Honestly, it's not. It's anti-feminist fucktards who complain about feminists who make men out to be rapists and brutes to a man. I'd be happy to abandon the term feminism, even, if we could understand that sort of "we're all people, let's work to treating each other that way" in humanism.
"Feminism isn't dumb when you don't take into account all the dumbass feminists." No duh. Only a few things are dumb when you leave out the dumbasses. And only the CRAZIEST of the crazies associate feminism with Nazism (and my understanding is that they then lose the argument automatically anyway).
My usual points against feminism are no different than my usual points against nearly every -ism out there. He just waves that away near the beginning of the article with, "Yes, I know sins are committed in female liberation's name and all sorts of daft attitudes struck." Just like the author, and I'm sure like your readers as well, I have no problem with feminism's core ideals - that women should have all the same opportunities that men do.
But like any other -ism (perhaps more than most), it gets twisted around, until you've got two people claiming to be champions of the feminist movement screaming at each other over whether pornography is sexually repressive or sexually liberating. Feminism would do itself a favor to stop being a movement and remain under the radar, or at least stop making a spectacle of itself. And it's not like feminism is the only movement that does this; this is true of every sort of activis,. Look at how far environmentalism has come. It's in no small part due to the change from face-painted hippies chaining themselves to trees to former vice presidents making popular documentaries. Feminism has advanced, too, and there's a lot less screaming, and its opponents look more and more unreasonable, which is great. But that's also a consequence of feminism's core ideals finally being achieved, which renders the movement obsolete except for the aforementioned crazies who, in reality, do want more than equality.
...
I suppose that counts as agreeing with the author, if only with a caveat or two.
But that's also a consequence of feminism's core ideals finally being achieved
They have, in no way, been totally achieved. That's the bone I would pick with you over this. We still have a society where women earn fully $0.20 less to every dollar that men do. Workplaces are notoriously hostile environments for women with families in ways that they never are for men. (On the flip side of the same discrimination, men who want to take time off to be with family are derided and held in lower esteem. They also have more trouble securing paternal leave.) We still have a system whereby rape can be questioned on whether or not a woman was "asking for it." A notable, recent case: a prostitute was raped--not as in she serviced a client and didn't like it, as in she said no and was raped anyway--but because she sells sex for a living, the judge determined she could not be raped. (Instead, the judge proposed "theft of services." With all seriousness.)
The greatest problem with gender equality has always been that the perception of what women ask for is nothing like what the reality is. Against having no rights, getting any seems great, sure, but against having full rights as human beings, some is not enough. The perception is still that rights are a zero-sum game. They aren't. Men can have full rights as humans and women can without taking away from men. The popular perception is that this is not true--that women ask for too much. It can be best recognized by this anecdote:
A scientific study put observers in to watch a discussion. The discussion was scripted (the observers did not know), and there were an equal number of men and women in the room. There were several different scripts. In one, men talked for the majority of the time; in another, women did; and in the last, the commentary was evenly split between men and women. Almost unfailingly, when the observers were asked to mark who talked more, excepting the case where men talked demonstrably more, they picked women. Even when the discussion was equally contributed to by men and women, the observers felt women were talking more than the men. And when they commented on the conversation where men held the majority of the discussion, they perceived the contributions as being roughly equal from both sexes.
And that is the uphill battle still left to feminism--to make it known that we are not asking for too much to just be equal and to have it recognized that, no, actually, we aren't equal yet by a longshot.
I did intentionally say that they are being achieved, not that they have been achieved. My wording may have implied more completion of action than I intended it to, but I didn't mean to say that it's all good.
I totally agree with you that women still don't have full equality, but I'd disagree with you on the degree to which inequality still exists. At least we can agree that sexual assault victims are not treated as they should be. But that's also an area that supports the author's point about how gender stereotypes hurt us all: male victims of sexual assault (and domestic violence, for that matter) are treated just as poorly, though in a different way.
Anyway, my issues with femisim have less to do with what they want and more to do with how they go about trying to get it, which is why I pointed that out in my first couple of paragraphs, before I started rambling.
I don't understand "how they go about it" being a problem. As far as I've seen, feminists point to a problem, illustrate it, and motivate for change. They certainly don't demonize specific people to the degree that all feminists are held in contempt by anti-feminists. I guess it's a matter of being on the inside looking out instead of the other way around.
