I am a feminist

[B'alaam]

This is created because the anti-rape device thread is getting completely side tracked

I am a feminist
Now WHY is that a negative thing? (apparently some people think it is a bad thing)

Here's my take on feminism
Give me an equal wage to a man, if I can perform my job duties as well as a man
Promote me to a higher position if I do my job better than my peers
Allow me to vote (a rather modern notion for you who hold to so-called 'traditional' roles)
Allow me (according to law) to decide what to do with my body, up to and including euthenasia (although abortion is really a completely seperate thread for me)
Do NOT enforce a glass ceiling in the workplace
Allow me to kill people as a member of the military (if I *ever* chose that career path, which I dont see myself doing)
Do not denigrate me as a "chick" police officer (Im not, but this is just hypothetical)
Allow me, as men are permissively allowed, to have sex with who I want, and give me a "title" (if you want) that is just as empowering as "Stud", as opposed to "harlot".
Treat me as a fellow human being as opposed to someone "under you" in authority, ability, intelligence and/or wisdom.
Wow, do I need to go on?

I dont hate men, I really really like men. I dont hate marriage. Some day I think I might like to be married. I dont think lesbianism is the "only way" to "truly" be a feminist. Heck, Im not a lesbian. Im not generally any more "shrill, obnoxious, promiscous, loud" or "rude" than the vast majority of men I've met.

So, you opposers of feminism, what's your problem with me?

And if you tell me Im not a "true" feminist...........Id like to refer you to Scotland.

 

[cantata]

I'm a feminist too, and I share most of your desires. As a feminist, I also tend to draw attention to the more subtle, tacitly accepted sexism found in our everyday lives.

However, also as a feminist, I try to point out the examples of sexual inequality from which men come off badly, too: unequal maternity/paternity leave, unequal child custody rights, both heterosexual and homosexual male stereotyping, &c. We live in a world where everyone knows you can't make an advert based on a joke about women not being able to put up shelves (unless you subvert that stereotype), but it's A-okay to make an advert which relies on the stereotype that men can't cook/can't clean/can't care for children (and that if he can, he must be gay). I am fully in support of a men's liberation, in which men, like women in the 60s, are freed from the social stigmas attached to defying socially defined gender roles. Women have had their lib. They are, if not yet enjoying equal treatment, at least allowed to point out when they are being mistreated, and they will usually be taken seriously. Men have no such luck.

Of course, this is only part of my "feminist agenda" But I draw attention to it here to highlight to potential anti-feminists that feminists do not, as a rule, hate men. We hate discrimination, inequality, and hypocrisy. I don't demand to be treated better than men. I simply demand that men and women are given jobs, rights, and privileges according to individual need and merit, rather than sex, and that we are treated with the respect and courtesy that we deserve as individuals, not as "generic man" or "generic woman".

 

[B'alaam]

I'm a feminist too, and I share most of your desires. As a feminist, I also tend to draw attention to the more subtle, tacitly accepted sexism found in our everyday lives.

However, also as a feminist, I try to point out the examples of sexual inequality from which men come off badly, too: unequal maternity/paternity leave, unequal child custody rights, both heterosexual and homosexual male stereotyping, &c. We live in a world where everyone knows you can't make an advert based on a joke about women not being able to put up shelves (unless you subvert that stereotype), but it's A-okay to make an advert which relies on the stereotype that men can't cook/can't clean/can't care for children (and that if he can, he must be gay). I am fully in support of a men's liberation, in which men, like women in the 60s, are freed from the social stigmas attached to defying socially defined gender roles. Women have had their lib. They are, if not yet enjoying equal treatment, at least allowed to point out when they are being mistreated, and they will usually be taken seriously. Men have no such luck.

Of course, this is only part of my "feminist agenda" But I draw attention to it here to highlight to potential anti-feminists that feminists do not, as a rule, hate men. We hate discrimination, inequality, and hypocrisy. I don't demand to be treated better than men. I simply demand that men and women are given jobs, rights, and privileges according to individual need and merit, rather than sex, and that we are treated with the respect and courtesy that we deserve as individuals, not as "generic man" or "generic woman".

