Why do feminist have such a bad rep?

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, I know. I'd love to. I was hoping to actually discuss this topic and talk about the facts of it because I wonder the same thing, but it seems everytime I open my mouth to say how I really feel it goes off into a flame war

Because most jobs are not jobs structured for people but for men. I have no idea why you think that is equality.

Males are not a default human standard. Females are as much people as anyone else; if there were equality, jobs would be made for people not for males. Why do people fantasize that allowing females to mimic men for a shot at being less inferior, has something to do with real equality?

Society actually needs women to have babies. It is not equality to financially penalize females as a group or as individuals because they oblige society by performing the very necessary social service of bearing human offspring. An equal society would not penalize females for doing what needs to be done and currently cannot be done by anyone but females.


This is an unrealistic criticism. The alternative is quite simply that females would still not be voting. Of course it is absolutely not ideal that females have been persistently excluded from the benefits of so called equalist movements. To blame feminism for this is absurd.

It is because male centric society excluded women (even when their efforts were instrumental) from any equalizing of social and civil goods and benefits that advocacy, representation and female focused efforts became necessary. It is bizarre to the point of delusion to blame the solution for the nature of the problem.

It is less than ideal that groups must barter and battle individually but that is not the fault of feminism. Feminism is not responsible for the fact that without “special representation”, large chunks of society are deliberately excluded from so called equality. There would not have been a movement from the point of view of females, if movements supposedly from the point of view of “people” did not traditionally exclude people who are also females.

Or, stated more succinctly

If a job is artificially structured solely for the benefit of men, then the structure of said job should change to be inclusive for women. There are some jobs that are better suited to male and females alike however. For example, men have better visual-spatial abilities and women have better multi-tasking abilities.

This does not mean a woman can not have adequate or better visual-spatial abilities than a man, but it does mean that when you look at the "population" as a whole for a job that requires visual-spatial abilities of a certain level, that the numbers will be skewed towards males. I'm not suggesting that men should automatically be picked for said job, i believe it should be decided on an individual level.

Most feminists would highlight such a population and claim bias against females. However in populations that are mostly female, (for example nurses), feminists will not claim any bias and will not even campaign for equality.

I'm not 100% sure if i have mentioned this already or not, but most armies that allow female participation have lower entrance requirements for females. Feminists never claim this is unfair towards men, most would claim it's making the playing-field more even. Moderate feminists would claim that women should not be sent to war (only men) and extreme feminists would claim there would never be any war if women were in control.


You are making the wrong conlcusions, You are incorrectly attributing qualities and beliefs to me.


Yes, yes it does. That doesn't change the fact that for a seasonal job (fishing for example) that a man would be more valuable. Society also needs food.


Expecting people to ask themselves "Would this also be fair on men" before they try and change something for the betterment of females is unrealistic? You are only highlighting why people are so negative towards feminism. I never claimed women should not have equal chances, i just said that if you look at everything with a skewed veiw (like feminists do) then ultimately men will not have equal chances.


I never claimed women should not vote. It's understandable why early feminism was extreme considering the circumstances. Said circumstances do not exist anymore. Women have the vote, women outnumber men in most countries. Women have the power to really change things if they so wish. Most women are for equal rights, however most women also happen to look at issues from a male perspective as well because they are fair.


You are confusing "solutions" with "thought patterns". For example, one solution at getting women equality was to give women the vote. There is nothing wrong with this solution.

However thought patterns can have the best intentions, but bring poor solutions. For example, one could suggest that votes are normalised so that men and women have exactly a 50% influence in elections. This would lead to individuals having less voting power than others.


This doesn't change the fact that feminism is a fault philosophy. I also happen to appreciate many of the things feminism has brought the world. Because i am not confusing solutions with thought patterns.


It's perfectly possible to fight for certain rights, while thinking about things from a male perspective to make sure they are also getting equal rights.

This isn't about rights anymore, its about people being who they desire to be. To quote a song, "Freedom is man's invention, and a soldier is just the same"

What does artificially structured mean? All human structures are artifacts. Any job that is not structured around the reality that in any naturally forming human population, the majority of people are physiologically structured to give birth, has been artificially structured for the benefit of non–female persons, otherwise known as men.

