Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ] 

MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

16 Apr 2010, 2:59 am

And why does it constantly get a bad rap? Mind you I believe men should have the same rights as women and I'm all against women who go to the extreme in espousing hatred toward men. But why is feminism in general seen as a bad concept, it almost gets the same comparison to racism.

I had a talk with a guy about feminism. He's against feminism and claims that it's caused a good deal of misandry. The more I asked the more defensive he'd get by using the reference you women.

Here's one argument he made: "Almost all of these feminists transformations of history to exaggerate the living conditions of women have been debunked.
My fav is the "rule of thumb". Feminists claim that in 1600's england men could beat their wives legally with a rod no thicker than their thumb. "Keep spinning your silly fairy tales. Maybe some-day you will find somebody willing to listen." I couldn't find references regarding this myth and I didn't get a reply after asking where he got this "fact". I'm still looking up of most of the things him and his comrades dismissed historically.

So my question is this, what is feminism?

Why is it commonly seen in the same light as racism or sexism?

And is feminism a thing of the past?

What in your opinion defines feminism?


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


ValMikeSmith
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 977
Location: Stranger in a strange land

16 Apr 2010, 4:02 am

It seems like a vague concept understood differently
by different people.

I would assume that feminism emerged from the World
War times, when millions of men and boys went to Europe
from the USA (don't know about elsewhere) and the ladies
worked in mens jobs, and also jobs from emerging
technology such as telephone operator voices and
television/cinema acting, and when the guys came home
they didn't want to have to go home, because they proved
that they could be breadwinners.

I would assume that this upset the traditional role of men
and made them feel less like men (traditionally), or that
women were no longer dependent on men and therefore
men feel like they lost something when women became
more like them and more independent.

I will just mention this but I have never thought about it
this way until now, nor do I feel it now, but maybe
the reason those of us who have aspie parents had parents
that needed each other more, and maybe some men
feel more unwanted and unneeded than in the past.

Now on a different point of view, I have heard so called
feminist slogans such as "all men are rapists" which I
am innocent of, and I find it to be a frightening thing to
hear women say while having a lot of memory of the
opposite sex being mostly mean to myself, and I am
not thinking of rejection of dates, but of the majority
of my classmates in school; and of the remainder, zero
members of the opposite sex were my friends then.

I wrote these things in a neutral mood, recalling past
things that are no longer relevant to me and how I feel
about women in general. I don't know if others agree
or disagree with what I wrote, but I will submit to the
fact that I am otherwise totally ignorant of this topic,
and anyone else is more qualified than myself to
comment, so let their opinions have priority over
this post of mine.



LostAlien
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,577

16 Apr 2010, 5:59 am

To my knowledge it started with the sufferagette movement. I would guess feminism got a bad rep for a few possible reasons.

One possible reason is that it went further than people were comfortable with.

Another possible reason is that some men were raised to believe that women shouldn't/couldn't do certian things and were lesser in some way because of it.

There are other possible reasons but I can't think of them at the moment.

Though, the way a person is raised is sometimes hard for them to learn to question in part because they probably have to question themselves somewhat. If someone is raised in a house where certian things are considered to be right and true, it is hard the person to change the belief.

About the 1600's in England, men were permitted to beat their wives. There was also a device that was to punish a woman for nagging, it was leather strapped around the head with a metal peice secured in the mouth, holding the toungue down. It wasn't used regularly (as far as I know) but such a device is awful anyways.

I think the guys you were talking to don't want to believe that women ever had it that bad because it would make them feel bad. Feminism seems to be used as an insult by some men these days because they don't seem to understand that women didn't always have rights. It was something hard fought for and sometimes it can make people uncomfortable.

Did you ask him how he felt about women being equal? It's lightly he would have said something more positive about that but has been possibly misinformed about feminism.