Honestly, cantata, Im a "humanist" (as opposed to "feminist") not only in icon but also in various definitions of equality. For example, just quickly before I go to bed, I also hate examples where men are trampled (like the examples you gave above) and speak out against that cow manure as well.


I created this thread primarily to kill the off topicness of the thread mentioned in my OP. And I used "my" pov regarding "my feminism" to demonstrate that not all 'feminists' are psycho-feminazi-antimenmarriagebirth people, that's all.
I know you get it, but Im interested to see if others do as well.

 

[quatona]

I am a feminist
Now WHY is that a negative thing? (apparently some people think it is a bad thing)

Here's my take on feminism
Give me an equal wage to a man, if I can perform my job duties as well as a man
Promote me to a higher position if I do my job better than my peers
Allow me to vote (a rather modern notion for you who hold to so-called 'traditional' roles)
Allow me (according to law) to decide what to do with my body, up to and including euthenasia (although abortion is really a completely seperate thread for me)
Do NOT enforce a glass ceiling in the workplace
Allow me to kill people as a member of the military (if I *ever* chose that career path, which I dont see myself doing)
Do not denigrate me as a "chick" police officer (Im not, but this is just hypothetical)
Allow me, as men are permissively allowed, to have sex with who I want, and give me a "title" (if you want) that is just as empowering as "Stud", as opposed to "harlot".
Treat me as a fellow human being as opposed to someone "under you" in authority, ability, intelligence and/or wisdom.
Wow, do I need to go on?

I dont hate men, I really really like men. I dont hate marriage. Some day I think I might like to be married. I dont think lesbianism is the "only way" to "truly" be a feminist. Heck, Im not a lesbian. Im not generally any more "shrill, obnoxious, promiscous, loud" or "rude" than the vast majority of men I've met.

So, you opposers of feminism, what's your problem with me?

And if you tell me Im not a "true" feminist...........Id like to refer you to Scotland.

Let´s assume I am a person who is very uncomfortable with your goals and postulations, but doesn´t have any rational argument against them whatsoever. I just want that things stay as they are.
Consequently I don´t want to hear these arguments, I don´t want to see them discussed, I just want to make them go away - because everything else would mean that I either have to admit that these goals are reasonable or end up in cognitive dissonance.

What I need first is persons who also call themselves "feminist" but have very questionable goals and strategies. Goals and strategies that I have good arguments against. I will happily engage in discussions about this sort of feminism. I will also make sure to drop the term "feminism" in these discussions very often, instead of correctly saying "these goals of certain feminists". I will pretend that this brand of feminism is all there is about feminism. This shift in terminology will allow me the illusion that I have successfully argued against your goals (you are a feminist, after all, and I have just shown how feminism is wrong) and I will hope that others will fall for this, too.
It´s hard to believe, but it works. Especially people who feel like me will praise the brilliance with which I have shot down feminism altogether, and they will spread the news.
An incredibly great amount of political and social discussions is focussed on just this strategy: Discrediting position A (subset of [labelX]) by means of discrediting positionB (also subset of [label X], and then pretending you have discredited anything that anyone labels [X] altogether.
That´s the way you discredit a position even without addressing it.
Language is a powerful tool.
It is so powerful that even those who use this strategy often aren´t aware of the fallacious nature of their approach. In many cases it´s reasonable to assume that they are not intentionally disingenious - they quite obviously believe themselves.
Language shapes reality. For crying out loud.

 

[Lino]

I am a feminist too, but what bugs me is how other feminists won't "allow" me to call myself that because I have chosen to live in a marriage where our roles as man and wife is very traditional.

I like to live this way, and that's what feminism is about in my view: we all deserve the right to choose for our selves! Many feminists tell me I need to stop my way of living and live in a way that can set an example for my "sisters". And why am I not?

Feminism is about every womans right be herself. To live the life that makes her happy, and have the opportunity to choose her own path.

 

[stan1980]

Feminism has obviously been a very positive thing, but I can't help but think it is time to consign the term 'feminism' to history and replace it with a better word, as unfortunately there are a lot of misconceptions attached to it. I imagine all feminists must get fed up with explaining that they are not 'man haters' and are just interested in equal rights/treatment/oppurtunity. That's just my opinion anyway, speaking as an observer.