More to the point, given that no job will be changed to accommodate women without feminist activities and approaches, how you can you claim such change should happen while criticizing the existence of the only mechanism by which it will happen? The equality fairy does not exist.


No, men have better visual/spatial skills on average than women. As for multi tasking this supposed superiority of females is-probably socially constructed. Research demonstrates the perception of difference in this area is caused by requiring females to multi task more. It’s simply an instance of practice resulting in improvement.


What has this got to do with giving birth –and how a group being penalized for being exclusively responsible for this social service is equality?

This is actually untrue. On the contrary many feminists would prefer more males in such fields not least because fields where males are rare are grossly underpaid.

How would it be equal to set a male centric standard that is biased against females?

As a feminist your descriptions about feminists do not describe me or many other feminists I have met. Has it occurred to you that just as it would be grossly distorting and utterly unfair to characterize every male as a wife beater because some are, that your characterizations of feminists are according to the lowest denominators you could find?

No I am not. Firstly I am commenting on a social/cultural perception . If you chose to personalize it by assuming it meant you specifically and individually, that’s your assumption.

However, I would suggest that the comment of yours I initially quoted does not appear plausible-unless you do hold the view I described.

Plenty of men would be very inappropriate for this job and plenty of women can and do-do this job well. Given that it is rare for females to provide less than half the calories consumed in most human societies, how is your comment about food not grossly insulting?


Strawman.
And an unrealistic and insulting one at that.

Throughout history females have been excluded from equality, by, to be blunt males.

As a feminist I always ask if something is fair to people. Without feminism, no one would be asking if things were fair for women. This is an historically proven fact. Without feminism we would have no rights just as we had before feminism. Feminist philosophy does not dictate that a person not have concern for their fathers, brothers ,sons, husbands, etc. But history tells us without feminism, these people will not advance the rights of females and have systematically excluded females from equality. Spin it how you like, the truth is written in history.


Everyone looks at everything with a skewed view. Without feminist representation and action the only skewed views represented would be males'.

As a person my view is skewed by my experience just like any other person. As a female my experience is as a female. None of which requires that I disregard males or their views. Necessarily I’ll be less adept at taking into account views arising from experiences I have not had. This is not a feminist thing, it’s a human thing.

The fact still remains that feminists fought to be able to vote, not to prevent men from voting. What did men fight for? Their own right to vote to the specific exclusion of women. Either women represent their right to equality or they do not get equality and no amount of spin changes history.


Feminism is why females can vote.
So in your view Iranian women enjoy equality in their society?


Including most feminists, whether or not this sits with your apparently caricature like stereotype of them.

And this required the solution of feminism to the problem that women were never going to get the vote if they did not fight for it.

And without feminism, how would this have occurred?

The feminist philosophy is that females should be equal to males. Please explain the fault with this?
It seems to me you are differentiating the positive effects of feminism as separate from feminism, and any negative associations are being construed by you as being feminism itself rather than excesses band wagon jumping or mundane human failings that tend to characterize any human activity.


Why do you assume feminists necessarily must not do this?

To reiterate so called equalist movements forcibly excluded females, feminism asks for fair and equal inclusion. None of this requires that males be overlooked or ignored.

Feminism was never formed to exclude males but all other equality movements have under male domination specifically excluded females from equality. Your comments make no sense as all so called equality movements other than feminism have excluded females from benefiting. Feminism has never called for males to be excluded from equality or its benefits.

In the context of where the term was used, it relates to any job that is set up in a structure that is based to be advantageous to a group, instead of being based on productivity.


Feminism by it's base definition only looks at things from a female perspective. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that someone can look at issues from both a male and female perspective and make the necessary changes. Such mechanisms are not called feminism.


It was an example, by it's nature the details do not need to be 100% correct, it only needs to represent the idea i was conveying, which apparently you completely missed.


It was wrote in response to you claiming that jobs are structured for the sole benefit of men. I have no idea how you managed to attribute it to birth. Having a job based on reality and your actual circumstances isn't the same as being penalised either.


I never said their should be a male centric standard, yet again you've managed to turn something into something it is not, because you are only looking at the situation from one perspective. The standard should be set to achieve the best functioning/productivity for the job required. Artificially lowering the bar for people because they lack a penis is extremely sexist and offensive.