It's not a problem, it's FUNNY. I don't think they're bad people, I think they're clowns for my amusement. But it's okay, I think everyone and everything (including myself...ESPECIALLY myself) is a clown for my amusement.
I dunno, I have a hard time laughing at these things when they are still the source of much misery. I generally am wary, too, of "isms" but I have sympathy and patience for ones I deem pragmatic and mild enough to temper the more radical fringe.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-07-09 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-09 07:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-09 08:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-09 09:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-09 06:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-09 08:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-09 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-09 08:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 02:25 pm (UTC)My usual points against feminism are no different than my usual points against nearly every -ism out there. He just waves that away near the beginning of the article with, "Yes, I know sins are committed in female liberation's name and all sorts of daft attitudes struck." Just like the author, and I'm sure like your readers as well, I have no problem with feminism's core ideals - that women should have all the same opportunities that men do.
But like any other -ism (perhaps more than most), it gets twisted around, until you've got two people claiming to be champions of the feminist movement screaming at each other over whether pornography is sexually repressive or sexually liberating. Feminism would do itself a favor to stop being a movement and remain under the radar, or at least stop making a spectacle of itself. And it's not like feminism is the only movement that does this; this is true of every sort of activis,. Look at how far environmentalism has come. It's in no small part due to the change from face-painted hippies chaining themselves to trees to former vice presidents making popular documentaries. Feminism has advanced, too, and there's a lot less screaming, and its opponents look more and more unreasonable, which is great. But that's also a consequence of feminism's core ideals finally being achieved, which renders the movement obsolete except for the aforementioned crazies who, in reality, do want more than equality.
...
I suppose that counts as agreeing with the author, if only with a caveat or two.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 04:13 pm (UTC)They have, in no way, been totally achieved. That's the bone I would pick with you over this. We still have a society where women earn fully $0.20 less to every dollar that men do. Workplaces are notoriously hostile environments for women with families in ways that they never are for men. (On the flip side of the same discrimination, men who want to take time off to be with family are derided and held in lower esteem. They also have more trouble securing paternal leave.) We still have a system whereby rape can be questioned on whether or not a woman was "asking for it." A notable, recent case: a prostitute was raped--not as in she serviced a client and didn't like it, as in she said no and was raped anyway--but because she sells sex for a living, the judge determined she could not be raped. (Instead, the judge proposed "theft of services." With all seriousness.)
The greatest problem with gender equality has always been that the perception of what women ask for is nothing like what the reality is. Against having no rights, getting any seems great, sure, but against having full rights as human beings, some is not enough. The perception is still that rights are a zero-sum game. They aren't. Men can have full rights as humans and women can without taking away from men. The popular perception is that this is not true--that women ask for too much. It can be best recognized by this anecdote:
A scientific study put observers in to watch a discussion. The discussion was scripted (the observers did not know), and there were an equal number of men and women in the room. There were several different scripts. In one, men talked for the majority of the time; in another, women did; and in the last, the commentary was evenly split between men and women. Almost unfailingly, when the observers were asked to mark who talked more, excepting the case where men talked demonstrably more, they picked women. Even when the discussion was equally contributed to by men and women, the observers felt women were talking more than the men. And when they commented on the conversation where men held the majority of the discussion, they perceived the contributions as being roughly equal from both sexes.
And that is the uphill battle still left to feminism--to make it known that we are not asking for too much to just be equal and to have it recognized that, no, actually, we aren't equal yet by a longshot.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 05:56 pm (UTC)I totally agree with you that women still don't have full equality, but I'd disagree with you on the degree to which inequality still exists. At least we can agree that sexual assault victims are not treated as they should be. But that's also an area that supports the author's point about how gender stereotypes hurt us all: male victims of sexual assault (and domestic violence, for that matter) are treated just as poorly, though in a different way.
Anyway, my issues with femisim have less to do with what they want and more to do with how they go about trying to get it, which is why I pointed that out in my first couple of paragraphs, before I started rambling.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 07:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 08:36 pm (UTC):D?
no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 09:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-10 09:21 pm (UTC)Now I think we're just talking about different things.