feminist argue about equality among the sexes when there isn't even equality among ethnic groups?

And I suppose you're representing women of color now? If you ever read anything about 2nd wave feminism, you would know that the reason for this divide was because the movement began behind women like Betty Friedan, who were bored, middle class housewives who felt constrained by the idealized Susie Homemaker role that they were expected to follow once they got married. These were mostly younger women who had gone to college and wanted a chance to use that education to get something besides a husband!

Now, the reason why most black women didn't see Friedan and the feminists representing their concerns was because they already had to go work...whether they had young children at home or not...and it was at menial, low-paying jobs that they would have gladly traded with the life of the white, middle class housewife.

So, what you are presenting here is mostly an historic anachronism, because most women -- white or black, have been forced out in to the workplace...whether they want to be there or not, because an average middle class family could no longer stay in the middle class on one income after the 70's.

Lastly, as Dust1n mentioned the word feminism is merely a buzzword, which ought to be done away and replaced with humanism.

No, I heard this "we're all human" bs line from some anti-feminist humanists at Atheist Nexus when I used to be a member a few years ago. My thinking is still the same -- women as a group, still earn less than men, face more risks such as mental and physical abuse than men do, and for that and other reasons, should be entitled to organize as a group to air their grievances and petition for reforms.

And besides, who says we should all be humanists and that some form of humanism is the supreme moral philosophy? Seems that in our overcrowded, overconsuming world, that advancing the interests of humans is not such a great idea after all!

For example custody battles. Men are continuously losing this battle even if they are responsible fathers. It is unfair that courts have this unwritten belief that children are better off with their mother.

You weren't aware that there are groups in many countries advocating on behalf of divorced dads? Now that you're a men's rights advocate, I guess you're not a humanist anymore!

 

[dust1n]

Ok sorry for the misunderstanding...I'm new so I didn't realize this was an ongoing topic.

Oh no, it was my bad. Any topic can get frustrating and boring after about 100 posts each about 200 words.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

At first, I thought you were defending porn and prostitution so vigorously -- blindly ignoring the examples of coercion involved, because you like hookers and porn too much. Now, I'm thinking you must be making your money here if it's that important to you.


And I suppose you're representing women of color now? If you ever read anything about 2nd wave feminism, you would know that the reason for this divide was because the movement began behind women like Betty Friedan, who were bored, middle class housewives who felt constrained by the idealized Susie Homemaker role that they were expected to follow once they got married. These were mostly younger women who had gone to college and wanted a chance to use that education to get something besides a husband!

Now, the reason why most black women didn't see Friedan and the feminists representing their concerns was because they already had to go work...whether they had young children at home or not...and it was at menial, low-paying jobs that they would have gladly traded with the life of the white, middle class housewife.

So, what you are presenting here is mostly an historic anachronism, because most women -- white or black, have been forced out in to the workplace...whether they want to be there or not, because an average middle class family could no longer stay in the middle class on one income after the 70's.



No, I heard this "we're all human" bs line from some anti-feminist humanists at Atheist Nexus when I used to be a member a few years ago. My thinking is still the same -- women as a group, still earn less than men, face more risks such as mental and physical abuse than men do, and for that and other reasons, should be entitled to organize as a group to air their grievances and petition for reforms.

And besides, who says we should all be humanists and that some form of humanism is the supreme moral philosophy? Seems that in our overcrowded, overconsuming world, that advancing the interests of humans is not such a great idea after all!

You weren't aware that there are groups in many countries advocating on behalf of divorced dads? Now that you're a men's rights advocate, I guess you're not a humanist anymore!

I am not going to break your whole argument down because I am tired from work and not in the mood for a long drawn out discussion. The OP is talking about "what feminism means to you?" I believe I have demonstrated that.

In 2009 white women on average made more than black, latino, and asian men (I believe) the racial gap is ever so more increasing. Point blank feminism represents women and in some cases exaggerate gender issues. Plain and simple. If any philosophy is bent on seeking equality key words like feminine or feminism should not be at the forefront. I would rather people seek equality of humans than anything. Feminism does not address all complex issues point blank.

 

[dust1n]

In 2009 white women on average made more than black, latino, and asian men (I believe) the racial gap is ever so more increasing.

But white men made more than white women. Black men made more than black women. Latino men made more than Latina women. Asian men made more than Asian women.

If you averaged it all, men made more than women.


I'm not suggesting the racial gap is not a huge, problem, it is.

Point blank feminism represents women and in some cases exaggerate gender issues. Plain and simple.

Post-feminism not only represents women, but also men, and transgendered, and homosexuals, etc...

Feminism does not address all complex issues point blank.

And humanism does? :areyoucra