Are you a feminist?

[meda]

The thing is, there are rad rems on this very forum who insist that there are certain choices a woman should or shouldn't make just because they can't see themselves making that choice without catering to men.

Agreed, but obnoxious, condescending dismissal of other viewpoints is not control. The ability to control means that there must be the ability to enforce, which is lacking here. I do agree with an analysis of behavior that includes an aawareness of how patriarchal power structures influence and limit women's choices. I don't think you can entirely escape the reality of bounded choice, but I think focusing only on gender does a disservice to women who are disempowered because of race, sexuality, or ecconomic status. There is a lot of overlap that gets ignored by rad fems.

[CanadianHippie]

Agreed, but obnoxious, condescending dismissal of other viewpoints is not control. The ability to control means that there must be the ability to enforce, which is lacking here. I do agree with an analysis of behavior that includes an aawareness of how patriarchal power structures influence and limit women's choices. I don't think you can entirely escape the reality of bounded choice, but I think focusing only on gender does a disservice to women who are disempowered because of race, sexuality, or ecconomic status. There is a lot of overlap that gets ignored by rad fems.

They rely on their ability to convince people that their interpretation is right. They don't just say "I don't agree so I won't do it." They say things like "I don't agree, so no woman should ever do it, if they want to they are obviously a tool of the patriarchy/trying to please men." The same way an evangelist who may not try and pass laws, but still trying to convince people of an "us or them; and you want to be with us" situation are attempting to control. It's not about people choosing because it's right for them, but because otherwise they are horrible people.

Personally I think that trying to convince women they can never make their own choices unless they live in a vacuum does as much a disservice as ignoring other factors relating to dis empowerment. In fact I see it as an attempt to remove the power from these women, to convince them they need someone else (the rad fem) to guide their choices. It's exactly what the patriarchy does, only they call it feminism.

[wtfrenchtoast]

Agreed, but obnoxious, condescending dismissal of other viewpoints is not control. The ability to control means that there must be the ability to enforce, which is lacking here. I do agree with an analysis of behavior that includes an aawareness of how patriarchal power structures influence and limit women's choices. I don't think you can entirely escape the reality of bounded choice, but I think focusing only on gender does a disservice to women who are disempowered because of race, sexuality, or ecconomic status. There is a lot of overlap that gets ignored by rad fems.

I agree, but I think Canadian Hippie was talking about trying to control, not actually succeeding. Which I can see. There's the standard that if you aren't being a feminist the "right" way, you should be condescended to. That's a form of control if the person with the different opinion is seeking approval from the "real" feminists. It's saying "If you don't believe as I do, you're not one of us" and that can be a powerful tool of control.

[Coconut Flan]

I agree, but I think Canadian Hippie was talking about trying to control, not actually succeeding. Which I can see. There's the standard that if you aren't being a feminist the "right" way, you should be condescended to. That's a form of control if the person with the different opinion is seeking approval from the "real" feminists. It's saying "If you don't believe as I do, you're not one of us" and that can be a powerful tool of control.

Exactly. Some of us resent and refuse attempts to control our behavior and thoughts no matter who tries or what techniques they use. Overbearing (and possibly arrogant) behavior is unbecoming no matter who tries it.

ETA: Oops I'm being guilty a little of the arrogance on another thread. Sorry. But I'm not trying to impose my will on the other person. I'm tired of the superior attitude previously shown while now exhibiting an amazing level of not thinking.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

Exactly. Some of us resent and refuse attempts to control our behavior and thoughts no matter who tries or what techniques they use. Overbearing (and possibly arrogant) behavior is unbecoming no matter who tries it.

There's a certain substrain of feminism that I think is openly misandrist. They're no different than misogynists IMO, except that they aren't in power.

[Deleted07]

I agree, but I think Canadian Hippie was talking about trying to control, not actually succeeding. Which I can see. There's the standard that if you aren't being a feminist the "right" way, you should be condescended to. That's a form of control if the person with the different opinion is seeking approval from the "real" feminists. It's saying "If you don't believe as I do, you're not one of us" and that can be a powerful tool of control.

Yep agree highly with all this. When I first join there was a thread where someone didn't like something I said and got 3 of their friends involved berating me about feminist topics etc, it was just ridiculous, considering I agreed with them until their berating began.