Has it occured to you, that you are mislabelling yourself?


Being male is not the same as being part of a group with philisophical beliefs, the comparison you made is not comparing like to like, so it doesn't really make sense.


You're comment was in direct response to a comment i made, the question was not rheutorical and because it was directed at me, you were clearly expecting me to answer it (the assumption being i know the answer because i presumably hold said belief).


Plenty of men would be inappropriate, but why do you mention this? I never said it was exclusively a male job. I was implying that in a business when you need your workforce 100% of the time, having someone who might need to take 2 months of is a detriment. I never implied women should not be able to have this as a job, i merely implied that a man has higher value in this context. Just as there are plenty of jobs where a woman would have a higher base value than a man. I'm certainly not offended knowing that a women has higher value than me in general in select jobs, it would be sexist to have such a veiw.


A "strawman" is to take someones idea, present another similar idea, and then comment on that. I did not do this, i commented on exactly what you have wrote. Perhaps you have misrepresented your idea's, but i'm not a mindreader.


Incorrect.


I never said being a female automatically equates to negating a male perspective. Being female does not make one a feminist either. Being a feminist does equate into ignoring a male perspective however.


You honestly believe that women would have got the vote is there was no male support? Women representing their right to equality does not directly equate to feminism.


And? i covered that in my last post?


Iranian women have the vote. They have self-determination to change the circumstances they are in. They just re-elected a religious hardliner. There's areas of the world where women are in charge as well. I've never seen a single feminist say ANYTHING about that unless prompted.


Feminism does not include looking at the male perspective. Someone who looks at both perspectives could be called an egalitarianist. Someone who agrees with feminist goals but looks at both perspectives can be called a post-feminist. (Post means "after" by the way). If you are attributing yourself to the wrong group, then it's really not my problem. I stand by everything i've said, the question was asked "Why people veiw feminism negatively" and i am giving comprehensive reasons.


People didn't have to be feminists to fight for it. Plus the "danger" of feminism wasn't a real one back in those days either.


You are misunderstanding what the term "feminism" means and what it stands for, but either way, i will explain it yet again. If you only look at half a picture, you cannot percieve a difference between the center and the opposite side.


Because thats what the word "feminism" describes


feminism asks for fair and equal inclusion for females


But the philosophy doesn't include males in the thinking either.


I never claimed feminism wishes to purposely exclude males from equality, but from a philosophical point of veiw, that is the direction is will always push.

Now unless you are going to reply with something constructive, like perhaps something related to the threads original question, don't bother replying. I'm explaining why people have a negative veiw of feminism and feminists, you don't need to agree with the veiws, but the veiws are representative of why people have a negative veiw, which is what the thread asked for. If you don't like the reasons why, then tough. I don't technically care wether you are mislabelling yourself (which you appear to be) or if you are just being misrepresented by people who claim to be feminists. The post asked for reasons why, and i have given them. I would suggest in the future that if people cannot deal with the answer to their questions, then perhaps they should not be asking questions?

OKAY!! !....................... This is really hard to read, so can we quote things in a way that make it easier for those of us with reading disorders to be able to follow what's going on. Try, for example, quoting larger sections, and making posts wmaller on the screen.

The fact remains that female reproduction is an absolute necessity and society penalizes us financially for obliging. That’s not equality.

The system was set up to the advantage of a particular group, right down to such as fine details as the definition of “productivity”.

There is no production without reproduction. Producing children is as productive as you can get. A society that was equal would not penalize females for achieving this necessary and productive task. Equality needs to measurable at macro as well as micro level.

No it does not. Feminism at it’s base is the pursuit of gender equality.

You might think it is reasonable. If you expect it to happen without specific representation then you are naïve. It’s an answered question already. The only reason feminism exists is because as a matter of repeatedly proven fact, if the female point of view is not represented and advocated through dedicated efforts, it is excluded. Otherwise feminism would never have existed in the first place.

I am confused as to which aspect of this you do not understand. It seems as though you actually think that groups generally have their rights and needs recognized without dedicated advocacy. If so, then I must respectfully suggest that this is utterly unrealistic and completely divorced from political and social reality.