 

[Lino]

I agree with you there, stan.

 

[cantata]

An incredibly great amount of political and social discussions is focussed on just this strategy: Discrediting position A (subset of [labelX]) by means of discrediting positionB (also subset of [label X], and then pretending you have discredited anything that anyone labels [X] altogether.
That´s the way you discredit a position even without addressing it.

Exactly.

Sorry to quote myself, but:

Shall I quote Fred Phelps in order to tell you that you shouldn't be a Christian because Christians have horrible, hate-filled views?

"Hurricane Rita is an answer to the prayers of the suffering saints of Westboro Baptist Church."

"The Lord God Almighty killed [the people who died on 9/11], looked at them in the face, laughed and mocked at each one of them as he cast each one of them into hell."

"The President of the United States gets his jollies masturbating horses."

"Well, we wish it were 33,000 killed, but we are thankful for 33." (In reference to the VTech shootings.)
​

What if I said "Oh! That's just typical Christian hate," and proceeded to publicly and vocally regard all Christians as hate-mongering, slanderous, murderous, insensitive morons like Phelps?

Or would that be unreasonable because you don't see Fred Phelps as representing you?

This seems to be the point you're making, quatona - that to discredit the rather hideous views of a few people who take a label for themselves is not adequate as a refutation of all the views of everyone who takes that label. I don't recognise Andrea Dworkins or Mary Daly as my "feminist leaders", any more than 99.9% of Christians recognise Fred Phelps as their "Christian leader". It's therefore disingenuous (or, as you say, accidentally fallacious, but still fallacious) to refute the arguments of these women and then say "See? All feminists are crazy man-haters! Feminist is evil! Down with the feminazis!"

 

[quatona]

Btw., I think the OP is doing exactly the right thing (would there not be the thread title, that is ):
If you want your position considered/addressed/discussed, describe you position, don´t use labels instead. Don´t label yourself, don´t accept labels others want to tag on you. Insist that positions are discussed.


A label is a useful tool in communication if and only if you have made sure that all parties involved use this label in a sufficiently similar way. Or else all it will reliably help with is frustration.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I am a feminist too, but what bugs me is how other feminists won't "allow" me to call myself that because I have chosen to live in a marriage where our roles as man and wife is very traditional.

I like to live this way, and that's what feminism is about in my view: we all deserve the right to choose for our selves! Many feminists tell me I need to stop my way of living and live in a way that can set an example for my "sisters". And why am I not?

Feminism is about every womans right be herself. To live the life that makes her happy, and have the opportunity to choose her own path.

If living a traditional marriage is genuinely what you chose, a situation that you give your free, informed consent to be a part of, then good luck to you, I celebrate your happiness and wish you all the best. I sincerely hope that you extend the same good wishes to women who choose a different path.

 

[jcook922]

This is created because the anti-rape device thread is getting completely side tracked

I am a feminist
Now WHY is that a negative thing? (apparently some people think it is a bad thing)

Here's my take on feminism
Give me an equal wage to a man, if I can perform my job duties as well as a man
Promote me to a higher position if I do my job better than my peers
Allow me to vote (a rather modern notion for you who hold to so-called 'traditional' roles)
Allow me (according to law) to decide what to do with my body, up to and including euthenasia (although abortion is really a completely seperate thread for me)
Do NOT enforce a glass ceiling in the workplace
Allow me to kill people as a member of the military (if I *ever* chose that career path, which I dont see myself doing)
Do not denigrate me as a "chick" police officer (Im not, but this is just hypothetical)
Allow me, as men are permissively allowed, to have sex with who I want, and give me a "title" (if you want) that is just as empowering as "Stud", as opposed to "harlot".
Treat me as a fellow human being as opposed to someone "under you" in authority, ability, intelligence and/or wisdom.
Wow, do I need to go on?

I dont hate men, I really really like men. I dont hate marriage. Some day I think I might like to be married. I dont think lesbianism is the "only way" to "truly" be a feminist. Heck, Im not a lesbian. Im not generally any more "shrill, obnoxious, promiscous, loud" or "rude" than the vast majority of men I've met.

So, you opposers of feminism, what's your problem with me?

