Feminism vs. Equality

Post Reply New Topic

Feminsim: The policy or advocacy of political, economic, amd social equality for women.

As a little girl I considered this a great idea to believe in and to live by. But not until recently in my life "Feminism" has more than one definition. These days there are women out there that go by as feminists; but they don't believe in gender equality.

"New" Feminism: The policy or advocacy of political, economic, and social superioty for women. Though they never actually say those exact words, claiming it's equality they want.

Before I go any further please understand; I know not all feminists are like this. But that does't mean thE issue shouldn't be addressed. Most of these kind of feminists I met in high school. Usually I've come across women that claim to be feminist as they refer to their fellow women as sluts, whores, twats, c***s, and etc. for no better reasons than her body developing/ in other words how attractive she is, her clothing, having a boyfriend, being around guys, or their own damn insecurities. Then at the sametime call men sexists or misogynists for watching porn, breaking up with them, looking at another woman, or not allowing her to boss him around.

Now, I know most young girls will go through this stage and get over it pretty fast once they get used to their raging hormones and teenaged stupidity. But it's the few girls that grow up to be women still holding on to these bigoted beliefs.


I'm interested in knowing what boys, girls, men, and women alike feel about this? Do these kind of feminists annouy, scare, or anger you? Because as far as I can tell this isn't equality.

By the way usually when they refer to the "superioty" of women they're talking about superioty for the type of women that suits them; one with no sexuality, attractiveness, and hates men as much as they do. Any other some how is less deserving of their respect.

I am an anti-feminist.

It's kind of unfortunate that given the work I do (women's health, menstrual activism, etc.) people assume I'm a feminist, I'll thus either get people who don't want to listen to a 'man-hating feminist' or people getting offended when I point out I'm not a feminist and so accusing me of being 'part of the problem'. I still read a lot of feminist blogs, I just refuse to be one of them.

I dipped my toe into the world of feminism a few years ago, I was cautious about using the term 'feminist' because many people do tend to think 'feminist = man hater' and thus have no interest in listening to whatever you have to say, so works against you more than anything, but I was assured I shouldn't let that put me off and show those people that all feminists aren't that way. I was eventually thrown out of ALL the feminist communities of which I was a member, after objecting to the idea that all men are potential rapists, all men are privileged and thus have no problems, and by refusing to ruin a guys life by falsely accusing him of rape (seriously).

It's not that feminism is bad per-say and not all feminists believe in female superiority, however many feminists are totally and utterly blinkered to the issues that men may face, or the polarity of social equality - for every issue facing women, there is an equal but opposite issue facing men or something men need to address in order for women to overcome the issue facing them. You exclude men that's inequality, not only do men's issues get ignored and men get put down, but it also effects women too - it's all well and good telling women they have rights and should be thought of a certain way by men, but if you don't tell the men then it's not gonna happen!

It's terminology and definition always will put women ahead of men, feminism has and still does a lot of good for women, it is still needed to represent women and the issues women face not just dealing with sexism but a whole host of social and cultural issues both in our society and world-wide. Not all feminists are bad, it's the movement on the whole that's bad.

Who is representing men?
Men are privileged in many ways, but equally there can suffer too, for example 'Men get paid more than women' - yes, but often because socially they're expected to support the family and thus take more dangerous jobs that pay more, they're financially tied to their families and have a higher rate of suicide because their worth is tied into supporting their family, if they fail they fail as men. You have ideas such as men=abusers, which is not only an issue for them on many levels, but by making men abusers feminism makes women victims by default. If feminists really cared about equality, they would put more focus on how both sexes interact with each other, rather than focusing purely on improving things for women...leaving men behind is turning them into weak links.

My motto is treat women as women ... not as fellow men. If some women can't accept that, that's their problem.

@ Bloodheart: the idea that 'men are paid more because they take more dangerous jobs' does not work even if you leave women completely out of the picture. The men with the most dangerous jobs - say, crabbers in Alaska, miners, etc - are far from being the highest paid men. The highest paid men are generally office workers for whom the most dangerous part of the day is the commute.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com ... ender-gap/

@Mcalavera: that's fine, unless you definition of 'woman' is not a sub-heading of 'person,' and unless you cannot accept that not all women (nor all men) fit the stereotypes for their gender but are not less worthy humans becuase of it.

'Feminist is what people call me when I say things that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.' In other words, I wouldn't like feminism either if it were only what you are describing above. However, 'feminism' has schismed as much as 'Christianity.' Saying that you hate Christianity in general because of Fried Phelps and co. is missing a much larger picture.

The women who know me in real life know how much respect I have for them as human beings or persons. The problem, though, is it's so unnatural for me to look at them as men or as individuals with the exact same rights and the exact same qualifications as those of men especially since women are quite different physiologically and psychologically from men in general. One is from Aphrodite, the other is from Ares.

