Why do feminist have such a bad rep?

Post Reply New Topic

yeah, that is why I made the name 'Godwin's Law' into a hyperlink, if you click on it it takes you to the Wiki on it.

Merle

oh... I didn't notice that...

Edit: it is usually me that ends up making those comparisons... Then again, I had an aspie obsession with WW2, and more specifically, Nazi Germany...

Quite probably.
It’s much easier to state ambiguously that someone’s posts prove something about them as a person than it is to actually argue against the argument they posted, no doubt.




Your comments did not mention or reference any such thing. I personally do not find such persons relevant to me in any immediate way since I do not routinely encounter them nor effects of their behavior.


Yes miraculously I have bought the argument back to what it was.

To recap, you asserted women were less valuable to employers because of pregnancy. I responded with comments about this issue. You responded by side tracking the conversation onto some other thing, and almost seeming to pretend you did not know how pregnancy got bought into the conversation.

I will have to assume you yourself cannot see anyway in which society allowing females to be financially penalized as a group and as individuals, because only females can achieve the very necessary task of gestating human off spring, could be construed as equality, and hence the desperate desire to avoid discussing the issue you raised.

What points? The point where fishing is supposed to be about some obscure group of people –who (according to you) think all jobs should have 50% of people employed in that job female and 50% male?

The fact is you raised an issue at the outset of your first post in this thread. I responded to those comments and you have since then being trying to steer the discussion away from any meaningful engagement on the issue you raised. You asserted, as though it is consistent with equality that it’s fine for females to be penalized in the job market because of the realities of human reproduction. I simply want your view and opinion on how it is equality to penalize women either as individuals or as a group because only they can perform this task tha is entirely necessary if jobs or indeed people, are to continue to exist in the future.


Really? And which jobs? What roles are men less valuable to and therefore missing out on?

Which is a non answer, because if people want equality, what is traditionally defined as productivity (and producing humans to produce and consume goods and services, the very basis of productivity, is funnily enough not defined as productive within the economy), may have to-be compromised. Your non answer seems to assume both the interests and needs of people and maximizing productivity are always mutually consistent with each other. Whereas in fact these two things are often at odds with each other.

More significantly you still avoid responding to the issue of why, if the current economic structures and systems result in people being penalized because only they can perform a task essential to productivity, this can be described as equality?



I am not making anything female centric. You raised the issue of the female reproductive role and how it effects the value of women in the workplace. I am simply asking you about the effects and implications of the issue you raised. If the issue you raised is female centric, since you raised it, then arguably it is very obviously you who are responsible for making “it” female centric.

If you are genuinely confused about the course of this conversation rather than merely being astoundingly dishonest, perhaps you should re read the previous posts.


And this-is relevant because you actually genuinely believe that all feminists are "separatist feminists", or even the majority, or in fact any beyond an extreme fringe who no one actually pays any attention to? Or just because you believe in a “mud sticks” approach of mis-characterizing a whole group according to the lowest denominator you can find?

Personally I do not see anything remotely feminist about separatism, but I have no general right or authority to prevent someone claiming the two are compatible,and stating they themselves are a "feminist separatist". But then I think that someone can both be an animal rights activist and deplore the conduct of members of PETA.

Whereas I believe that both well intentioned men and well intentioned women will replicate the dynamics of their social cultural environment including aspects of partriarchy.

Repeating it endlessly is not making it anymore true.


The reality: a very small insignificant number of people claim that they are feminists, and have separatist views. The overwhelming majority of feminists deny that this view is feminist.

But good on you for proving that if some fringe nutters call themselves feminists against the objections of feminists, you will jump at the chance to mis-characterize the entire group according to this lowly and not in the least common denominator.

And this is the real essence of anti feminism sentiment. Deliberate mischaracterization of a large group according to the tenets of a small number of people who clam to be part of the group, are rejected by the group, and whose tenets are directly contrary to the routinely stated, original and ongoing goals, aims and philosophy of the group.\

Thanks for demonstrating that point.

Really? That explains why feminists reject separatism, and why there is controversy over-the separatists’ claims that separatism could possibly be feminist.