These are the type that, in my opinion, give feminism a bad name. Saying you have to do this, you have to do that, have to think this way etc. Doesn't work that way! Feminism is exactly about CHOICE and choice of opinion, its a oxy-moron to say otherwise and have the arrogance that your way of feminism is the only way to be truely feminist.

[ElphabaGalinda]

Agreed, but obnoxious, condescending dismissal of other viewpoints is not control. The ability to control means that there must be the ability to enforce, which is lacking here. I do agree with an analysis of behavior that includes an aawareness of how patriarchal power structures influence and limit women's choices. I don't think you can entirely escape the reality of bounded choice, but I think focusing only on gender does a disservice to women who are disempowered because of race, sexuality, or ecconomic status. There is a lot of overlap that gets ignored by rad fems.

The bolded reflects perfectly how I feel I often feel ignored by rad fems. For example, when talking about how the patriarchy affects womens' sexual choices, would it be so hard to acknowledge that there are some women such as myself who never want to have sex with a man? In my daily life I feel far more disenfranchized by sexuality than I do about gender. There are many things that women can and should band together about, that are shared experiences that come with being women. This is important to acknowledge. But it's also important to acknowledge that the experinces of all women are not the same, and I feel that many rad fems ignore that. I'm not saying one way of being disempowered is worse than any other, but it helps no one to act like there's only one way that women are disempowered. I find many rad fems ignore all the other ways women can be disenfranchized and frame everything from a white heterosexual economically stable perspective.

[ElphabaGalinda]

I agree, but I think Canadian Hippie was talking about trying to control, not actually succeeding. Which I can see. There's the standard that if you aren't being a feminist the "right" way, you should be condescended to. That's a form of control if the person with the different opinion is seeking approval from the "real" feminists. It's saying "If you don't believe as I do, you're not one of us" and that can be a powerful tool of control.

I agree with this too...I don't like being made to feel as if I'm doing feminism "wrong". I don't like being told I'm not a "real" feminist while simultaneously having my experiences ignored.

[CanadianHippie]

There's a certain substrain of feminism that I think is openly misandrist. They're no different than misogynists IMO, except that they aren't in power.

Definitely. I often find the misandrist feminists are often some of the worst perpetrators of the misogyny mentioned above too.

[meda]

What is depressing to me about these sorts of threads is that this is how they always breakdown. There are many women (and men) who don't march in ideological lock step, but are fighting the good fight to empower women. We never talk about that on the feminism threads. It always seems to devolve into "younger women are cowards for not calling themselves feminist!" "Some feminists are mean!" "you're just too stupid to realize you're oppressed!"

I feel like I see this so often with social justice movements, which often seem to eat their young. (I am thinking of JFC and the many internal squabbles about party ideology that seem to be more important to some than the revolution) and while everyone tries to be right, the people in power just sit back and laugh as the opposition defeats itself.

[CanadianHippie]

What is depressing to me about these sorts of threads is that this is how they always breakdown. There are many women (and men) who don't march in ideological lock step, but are fighting the good fight to empower women. We never talk about that on the feminism threads. It always seems to devolve into "younger women are cowards for not calling themselves feminist!" "Some feminists are mean!" "you're just too stupid to realize you're oppressed!"

I feel like I see this so often with social justice movements, which often seem to eat their young. (I am thinking of JFC and the many internal squabbles about party ideology that seem to be more important to some than the revolution) and while everyone tries to be right, the people in power just sit back and laugh as the opposition defeats itself.

I find it very hard to fight the good fight when all my arguments are met with comments about how much I supposedly hate women just because don't hold the same hatred for men as someone else seems to think I should.

[ElphabaGalinda]

What is depressing to me about these sorts of threads is that this is how they always breakdown. There are many women (and men) who don't march in ideological lock step, but are fighting the good fight to empower women. We never talk about that on the feminism threads. It always seems to devolve into "younger women are cowards for not calling themselves feminist!" "Some feminists are mean!" "you're just too stupid to realize you're oppressed!"

I feel like I see this so often with social justice movements, which often seem to eat their young. (I am thinking of JFC and the many internal squabbles about party ideology that seem to be more important to some than the revolution) and while everyone tries to be right, the people in power just sit back and laugh as the opposition defeats itself.

:clap: I wish it didn't end up that kind of thread. Anyone fighting the good fight to empower women is cool with me, even if you believe differently than I do.