I am already aware there are different sex linked clusterings in regards to particular traits. I found your comments irrelevant though. It seems a deliberate attempt to avoid the obvious inequality of a society that penalizes the only group capable of carrying out necessary tasks, for carrying out those tasks.


The actual reality is that the economy developed and is therefore structured consistently with female exclusion. You were the one who claimed females were less valuable to jobs because they will take time off for having babies. A society that equally valued females would be structured to ensure no inequality was systematically imposed on the basis of carrying out the physiologically feminine aspects of human reproduction.

I never suggested you did say so; in fact I largely suspected you had overlooked the seemingly obvious outcome of these systems having been formed for and by men,at a time when female exclusion and male dominance were seen as fit and right.
I disagree. On the contrary I suspect you are overlooking some truths. If a system were designed and developed around both male and female rights and needs at societal level, would it ignore the necessity and physical realities of child birth or put the cost onto females? In a system that is truly equal, would females be devalued financially for reproducing humans?

Why do you think a system never intended for female inclusion would be anything but male centric, so that merely saying women are allowed would result in equality? How does assuming females must slot into what is most certainly a male developed, male adapted, male centric system, and change to suit this male centric way of doing things, is equality while suggesting this system should equally serve female people is asking for inequality?

This is why I suggest there is an assumption throughout society that real humans are males and females are a special case. The system always recognized and was shaped for the needs of males, and this is seen as unbiased and ‘normal’; the default gender is male. Any accommodation of females within the male centric model is generally viewed as some attempt to achieve special conditions that favour women.

And if this results in systematic inequality on the basis of sex you’re ok with that?

Setting the bar without regard or respect for,-and in effect devaluing and financially penalizing people because they are the only ones capable of incubating human offpring is offensive, unequal and really rather absurd if you think about-it objectively.

No. Where did you get your definition? I am a feminist and I have stated clearly that your definition does not apply to me. I have studied feminism at university and your definition is not consistent with any definition presented to me there. I know many people who identify themselves as feminists and your definition quite simply does not fit them either. I have never encountered anyone who defines feminism as you do who actually is a feminist. The only people I know personally who define feminism as you do, are those using this definition to justify baseless and often ignorant criticisms.


Actually feminists are not some kind of monolith and have many philosophies. The only one consistent feminist philosophy I know is that there should be gender/sex equality.

So not only do you as a non feminist get to determine what feminism means, you now also determine my intent, and what I think I meant is irrelevant in the face of your superior knowledge about the content of my brain?


If it makes you happy and you think it proves feminism is very nasty, then go ahead and believe I was using “people” to mean you specifically as an individual, and tell yourself a question so phrased is usually not rhetorical. Whatever.

For completeness.
I am saying that the realities of female reproduction need to not result in females being penalized for being female, for society to have any basis by which to claim that there is gender equality. As a matter of fact women routinely miss out on opportunities, because of concerns that as a female, they might get pregnant. Society needs people to be pregnant, and in penalizing the life opportunities of people who oblige and even those who cannot, just because it is perceived they might, society is not treating females equally. No amount of justification of productivity at the micro level will suddenly cause inequality at the macro level to not be unequal.


I never stated or implied that expecting people to ask themselves "Would this also be fair on men" before they try and change something for the betterment of females was unrealistic. Such a comment is not in any way shape or form based on what I said, or what I argued and so attacking such a position as though it were mine is obviously attacking a strawman.


Incorrect.[/quote]
Evidence?

I never said that you said that I said that.

Evidence?


Firstly feminism is (whatever you as a non feminist mistakenly believe) the pursuit of gender equality.
The fact remains without feminism the majority of people believed women absolutely should not vote. It’s a political and social reality that the needs rights and inclusion of groups does not happen without dedicated efforts. I do not view masculinist groups and philosophy as necessarily over looking or excluding non men. I do perceive that their position is often one of insight into the realities of being male that might be more informed about this experience than my own insight.


No.You did not.

It is a simple question. You referred to certain traits that characterize Iran in the context of asking why feminism is necessary. I do not view the situation in Iran as one of gender/sex equality. So in your-view is Iran an example of a society characterized by gender equality? Is that what gender equality looks like to you?


Where?