Obviously it’s not controversial because only the separatists themselves accept that separatism is remotely consistent with feminism.[/end sarcasm]



Which jobs are women more valuable in as a result of being the only ones physiologically capable of performing a necessary task for society? Or indeed in general what jobs do you perceive men as being less valuable in? Maybe I could comment if I had some idea what jobs you were thinking of.


I have not commented on your view that in your opinion men are less valuable to some jobs because you have not explained it sufficiently well enough for me to understand what I would be commenting on. I cannot off the top of my head think of a job that would require someone to be pregnant, for instance.


Every human endeavour is flawed though. That’s an innate reality of all human endeavours, but not all human endeavours are viewed only by the lowest denominator of its flaws.

Look at what you are saying. The methods of transporting goods and people can be used to deliberately run someone down and murder them. The method of cushioning our heads at night can be turned by an intruder to smothering us to death. Is transport flawed? Are pillows flawed? Yes. But does this mean they have no place in modern society or necessitate blanket criticism according to the worst things one could associate with them? Sensible people probably do not think so.

It reminds me of 'The Game'. Ha, I wasn't even thinking of a nazi comparison until now! I lose! Yes, it's turned into a bit of an argument but it seems to be on track. Kinda. Pandd has said a couple of factual things I was thinking.



Yes, that's pretty much what I thought.
Young people don't know what those times were like because they didn't grow up with them. They can't recognise raunch culture and 'Desperate Housewives' as being ironic because they didn't live in the times when those stereotypes were played straight and accepted without question, or have to struggle to get rid of them.

I know. I'm a young woman. But I guess I've read a bit and learned a bit from older women about how (in the Sixties)
-you could get fired for falling pregnant or getting married.
-sexual harassment at work was the norm, there were no laws on that then.
-you would be forced into many indignities and have no choices about what was done to you during your labour. Home birth was painted as horribly dangerous. To avoid unnecessary indignities being done to women routinely and take the control back, there was a movement towards training midwives.
-you couldn't receive an abortion without your husband's consent and signature, or if you were too poor
-you couldn't apply for a loan in your own name as a woman
-there wasn't an awareness of/resources against domestic violence
-when women left their husbands, they automatically lost custody of their children if they came out as lesbian...

There just isn't an understanding of why women had to fight so hard for so many rights, and these days feminism is a much slandered caricature of 'orneriness' and extremism. I guess that's my take on why there's a bad rep- because the women's movement isn't widely understood and gets taken out of context.

Last edited by activebutodd on 17 Jun 2009, 8:07 am, edited 3 times in total.

I am just absorbing it all. I have often had conversations like this (though I would give quite a bit to have them so civil!) and am realizing people will cling to what gives them power. I was never accepted in a male society structure ( a wife, a mother, a daughter) so I suppose it was easier for me to see what it is to be left out of the institutions those I was talking to simply assumed I was rejecting. It is much easier for me to listen to and take in pandd's information because I don't have a stake in or belong to what Michjo enjoys.

Disenfranchised people tend to feel animosity to that that disenfranchises them.

Merle

Ah! The conversation goes on. I hate it when I take too long to edit! You might need to re-read back there ^ for the rest of the content.
Anyway, this is the game I referred randomly to. (First meaning.)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The+Game

Nah, silly reference. Don't know what made me think of it.

A better reference to make would be Faye Weldon. In addition to the non fiction I've read, her fiction gives a good background for the sixties. It's relatable sometimes actually. But thankfully things have come forward and are better today.

i think its because some most people have no idea of the real meaning, and some people who say they are feminists take it to a whole nother level

There is nothing ambiguous about it, everytime i make a similar point about both males and females, you state it is sexist towards females, even though my comment puts males in the exact same position.


Yes i did, I said that in some industries based on skill level at the individual level, there would appear to be a gender bias, because the different sexes have different strengths and weaknesses and that a feminist would say this is sexist.


In some indudstries.


No, you are side-tracking it with pregnancy. My main point (with pregnancy as a generic example) is that men are of higher value to some jobs and women are of higher value to others. To have to pretend this isn't the case as an employer would be sexist.