I never really realized social justice movements seem to eat their young, but you're totally right. I think part of the problem is many of the original founders of these movement don't realize the movement needs to evolve to reflect the experiences of the young while maintaining its core values. And some young people don't think the movements are representative of their beliefs because they see it as something their parents did that have nothing to do with the world they live in. Both those things are wrong and don't help anyone create any real change.

[ElphabaGalinda]

I find it very hard to fight the good fight when all my arguments are met with comments about how much I supposedly hate women just because don't hold the same hatred for men as someone else seems to think I should.

If it makes any difference I never believed you hate women, and often (though of course not always) agree with you. I would say you are a feminist by my definition of the word, not that anyone else's definiation matters but your own. I try to ignore what other people say and do what I feel is right.

[CanadianHippie]

If it makes any difference I never believed you hate women, and often (though of course not always) agree with you. I would say you are a feminist by my definition of the word, not that anyone else's definiation matters but your own. I try to ignore what other people say and do what I feel is right.

Thank you. I know it shouldn't get to me, but it does. I often find myself agreeing with you as well.

[luckystone]

That definition is funny, but I'm in the camp who think men should be able to call themselves feminists.

I really dislike young women who shout about how they aren't feminists without even seeming to fully understand what it means (and usually to try and impress guys, which is really weird). I would love to take away their voting rights and their uni rights and their driving rights and their jobs and see what they say then.

If men want to discuss the problems they have with patriarchy, who's stopping them? Oh wait, I know the answer to that - the patriarchy is stopping them! They are afraid to be vulnerable because they don't want to be harshly judged by their fellow patriarchs. Why is this the problem of women? If they want it to stop, they have the power to do so.

I do agree with this actually. But I think some of them are worried about society in general and how they appear to women - that's why I think it's important women aren't disapproving or unaccepting if their sons or their boyfriends cry etc.

[desertvixen]

1. Do you have a vagina?

2. Do you want to be in charge of it?

If you answered yes to both questions, you are a feminist.

I would add "uterus" myself, but yes the sentiment is there.

I'm personally a lot more concerned about women who won't identify as feminists, and I meet a lot of younger ones who won't.

Yes, the "I'm not a feminist, but...(insert feminist opinion here)" crowd gets on my last damn nerve. What they really mean is I'm not one of those ugly, fat, non-leg-shaving, non-makeup wearing, man-hating, many-cat-owning, humorless feminists made of straw and featured on Rush and his ilk. Fuck that. I'm a feminist.

If men want to discuss the problems they have with patriarchy, who's stopping them? Oh wait, I know the answer to that - the patriarchy is stopping them! They are afraid to be vulnerable because they don't want to be harshly judged by their fellow patriarchs. Why is this the problem of women? If they want it to stop, they have the power to do so.

This. I would say the same thing to allowing male rape victims and DV victims into women's shelters and women's groups - why do we have those groups? Because women got off their asses and did something to remedy a problem that wasn't getting fixed. Men can do the same damn thing. I'm not saying this because I hate men. I'm saying this because since men do control most of the power in our society, they can put some time and energy into trying to fix those problems. Yes, the patriarchy hurts men as well by confining them in little boxes, but they have more access to power.

And yes, I do believe men can be feminists/feminist allies, but they weren't the subject of the article.

[CanadianHippie]

This. I would say the same thing to allowing male rape victims and DV victims into women's shelters and women's groups - why do we have those groups? Because women got off their asses and did something to remedy a problem that wasn't getting fixed. Men can do the same damn thing. I'm not saying this because I hate men. I'm saying this because since men do control most of the power in our society, they can put some time and energy into trying to fix those problems. Yes, the patriarchy hurts men as well by confining them in little boxes, but they have more access to power.

Except that would require them to appeal to other men and admit they have been victimize, at which point the patriarchy throws them out with the garbage because real men don't let themselves be attacked in such a way. Their power is stripped from them because they admit a human weakness rather than just suck it up and deal or fight back and win.

[desertvixen]

Except that would require them to appeal to other men and admit they have been victimize, at which point the patriarchy throws them out with the garbage because real men don't let themselves be attacked in such a way.

The issue is that women wouldn't help - because I do believe that many shelters would help if they had the resources.

The issue is that this problem should not be solely women's responsibility to clean up.