Celoneth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 526

16 Apr 2010, 7:32 am

I believe most feminists want equality for men and women - I think the idea that all feminists want more rights for women then for men is usually used by anti-feminist people to discredit feminists as a whole - I very rarely come across opinions from actual feminists who want men to have less rights than women. I think, like with the term "liberal," there has been a concerted and organised movement to discredit the word "feminism" and make it into a bad word of sorts. The patriarchy has been the status quo for thousands of years, mostly because labour and power used to be determined by physical strength so that men had a physical advantage (also weren't constantly being crippled by pregnancy). Now we are in an era where one's intellect matters more, so that women can succeed at the same level as men, and it threatens those that benefit from it so they fight against it. Now that it is a political liability to say that women are inferior, they use arguments like "feminists are all man-hating harpies" and so on.

In the past women had mostly slave-like status. In the United States, women didn't get property rights until the mid 19th Century, marital rape was still legal in many states as far as 20-30 years ago. Now it's still a problem - you beat up a random stranger, you get charged with assault, go to jail, you beat up your partner - you get a slap on the wrist in a lot of cases. There's still a lot of misogyny - both from religious conservatism which has patriarchy as a built-in concept, and from run of the mill sexists who believe women exist to give men sex and take care of them. Though it has gotten a lot better both legally and in terms of society denouncing the most overt forms of sexism.



Sholf
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 141

16 Apr 2010, 8:58 am

The modern history of feminism is actually quite old, as old as the modern age itself. In the 1700s, in Europe, you had Mary Wollstonecraft writing a pamplet on the need for women's rights. In the U.S., the first big feminist movement started a few decades before the Civil War, and many of these women also fought in the Abolitionist and temperance movements. When Sojurner Truth gave her "Ain't I a Woman?" speech, she was talking to an audience that already knew about the fights for women's and African American's rights, though maybe they didn't think too hard about the plight of minority women. In the early 1900s, pre-world wars, Emma Goldman was arrested for distributing information on birth control.

In the 70s, there was a lot of rotten scholarship on things like supposed matriarchal religions of prehistoric times, and a backlash against that is perfectly appropriate. However, it is very unfair to throw out the baby with the bathwater and declare all feminism rotten. Women are still not accorded the same respect that men are and "women's work" is still frequently lower paid or even unpaid.



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

16 Apr 2010, 9:02 am

MissConstrue wrote:
Here's one argument he made: "Almost all of these feminists transformations of history to exaggerate the living conditions of women have been debunked.
My fav is the "rule of thumb". Feminists claim that in 1600's england men could beat their wives legally with a rod no thicker than their thumb. "Keep spinning your silly fairy tales. Maybe some-day you will find somebody willing to listen." I couldn't find references regarding this myth and I didn't get a reply after asking where he got this "fact". I'm still looking up of most of the things him and his comrades dismissed historically.



Quote:
Christina Hoff Sommers explains the whole confused business in her 1994 book Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women. For more than 300 years "rule of thumb" has meant what most people think it means: any rough-and-ready method of estimating. It's believed to have originated with woodworkers, who made measurements with their thumbs. For more than 20 years, however, some feminists have maintained that rule of thumb has the darker meaning alluded to above. They say that the principle of regulated wife beating was elucidated in the famous legal commentaries of William Blackstone (1723-'80), the basis of much U.S. common law, and that it prevailed in state courts well into the 19th century.

However, in Blackstone, as Sommers notes, there's no mention of the rule of thumb. We do find the following discussion: "The husband also, by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction . . . in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children. . . . But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second [1660-'85], this power of correction began to be doubted; and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband." In other words, once upon a time in olde England, a man could beat his wife. But don't try it now.

Wife beating has never been legal in the U.S. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited it in 1655, religious groups campaigned against it, and vigilantes occasionally horsewhipped men accused of it. Most states had explicitly outlawed it by 1870.

The old permissive approach wasn't entirely forgotten, however. It was cited in two court rulings, one in Mississippi in 1824, the other in North Carolina in 1874. Both judges referred to an "ancient law" by which a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick provided it was no wider than his thumb. Where the judges came up with the thumb angle I don't know; as I say, it is not found in Blackstone. At any rate, both judges rejected the principle--each found the husband guilty in the wife-beating case he was adjudicating. And neither referred to the old law as the rule of thumb.