A women can have four children in quick sucession, having 4 years off of work, only having worked 3 years. If i were to take a 3 year break from my job, even if it was to be around my children to help raise them, i would lose my job. If i was ill off of work for 6 months, yet again i would lose my job. The provisions being given to women in the workplace are not available to men, this is clearly sexist.


http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/arbeid-sociale-zekerheid/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2002/2002-1076-wm.htm Shows many professions that have male/female bias.


And giving money to parents for their first two-born would be much better than artificially keeping jobs open.


It has the exact same aim as feminism, to get equal oppurtunities and rights for the female population. That's what feminism is, to get equal rights for the female population. The feminist philosophy does not state how to get such rights, and does not state that men should be involved. Hence it is flawed.


No, feminists manage to do this all themselves. It's amazing how people like Alice Walker, who describe marriage are *slavery to women* are so highly regarded. Why isn't it also slavery to men? oh right! She couldn't possibly think about things from two different perspectives. Marriage is clearly some evil male plot to enslave the female race


You're not commenting on specifics. You are being asked if it would be sexist to consider men less valuable for some jobs. You manage to bring pregnancy back into it as well. I've already gave two traits unrelated to pregnancy that can be used to differentiate men and women.


Your analogy does not work for the topic being discussed. Asbestos works just as well for building structures, we don't use it because it has higher risks than the competition. There are plenty of philosophies that have the same goals as feminism but with less flaws.


Let's see, noone would talk to me when i was younger because my family has the nerve to be irish. I've been insulted and abused all my life because of my race and because i'm autistic and now noone will employ me because of my autism. Oh yes, i have SOOOO many privilages and couldn't possibly understand what it feels like to be discriminated against.

Actually your veiw only highlights a main critisism of feminism. The victim mentality and the common veiw among feminists that they are discriminated against more so than any male. Men are discriminated against in many situations, we know exactly what it means to be discriminated against.

That is because men do not have to go through labour, hormonal changes, postnatal depression, breastfeed, and in most cases are not the primary caregiver of the infant every day. If you think it's sexist that a father doesn't get equal time off despite not having to undergo those traumatic and exhausting biological processes, and if it truly worries you, take it up with your workplace. Don't try and use it to write off feminism. That is in place so women may be productive both at work and in bringing new life. It's sexist to exclude women from one because of the other.



A woman may love her job and have worked very hard to get where she is in it. You would just pay her off and have her lose that role in her life?

Male Post Natal Depression
Male Pregnancy Rollercoaster

See? Yet again, you ignore the troubles or even minimise the reality for men, while championing the same for women. Yet all you posting in favour of feminism state that you do not have a one-sided perspective. And who is to claim that a male cannot be the primary caregiver of a child?

Male Paternity Leave... Two weeks? Compared to a full year for women? what if the mother died while giving birth? Oh of course, i'm male! I'm clearly not as good as a parent as a female. No need to keep my job open past two weeks either, since i'm clearly not as entitled to my job as a female is. And who cares if my child needs to be looked after? It only has a single MALE parent. Those single male parents clearly don't deserve the same treatment as single female parents. Crazy me for mourning the death of my wife, i should clearly be looking to find a replacement right away, someone who is more qualified to raise a child than myself.

And then we have the thorny issue whereby the mother can decide who the male parent is, as opposed to who the biological parent is. As a father, i have no inherrent right to have the dna of the child checked, i have to take the issue to court. Even then the judge can decide that i would be invading the mothers privacy. Privacy? where the hell are my rights.

And then of course we get to custody. I may have to pay to support my child, but have no right to actually see him. Let's not look at individual ability or skill as a parent, let's not look at financial security, let's just look at what reproductive organs the respective parents have and decide things on that!


Of course, the onus is on me to fix this injustice. It doesn't concern feminism, because feminism is about a females perspective right? You are all self-described feminists, you are claiming that you look at things from both perspectives, but you are time and time again completely ignoring things from a male veiw. Yeah, the men should just fix the male problems. Well that's what's wrong with feminism, people, not a specific sex, should fix equality problems. Of course, i know the exact reply i'll get, feminism isn't about just a female perspective, all the feminists you know look at things from both perspectives even though all the opinions shared in this thread about feminism by feminists have been only from a single perspective.