I do think that male rape victims need special resources because the nature of the crime and how it affects the male victim is different. There's an added layer of insult, violation, whatever word you want to use to best describe it because it isn't supposed to be something that can happen to Real Men.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Except that would require them to appeal to other men and admit they have been victimize, at which point the patriarchy throws them out with the garbage because real men don't let themselves be attacked in such a way. Their power is stripped from them because they admit a human weakness rather than just suck it up and deal or fight back and win.

Yeah. But their problem is not with WOMEN. Patriarchy throws women out as well. So women started a movement, and fight. It is not easy for women to do that either.

Men who show weakness are treated as women. That pretty much says it all, IMHO. Particularly considering that women are treated that way regardless of if they show weakness or not. Women are assumed to be weak always, no questions asked.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

Except that would require them to appeal to other men and admit they have been victimize, at which point the patriarchy throws them out with the garbage because real men don't let themselves be attacked in such a way. Their power is stripped from them because they admit a human weakness rather than just suck it up and deal or fight back and win.

And, because of the patriarchy, men who are victimized (domestic violence, anyway) will have much more of the financial ability to extricate themselves from that situation.

[CanadianHippie]

Yeah. But their problem is not with WOMEN. Patriarchy throws women out as well. So women started a movement, and fight. It is not easy for women to do that either.

Men who show weakness are treated as women. That pretty much says it all, IMHO. Particularly considering that women are treated that way regardless of if they show weakness or not. Women are assumed to be weak always, no questions asked.

So why does there need to be a separation between who we stand up for? Can't we just stand up for all victims instead of deciding who is worthy of help based on gender? It doesn't have to be the places, but no one questions men standing up in support of female DV victims, but they questions when someone shows support for a male DV victim.

[CanadianHippie]

And, because of the patriarchy, men who are victimized (domestic violence, anyway) will have much more of the financial ability to extricate themselves from that situation.

It's more than finances though. It's the psychological and emotional effects as well.

[snarkbillie]

When I first met my husband we got into a political debate about something or another and I mentioned that I was not a feminist. (I was fundie-lite at the time) and he said "well, I think you are." and asked me if I thought women should have the same rights as men. I said "of course" and then he informed me that I was, indeed, a feminist. I was shocked.

[Deleted07]

It all kind of reminds me of the Christians sects, saying to other Christians "You're not a real Christian because of ABC". Its the semantics of human nature I guess. :-)

[gardenvarietycitizen]

So why does there need to be a separation between who we stand up for? Can't we just stand up for all victims instead of deciding who is worthy of help based on gender? It doesn't have to be the places, but no one questions men standing up in support of female DV victims, but they questions when someone shows support for a male DV victim.

I am not questioning anyone who shows support for male DV victims.

However, I do have a problem if every time female DV victims are mentioned or DV as relates to women is mentioned at all, people rush out to instantly change the topic to "but what about the menz? Men are victims of violence too!" particularly when considering the statistics.

I'm not claiming that you or anyone in this thread is doing that - but it's a pattern that happens again and again, and people do get sensitive to that.

Similarly I don't think anyone is saying that men can't stand up for women or vice versa. Standing up to support a group that you do not belong to fighting for its rights is what an ally is and it's cooperative and it's a good thing. It means recognizing that you are in a SUPPORTIVE role. Not leading.

But so often the talk turns to "oh but you want to have an inner circle to which we can't belong? You can't do that!" and again, basically "what about the men?" As if the most important thing in the world all of a sudden is that men aren't shut out of one tiny space. But of course they're socialized (generally) to assume that by right, they SHOULD be able to have access to every space that women have access to (but the reverse is not true). That's part of the issue.

Perhaps though the words are merely a distraction. I think the issue that people who are fighting for their own liberation need to have some exclusive space, even while welcoming allies to their fight who are not actively experiencing the oppression (and in fact those people can use their extra access to the levers of power to move others in their OWN groups).

And I will say too that sometimes the talk of "but what about the men? They suffer too" (or any "but what about [the relatively privileged group]") turns into a "and in fact the men suffer more, because they are losing their privilege and that is shocking and painful for them." Thing is, women never HAD that privilege to start with, no matter what they did or how they behaved. I suppose it's "easier" in a sense that they were raised to it and didn't have high expectations to start with.