The two rulings were mentioned in an article by sociologist Robert Calvert that was published in a 1974 anthology Violence in the Family (Steinmetz and Straus, editors). In 1976, possibly having seen the article, Del Martin, coordinator of the NOW Task Force on Battered Women, wrote, "Our law, based upon the old English common-law doctrines, explicitly permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes. However . . . the common-law doctrine had been modified to allow the husband 'the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb'--a rule of thumb, so to speak."

"Our law" did not permit wife beating, but set that aside. Martin clearly was using "rule of thumb" as figure of speech--she didn't claim it actually referred to legalized wife beating. As Sommers shows, however, this detail eluded subsequent retellers of the tale, the most egregious example being the title of a 1982 report on wife abuse by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, "Under the Rule of Thumb." This dark interpretation is now an entrenched popular belief. So let's clarify once and for all: (1) English judges apparently took a more permissive attitude toward wife beating prior to 1660, but this attitude had been rejected by the time of Blackstone's commentaries, upon which our modern common law relies. (2) Wife beating has never been legal in the U.S. (3) A couple of 19th-century U.S. trial opinions referred to an "ancient law" permitting a husband to beat his wife with a stick not exceeding a thumb's width but rejected said law. (4) While this alleged rule involved a thumb, it was not the origin of "rule of thumb." A complicated story, but one hopes we've gotten it straight at last.

— Cecil Adams

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... fe-beating



Woodpecker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,625
Location: Europe

16 Apr 2010, 10:21 am

I was once told by an industrial psychologist that the two original goals were.

1. Equal rights in the workplace (I guess that this extends into the home)

2. Freedom from sexual predation


_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity :alien: I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !

Diagnosed under the DSM5 rules with autism spectrum disorder, under DSM4 psychologist said would have been AS (299.80) but I suspect that I am somewhere between 299.80 and 299.00 (Autism) under DSM4.


sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

16 Apr 2010, 7:57 pm

Woodpecker wrote:
I was once told by an industrial psychologist that the two original goals were.

1. Equal rights in the workplace (I guess that this extends into the home)

2. Freedom from sexual predation


that was my recollection of the reason I was attracted to what I think of as feminism. :D

I can understand where people that disagree that a woman's place should not be as equal as theirs are; and whose opinion of what denoted sexual predation differed from those being accosted by it would bleat their discomfort and even rage when they think they have found the focus of all the mistakes they have made in their lives and a feeling that if they shout you down they will somehow regain all they have lost in their lives. . . :chin:

I just wanted to say that I was attracted to and called myself a feminist because I was living as a woman in the seventies, eighties and nineties supporting myself and blissfully unaware I was AS and I just wanted the men that didn't like where I drew the line to leave me alone. Now days those women that stood up have raised their children and are usually taught that 'no means no'. Simple and basic, taught to a generation of now adults and are benefiting from what those women that simply wanted to be paid and treated as equals in the work place (in the home is still an ongoing experiment :roll: ) and not having some guy pawing her all the time.

Of course, now I intellectually understand the dynamics of Feminism outside my personal experience, and probably understand the rhetoric behind the arguments, but I know it is a hot button for many.

Merle


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon


JessicaDayla
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 366

17 Apr 2010, 2:01 pm

Until there is true impartiality between the sexes, there will always be need for feminism. Gender based discrimination, or more easily to pick out in today's society, favour to the male existence, male privilege, etc, is everywhere, and rather easy to pick out. Ever had someone listen to you just because they want your body rather than your words? How about people listening less attentively to your speech than the guy who spoke on the exact same topic after you? Picture a person making a presentation, who do you envision, most people will either envision themselves, or an idealized male leader, and more leaning to the idealized male leader. I'm guilty of that myself. Think about your family, Which parent manages the household's finances? In most cases, its the father, or a mix of the two, rarely the mother. That comes from the idea of men being better with money.