And if you tell me Im not a "true" feminist...........Id like to refer you to Scotland.

No problems here, all the things you want are reasonable and you seem like a rational strong-willed woman. When I think of Feminists, I think of the loud and obnoxious types that look for sexism even in situations where it isn't there, in the same way people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton look for racism when it isn't there.

 

[cantata]

No problems here, all the things you want are reasonable and you seem like a rational strong-willed woman. When I think of Feminists, I think of the loud and obnoxious types that look for sexism even in situations where it isn't there, in the same way people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton look for racism when it isn't there.

Right, but you need to distinguish between mainstream feminism and radical feminism. Most feminists are not radical feminists.

On the other hand, I do think there are instances of sexism that are simply unrecognisable as sexism to many men. I choose my battles, though.

 

[keith99]

Many good posts, too many I can't pick which to reply to.

Feminism has some difficult issues to address and it can be difficult to find the proper balance. Ignoring that on average women are not as physically strong as men is foolish. So is ignoring that there are scum that will target 'unprotected' women. I bring that up because it touches on a couple of women who I think found the balance. 30 years ago I did a lot of yuoth work with the YMCA. The part I enjoyed the most were things called caravans. Those took a covered truck, sort of a civilian version of the military troup transport trucks. Load everything including people in the back and go neat places. Because of (in my opinion inflated) concerns regarding safety there had to be a male on such trips even when it was an all girls caravan. During the time I was involved I was the only such guy who was not part of the paid staff.

With these trucks loading usually went like this. Take a back panel off, use it like a ladder for everyone to climb in then one of the bigger guys would put the panel back in place and climb over the top into the back. If there was a guy who had the strength and technique this was the fastest and easiest way to get it done. OK here is the balance. First load, which would be with all the 'spectators' went that way with me putting in the gate. But load after the first stop would be done without any involvement by me, the big strong guy, instead the director would have the girls work as a team and with some already on the truck pulling and a couple on the ground lifting they would get the panel in place. This would continue for a couple of stops, basically until they had it down cold. After that things usually went back to me, the big strong guy, doing it. This was still overall the easiest way. There lives the balance. Once established that the girls did not NEED the big strong guy to get this task done it was just fine to take advantage of the fact that I was there and happy to do it. I'm not sure I'm communicating this well. There was more than just mechanics. Both the directors who did this did it without creating the slightest resentment on my part. They did it so it seemed perfectly natural. I guess I should mention that both the women in question did NOT like having to have a guy along. Their ideal was an all girls trip. I'm sure there was some resentment on their part. That was never directed at me. I think that does relate to feminism (and many other things). Just because I share some plumbing with the guy who had authority to make a decision they did not like did not mean they projected any part of him onto me.

It is worth mentioning that the balance of the truck panel was reflected in all things in these trips. My physical strength and other abilities were used when advantageous, but not to the degree that I ever became a crutch. A little side note. I was picked by these two directors, in large part because I had worked with them before and understood very well that they were the ones in charge. I wasn't going to go overly protective male on them. But I was perfectly acceptable to this boss who wanted just that! Why? Because I provided averythign he wanted in 'protection'. Most was just being there, but if needed I could turn macho protector, but not until the director, the one in charge, said to.

 

[stan1980]

Btw., I think the OP is doing exactly the right thing (would there not be the thread title, that is ):
If you want your position considered/addressed/discussed, describe you position, don´t use labels instead. Don´t label yourself, don´t accept labels others want to tag on you. Insist that positions are discussed.


A label is a useful tool in communication if and only if you have made sure that all parties involved use this label in a sufficiently similar way. Or else all it will reliably help with is frustration.

Yes, good point. I find it very frustrating that there is a tendency, at least in my country and in the US, for a large number of people to label themselves after which political party they support while seemingly placing less value on actual policies. What is worse, is that politicians seem to recognise this now, so seem to be spending more and more time working on spin and image than they do getting their policies across in a clear and transparent manner.

You wouldn't catch me dead labelling myself after a political party (unless it was my party and I'd personally written the policies) as most, if not all, parties come with unwanted baggage that I wouldn't want to associate myself with.