Ah right silly me, i forgot! Men don't love their job and haven't worked hard to get where they are have they? A women is 26 times more entitled to keep her job than a male candidate is. And of course, the temporary worker, who has actually worked more hours than the permanent worker has worked, clearly isn't entitled and clearly hasn't worked as hard!

If it is reasonable to be able to take a child to work, then it should be allowed. In industries where temp work of a similar reliable standard can be sought i see no problem with keeping jobs open. That does not mean that temp work is realistic in every industry and does not mean that temp work of a similar standard as a permenant worker is available.

You have supplied specific arguments about females, but have supplied nothing but some vague assertion about males. You have stated a specific trait of females makes them less valuable for some jobs. You have posited jobs and job traits you believe this applies to with regards to females. With regards to males, you have vaguely stated they are less valuable for no specific stated reason, for jobs of no specific kind or of any specified traits.

You have failed to be sufficiently clear about your claims of males being less valuable in some undefined way for some undefined jobs, such that I cannot comment. I quite simply do not know what you are talking about in regards to males. It is less than honest to blame me because I am responding to your comments, and since your comments fixate more on females and their traits, so does my response. I am simply following your lead.


You accused me in your last post of not responding to your earlier comments or point about some group of people, who, according to you, want jobs evenly divided out 50/50 between the sexes. You have never referred to such a group in this thread, and I stated so. Now you claim you did refer to this group and your argument for this is that you stated something that does not mention or refer to this group of people you accussed me of not responding to your comments on?

Whatever.


From the outset, I was directly responding to your comments about pregnancy. It is very clear that you raised the issue of pregnancy rather than me. You raised this issue on page one in the first post you made in this thread, before I had posted in this thread. Clearly since the comments I am responding to were directly about pregnancy, it is not sidetracking for me to be referring to pregnancy. Since your initial comments that I responded to, and my response were referring directly to pregnancy, how is answering by ignoring pregnancy not sidetracking?

And I have responded to your point, which did not posit any specific mechanism by which men were being disadvantaged by their sex in seeking jobs, nor posited which jobs or job traits males might be disadvantaged in regards to, by raising the point that if this results in disadvantaging females because they are the only ones physiologically capable of achieving a task very necessary to society, that this is not equality. In response you have refused to state how a society could be characterized by equality if the nett effect is that females are disadvantaged for being females, because only they can supply a particular necessarily benefit. Until you prove otherwise, I will continue to assume you prefer to engage in baseless accusations rather than address this point because you find yourself completely unable to address the point.


Many women, some of them infertile, do not get the job in the first place because of these reasons. Meanwhile how did this situation come to pass? Were some accommodations removed from an equal system, or is it an ancillary add on intended to make a male adapted system less disadvantaging to females?

The fact that it is extraordinarily difficult to adapt for equality, systems and processes never intended to accommodate equality, is not the fault of feminism, nor proof that feminism is biased or unneeded. It’s proof about how difficult it is to alter a system not ever intended to accommodate equality so that it can accommodate equality.

Human reproduction is necessary. An equal society would share the burden and the rewards of this rather than fixating on productivity over people. What’s more important, consumption for consumption’s sake, or people?

As to male parents being assumed less responsible or necessary to the well being of their own children? The situation penalizes men women and children. Inequality is not so black and white as you seem to be assuming. Obviously it is sexist that of a couple the women at her job interviews will be disadvantaged by assumptions that she might utilize maternity benefits, and she may be disadvantaged when of the two of them, only she can care for the child post birth, full time without losing her job.

For men, their role as fathers is undervalued and society sends a message that they are less part of their own family than mothers. This seems obviously devaluing and unequal to me.

Where the father is the more suited of the two to provide early daily care, this option is taken away and although this impacts the whole family, it limits the life choices of males in particular. Why should a male have very little chance of experiencing full time daily caring for their off spring? Who provides daily care to children should not be determined by sex.