Feminism seeks not just equality between the sexes, but impartiality between them too. A male applicant being equally considered to a female applicant for a job, a female giving a speech regarded as highly as a male giving the same speech, children not being told not to do something because "little girls don't do that" or "little boys don't do that." While the focus is on women's issues, there are still men's issues that need to be resolved, and within the core beliefs of feminism, those issues are addressed as well, under the goal of impartiality. Men need to stop being held to a higher standard then women, and women should be viewed with an equal standard to men. The standard men are held to makes being gay unacceptable, but being lesbian acceptable, and even attractive in some situations. Boys not being allowed to play with dolls, and being told to play with an action figure instead, which might as well be a doll. The standards people in society hold themselves to are just completely backwards, and feminism seeks to fix this on the issue of gender equality, but there is still a very long way left to go. Feminism isn't against men, its against the ideals surrounding gender in society, it just so happens that in a lot of ways, men have the advantage, and in ways they don't (such as lesbians being more accepted than gays), its because men enjoy or even fetishize those advantages. You can't tell me that a straight man who accepts lesbians, but hates gays, does so because he accepts people for who they are, there is some other motive behind that, and that motive is typically sex. A male friend once told me that part of the appeal of lesbian love scenes (the more explicit type) to men, is because most of the men dream of being invited to join them, and get the attention of two women instead of one. You can't honestly tell me that that is acceptance, it sounds more like a sexual fantasy than acceptance.



CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,152
Location: Stalag 13

18 Apr 2010, 9:08 am

Equal rights for men and women.


_________________
Who wants to adopt a Sweet Pea?


JessicaDayla
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 366

18 Apr 2010, 9:14 am

CockneyRebel wrote:
Equal rights for men and women.


Even if there were equal rights, there would still be gender discrimination, just not on an institutional level. Men would still be the preferred person to her a sales pitch from, a lecture by, etc. Men would get rated higher on average still. It doesn't end with equal rights, impartiality is what is needed. Impartiality means that the differences that are there don't matter to anyone, and a level of respect globally exists for those differences, but at the same time, both groups treated totally equal and respected as equal, even on the subconscious level. We have a very long way to go before this happens.



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

18 Apr 2010, 10:54 am

JessicaDayla wrote:
CockneyRebel wrote:
Equal rights for men and women.


Even if there were equal rights, there would still be gender discrimination, just not on an institutional level. Men would still be the preferred person to her a sales pitch from, a lecture by, etc. Men would get rated higher on average still. It doesn't end with equal rights, impartiality is what is needed. Impartiality means that the differences that are there don't matter to anyone, and a level of respect globally exists for those differences, but at the same time, both groups treated totally equal and respected as equal, even on the subconscious level. We have a very long way to go before this happens.


This doesn't even happen when the genders are NOT involved, by the way. It is a long road.



JessicaDayla
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 366

18 Apr 2010, 11:12 am

sinsboldly wrote:
JessicaDayla wrote:
CockneyRebel wrote:
Equal rights for men and women.


Even if there were equal rights, there would still be gender discrimination, just not on an institutional level. Men would still be the preferred person to her a sales pitch from, a lecture by, etc. Men would get rated higher on average still. It doesn't end with equal rights, impartiality is what is needed. Impartiality means that the differences that are there don't matter to anyone, and a level of respect globally exists for those differences, but at the same time, both groups treated totally equal and respected as equal, even on the subconscious level. We have a very long way to go before this happens.


This doesn't even happen when the genders are NOT involved, by the way. It is a long road.


I completely agree with this, although, maybe I didn't describe what I mean right...

Impartiality being a recognizing of the differences, and accepting them, while at the same time, respecting them and treating them as equal respect in all areas. This doesn't mean having one set of showers at the local gym/Y/etc. It's more like, "I am different from you, yet the same, the differences do not make me inferior, just different, but the sameness requires our equal treatment. I should receive an equal respect as you, in all area of my life, and likewise you, me, yours. I have this difference that creates this need, that need should be equally respected of this need of your that arises from your differences from me," etc. A respect in regards to equality, rather than true equality, which would force the two to be viewed as one.