And sure, there are females who act more like men than many men out there do, but those are exceptions and not part of the rule. And I wouldn't consider them to be women but as transgendered human beings with different sets of goals and motives and ways of thinking from both man and woman. With exceptions come different stories and exceptional rules.

I would call myself a feminist, in the sense of believing that men and women should be treated equally. But I think the term has become tainted by the kind of women you mention.

I get annoyed when I see ads, or hear other women, inferring that men are stupid, incompetent, have no emotions, that 'all men are rapists', all that crap. There's a T-shirt from a cartoon series I see occasionally round the UK...it says 'Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them'. Can you imagine the outcry if the gender in that was reversed?

My husband points out that two of the major stereotypes in ads these days are Aspirational Woman and her counterpart, Stupid Man. Quite often, an ad will show a man trying to do something, ineptly, and the woman stepping in and being the expert, usually with the help of product X. Horribly patronising - as well as acting against women's interests, actually, because if you imply that men are crap at housework and childcare, how can you ever expect them to step in and share the burden?

In feminist circles, there are indeed some things you daren't say. Those of you who've seen certain previous WP posts of mine will know that my mother was a deeply dysfunctional, emotionally abusive and probably narcissist individual, who did her level best to destroy my self-esteem well into adulthood. It's hard enough to mention this in society at large with its apple-pie mom images, but in feminist circles, if I mention it at all, I'll have people telling me my mother must have been a victim of her circumstances, or patriarchy, or even of my father (which is laughable). Because among these feminists, only men can be abusive, and all women, no matter how nasty, are 'sisters' who must be given the benefit of the doubt.

Really, when you think about it, that's something of an insult to female autonomy. To claim that a woman can only act in negative ways because she's been brainwashed by the patriarchy is to absolve her of responsibility for her own actions...and what can you then say about her positive actions - was she somehow brainwashed into those too? Couldn't you equally claim that some men are brainwashed into acting like chauvinist pigs? Or is it possible that both men and women are free individuals, making their own lives and responsible for their own actions, sometimes against social influences which are harmful to all of us and which need all our actions to change them?

That's how I'd prefer to look at it. I remember musing some time ago that the word 'patriarchy', so beloved of some feminists, should be changed, as it assumes that all men are dominant over all women, and very many men in our society are just as disadvantaged by the gender/power system (and if you try mentioning that on many feminist sites, you'll be spat at too!). Someone did coin the word 'kyriarchy', but I can't see that it's really caught on. Again, I would like a word to replace 'feminist' that suggests my real concern for equality and fair treatment of all people of all genders ('all' because even dividing everyone into either male or female is another false assumption)...but 'humanist' is already taken with aother meaning entirely. Any suggestions?

I think equality is an ideal. I think women should be allowed the same opportunity, same pay-scale, same combat roles in the military, etc., as men. Women are perfectly capable of leadership roles. Women are just as creative and imaginative as men are. I'm all about eliminating glass ceilings and so on.

HOWEVER...

I wouldn't COMPLETELY agree with MCalavera here, but he does make a good point. I'd put it a little differently, though. While equal OPPORTUNITY should be extended to women, it doesn't necessarily mean in reality and in practice that the same opportunities will taken. MCalavera is pointing to something I believe, which is a "natural order" to gender roles. Men and women are certainly equals. But they are not the SAME. Not separate, as with "separate but equal" policy as it applied to racial segregation. The key word is DIFFERENT.

I think the differences make the two sexes better suited to certain tasks. The most profound and most obvious is bearing children, nursing, and early childhood development. I could be wrong here, but I think that in part naturally equips women to be better homemakers (or "domestic engineers," if you will!), better teachers, and overall better aestheticians than men. There are certain fields that men have dominated, and for the life of me I can't understand WHY--like Kenneth Cole, for instance. Industrial designers are typically men, but it's women who are buying sleek and sexy designs that are implemented in kitchens and home application, like the Kitchen-Aid mixer or the Electrolux vacuum cleaner. I find this confusing--do men really understand women better than women themselves? Do men really get form-over-function better than women do? I'm not sure I really think that's the case. But it is what it is. Maybe we men are just better at building stuff, women are better than men at certain implementation and application. I don't know.

I'm in a female-dominated business, but I think that has to do more with stereotype than ability. For the aforementioned reasons, I think women are better suited to teaching, which is why there are more women in the teaching profession. Women are expected to be superior piano and clarinet players to men, and certainly more girls than boys are attracted to those instruments. However, principle symphony orchestra clarinet positions have traditionally been male-dominated, and that doesn't seem to me likely to change. I'm guessing it could be that women are more likely to see that kind of a thing as a hobby rather than a profession, or perhaps less willingness than men to sacrifice family for a music career. I have strangely found my female students are less likely to have interaction with male role models elsewhere, and I don't stop being masculine just because I'm teaching a piano lesson. Certainly my female competition in the area are more popular than I am, which I'm perfectly OK with, and it could be the more "matronly" approach to teaching is why. I just can't pull that off! If you act stupid, I will call you stupid. If your performance is an "epic fail," I will tell you it's an "epic fail." I have a very deep voice, and I tend to get loud and pushy. I've gotten a lot better, but it has taken 3 years now to perfect my approach to teaching--and I'm still working at it. I've never known a female piano teacher who seemed to require as much effort as I have to do what I do.