For similar reasons, I would avoid labelling myself a feminist due to the unwanted misconceptions it might bring across, I'd much prefer to just simply say I believe in equal rights and fair treatment. That takes nothing away from the role that feminism has played in society, I'd just rather not label myself one unless I had the time and energy to explain myself to Joe Public every time I used the word, which I don't. The fact the word isn't gender neutral isn't very helpful either.

 

[platzapS]

I am a feminist, and I don't think I could have much respect for anyone today who isn't.

 

[jcook922]

I am a feminist, and I don't think I could have much respect for anyone today who isn't.

See the above post about how labeling yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. You don't need to be a feminist to believe in equality and fair treatment.

 

[cantata]

See the above post about how labeling yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. You don't need to be a feminist to believe in equality and fair treatment.

But see, that's the thing - 99% of people who identify as feminists define feminism as believing in sexual equality and fair treatment.

It's not fair that a radical minority should have hijacked the term, and it's even less fair to be told not to call oneself a when that's what one is, just because some people are incapable of recognising the fact that a few women who were vocal in the 70s do not represent the views of most contemporary feminists.

Just saying "I'm for equality and fair treatment" is not always enough. Sometimes, and especially for men, saying "I'm a feminist" is a kick up the backside. It reminds people that a wishy-washy nod towards equality is not good enough, and that feminism as a movement is still in action and is still needed.

And if I may say so, men who identify as feminists are ideally placed to demonstrate that feminism is not about man-hating, political lesbianism, or the destruction of the family. So hurrah for you, self-identified male feminists!

 

[LittleNipper]

This is created because the anti-rape device thread is getting completely side tracked

I am a feminist
Now WHY is that a negative thing? (apparently some people think it is a bad thing)

Here's my take on feminism
Give me an equal wage to a man, if I can perform my job duties as well as a man
Promote me to a higher position if I do my job better than my peers
Allow me to vote (a rather modern notion for you who hold to so-called 'traditional' roles)
Allow me (according to law) to decide what to do with my body, up to and including euthenasia (although abortion is really a completely seperate thread for me)
Do NOT enforce a glass ceiling in the workplace
Allow me to kill people as a member of the military (if I *ever* chose that career path, which I dont see myself doing)
Do not denigrate me as a "chick" police officer (Im not, but this is just hypothetical)
Allow me, as men are permissively allowed, to have sex with who I want, and give me a "title" (if you want) that is just as empowering as "Stud", as opposed to "harlot".
Treat me as a fellow human being as opposed to someone "under you" in authority, ability, intelligence and/or wisdom.
Wow, do I need to go on?

I dont hate men, I really really like men. I dont hate marriage. Some day I think I might like to be married. I dont think lesbianism is the "only way" to "truly" be a feminist. Heck, Im not a lesbian. Im not generally any more "shrill, obnoxious, promiscous, loud" or "rude" than the vast majority of men I've met.

So, you opposers of feminism, what's your problem with me?

And if you tell me Im not a "true" feminist...........Id like to refer you to Scotland.

I'm a gallant male. I feel a married woman's place is beside her husband. She watches his back and is his general in charge of the running of the home & family. I see the man's job as outward and overt. I see the woman's job as inward and covert. The woman is essentially the brains of the family (if she is clever), while the husband is the brawn (if he is smart). The woman maybe able to raise a family and have a career, but her family comes FIRST. The husband may have his recreation, but his family must come first --- wife then kids.

Women who wait and wait to become mothers (30's 40's), only find that. One, all the good guys are married, (and if she takes another's man, if he is that stupid, what makes one think she wont loose him too or wish to keep him?) and two, babies are not that easy to beget as they might have imagined. So they find themselves in the fertility doctor's office month after month ---- as their "clock" ticks and the perfect plan they thought would come so easy, begins to crumble down around them...

 

[cantata]

What about women who don't want to have babies, LN? Is there a place for them in your grand scheme?

Wouldn't it be better to let men and women do what they want to do according to their individual desires and merits, rather than telling them they must do this or that because of what they have between their legs? It's just a thought.

 

[B'alaam]

Feminism has obviously been a very positive thing, but I can't help but think it is time to consign the term 'feminism' to history and replace it with a better word

Yeah, I agree, but what word?
And how long before *that* term picks up negative connotations?