For children any minimization of parental involvement, or importance is not in their interests, and obviously where the identify of the daily carer is determined by sex rather than who would be best suited for this role, the needs of the child are being shaped by sex based stereotypes and inequalities.

Children need early bonding with their family units, and society should accommodate this without pre-determining who plays what role, or placing some aspect of the burden on one sex rather than the other.

There is no easy solution to this problem. The current situation is far from equal, and disadvantages both sexes/genders. Equality is not about balancing disadvantage and limitations, but rather minimizing them for everyone.

Your comment about being sick is a complete red herring. Females who get sick for the same period of time would be as at risk in their employment as anyone else.


What this shows is the gender balance in particular job roles. It does not suggest that men are getting less jobs in any area because they are less valued in that area. It does not demonstrate any male disadvantage whatsoever. You cited a trait of women that made them less valuable to employers in at least some jobs. You‘ve not stated or provided any such physiological trait of men that disadvantages them in the workplace by making them less valuable to employers.

Some feminists argue for exactly that.

Do you not understand what equal means? Is it possible for X to be equal to Y if Y is not equal to X? No it is not.
Just as I stated,-you-are-mis-characterizing-feminism-by-looking-to-extremist-fringe-folk-who-self-proclaim-themselves-as-feminists. Your argument is “some separatists claim to be feminists, therefore feminism is bad”.


And there you go again. This feminist did X, therefore that is what feminism is.

In my view, I can see no reason to expect that this is not sexist.


You provided examples of women being disadvantaged in the job/occupational market-as result of female-physiological realities that society as a whole benefits from.. You did not provide a single example of this for males. You erroneously claimed females are better multi taskers, but there is no empirical basis to this as a female trait. Anyone can practice multi tasking.


Not before feminism there were not. Any philosophies that are actually egalitarian have simply been adapted to exclude females less,and only as a result of feminism.

Unlike asbestos, feminism has actually become safer over time. Feminism was fatal to a lot of women, but so was and is oppression and inequality.



I have no idea what you think Sinsboldly is saying, but your response to her post does not seem to me to bear any relation to what she posted.

That is not a view of feminists, but rather an ordinary mundane thinking pattern that characterizes many people, some of whom are feminists and some of whom are not. But it does serve as yet another example of the distorted prejudice people rely on to criticize feminism.

What you describe is no more common among feminists or to feminism than among non feminists and outside feminism. It’s a common human mind set, and so is just as true of any other category of people. Pointing out that feminists share the same human flaws as humans generally does not prove anything about feminism, in particular.

Well said.

I don't wish for a world where women are held as superior to men. I wish for one where they are equal, no more, no less.

We're well on our way to that world, in western countries anyway, but not quite there yet.

I totally agree, the drastic difference in parental leave is extremely sexist.

It also forces a situation where the woman is automatically the stay at home caregiver and the man is the provider.

They should get equal length of parental leave.

I thought that the maternity leave rule came about in the first place because the role of primary caregiver usually fell to the woman, and it was some form of redress for that. But I don't mind, any man who wants it is free to campaign for it if it's that unjust. Feminism is about getting rights for women, not preventing men from having them.

<

Thank you!











I just noticed that inconsistency. If you don't like that solution either, then why did you suggest it in the first place?

Anyway that debatable point of technical inequality doesn't stack up to the thousands of years of inequality that feminists struggled (and in some cases still struggle) to overturn- when women were possessions and second class citizens, were married off as children to much older men, required to wear corsets that restricted movement and breathing, required to perform suttee, etcetera. etcetera.

My point being- the fact that you cry discrimination against men (on one arguable point) does not mean feminism was and/or is not needed in society, and does not prove that feminists deserve a bad reputation.

Last edited by activebutodd on 18 Jun 2009, 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

it isn't that feminism is necessary for society, it is that feminism is the core of who women are. That core is what caused people to speak out and seek the rights we now have, but it is still the core of who we are, just a peoplebeing who we are.

Ok I feel there's still a need, but it is possible to edit that to- Michjo's argument doesn't prove that "feminism has no place in society", as that is what he originally said in one of his posts.