Yes it does. I can see why you are determined to ignore this fact though. Criticizing what feminism really is (the pursuit of gender equality) is not nearly so easy as striking at this handy strawman.

No kidding, feminism is actually an egalitarian movement/philosophy.

Can be…..and can also be called a feminist too.


Do you have some criticism of feminism that does not require you to redefine feminism as something other than the pursuit of gender equality?

Er, actually contemporaneously anyone advocating women should have the vote would be deemed to be supporting a feminist position and no one would have even considered it without feminist efforts.


No I am not. You are.
And I will explain it to you yet again.
Feminism is the pursuit of gender equality. This does not require that one ignores the view of either gender. On the contrary it actually requires a mindful attempt to address the views interests needs rights and well being of both genders.
For the record feminism is at its base, very simply an egalitarian movement that focuses on gender inclusion and equality rather than excluding it.


Wrong.

For-people-including-females.

The philosophy is that there should be gender/sex equality rather than inequality. Spin and twist it as you will, this necessarily implies that males must be as fairly and equally included.

Or rather if something goes in that direction you will define it as feminist. If it does not then you will define it as egalitarian and/or post feminist and tell those achieving it that they are mistaken if they themselves think they are feminists.

I do not post or not post at your command.

You are putting your opinion in the public arena in a discussion venue. If you did not want others to comment on your opinion, this may not have been the smartest thing to do.

I find it bemusing and interesting that you believe your definition of a group do not claim to belong to is somehow the true right definition to rule them all. I note that it is not consistent with those I know to identify themselves as feminists, not consistent with early feminist writings, themes, the early movement, the modern definition in university....etc, or indeed the definition held by anyone not criticizing feminism. Interesting that.


Posts in discussion forums are usually intended to initiate discussion. Indeed this is the purpose of discussion forums generally.


I would suggest if you cannot handle people discussing your answers to a question in a public discussion forum, perhaps you should think twice about posting your answers in public discussion-forums. So far as I can see, the OP is not upset; I am not upset. But from your comments it seems you are. It’s rather unrealistic to transfer problems you might be having with your opinion being discussed, onto the OP.

The current legalisation is clearly sexist


You're posts are proof that you cannot see past the middle mark, only highlighting my critism's of feminism.


So those feminists who wish to see a 50% split in every job are irrelevant? And miraculously you have brought your arguement back to pregnancy. You're steering the conversation away from points, instead of directly answering or sharing your veiws on them.


I said females were less valuable to some jobs. I also said men were less valuable to some. I've also previously stated the economy should be structured towards people/productivity. Why you keep making this female-centric while arguing my point that feminists only veiw things from a female prespective is beyond me. Are you purposely trying to proove my points are true?


There are many many subgroupings of feminism like this. Feminism is by-default, only from a female perspective.


The term feminism makes no distinction between this and true equality.


Yet again, you said absolutely nothing about the comment i made regarding women having a higher value than men in some jobs. You have made your complete arguement female-centric. You stated it is sexist towards women, but you did not say my veiw was sexist towards men. Of course you could revise that veiw now. But you've just highlighted the dangers of feminist veiws.

While some or even most of the goals of feminism are good and in the interest of society in general, feminism is flawed. The methods which can be employed in the name of feminism are also flawed. Feminism will always recieve critism and has no real place in mordern society.

This is turning into a flame war...

Yeah, I know. But pandd is making some well reasoned points.

True, but the posts are so long and poorly layed out that I can't find the will to read them... and then there is dyslexia on top of that...

Because alot of people do not know what feminism is, because most of the people being critical of feminism are frankly influenced by misogynistic right wing media (read: rush limbaugh), or are part of that media.

Personally I still think feminism is relevant, just alot of people do not know what feminism is about. Which to me is about a few things, equal opportunity, freedom from harassment, and freedom to chose what is done with our own bodies and our own lives. There may be a few other things thrown in, but this has always been at the core.

I know tons of feminist who are straight women. I also know a few of the principle founders of the third wave (riot grrrls) as well as some known authors. I think alot of people just do not know what feminism is about and confuse it for something its not.

it's a low simmer as flame wars go. No one has evoked Godwin's Law yet, so there is hope for the conversation to remain educational.

Merle

That has to do with relating things to Nazi Germany, right?