I also wonder why there aren't more women composers. There is nothing in the way of women composing music, whereas 60 years ago it was a decidedly man's world and a man's job. Not so anymore. Women have a distinct advantage with composition festivals and contests that admit entries ONLY from women. So why aren't there as many women writing music as men? I asked my wife that question. Her exact words: "Um, we just don't care." It's just not that important. I dated a young piano major when I was in grad school, and tried to get her to just free-form improvise once. She resisted to the point of nearly freaking out, at which she just said, "I'm not a composer. I can't make up stuff like that." Why the resistance? Why so self-conscious? Why so inhibited? It's not because men have more access to music theory and composition instruction at a younger age. I had to demand that my piano teacher in high school show me how to apply theory and extend it to improv and composition, and I never had formal training in composition before grad school. Anybody can do what I do. So where are the women?

It's not that they aren't naturally suited to it. They just don't care, as my wife would say. And I think it COULD be that women are more naturally predisposed to excellence in musical performance, while men are more naturally predisposed to the quasi-intellectual original side of it. Seriously, you see more women playing the instrument at a concert level, heavily steeped in classical music. Men? We don't play piano. We play KEYBOARDS. Big massive rigs, consisting of at least a Hammond B3, Hohner D6, either a Rhodes or a Wurly EP, a Moog, and at least one of the 3 big synth/workstations from Japan (I don't have that much money, so I have a Korg stage piano, a Yamaha DX7, and everything else is emulated on a MacBook Pro). Music? We don't need no music. We either make it up or play it by ear. Because we're MEN.

On the other hand, it doesn't take that much effort to do what I do. Composing, yes, but not playing in a band. Not playing piano at a church with a blended worship style. If you understand triadic harmony, if you're used to improvising in a wide variety of musical styles, what I do is a LOT easier than reading music. And I don't even find reading music that difficult. I think women are probably better at being nit-picky about playing note-for-note from sheet music and care less about the "why" of it. The focus is on the task at hand. Men tend to be lazy by comparison, and yet the shortcuts we are inclined to take make us more creative in other ways.

The thing is, you can't have one without the other. I don't think doing what I do is more or less valuable than what a female note-reader can do. I write music all the time that I couldn't learn to play myself in a million years. If a woman is going to give me more attention to detail and give me a faithful recreation of my original intent, that's what I'll tend to favor.

And I think that applies to a wide variety of life's many facets. I happen to be strong in areas in which my wife is weak. And she's better than me in a LOT of things. Where our individual matching strengths don't overlap, our strengths and weakness complement each other. For some reason, I consistently fail at boiling pasta. As dumb as that sounds, I just can't seem to do it and get it right. I CAN, however, make pasta noodles from scratch. With a rolling pin, not those wuss pasta machines. It's good upper-body exercise, actually. Kneading dough strengthens your hands for better piano-playing... Anyway... She makes killer spaghetti and meatballs (I mean that as a compliment, btw), I rule lasagna. If our son has a temper tantrum, she knows exactly what to do to calm him down. Our girl? Nope. She just gets worse. That's a job for daddy. Mom can handle discipline just fine. But Dad makes you fear for your life and thus is more effective for heavy-duty behavioral management. Dad is better at potty training because I'm a cold, heartless muthaf*cka. Mom? They sit on the potty for MAYBE 30 seconds, and she lets them go because THEY say they're "finished." She's good in the kitchen, but if there's a dish in the refrigerator that's been there for a year, I'M the one who cleans it out--and I mean stuff that would convince the sternest creationist that there IS such a thing as abiogenesis. I'm the one responsible for taking out the garbage. I've rescued my wife from exploding diapers when she's knee deep in poo. She's pulled me out of kid vomit.

I'm good at a lot of things, but my wife is the one in our household who is the chief breadwinner. She doesn't mind cooking meals, but I have to keep the kids busy while they wait.

I think men and women are for all practical purposes equal, but not equal in all items on a list. I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't see that as making one sex inferior or superior. I think men and women thrive on the strengths of the other. Fighting the way we're made and our natural predispositions is silly and unproductive.

I wasn't talking about who has the highest paid jobs, although still the example remains; men have to provide.
You seem to have missed the point of the example, although with that said at the same time you have shown the point - made it about how poorly done by women, how privileged men are, and thus ignoring the issues men face.

Feminism was ... a natural reaction against injustice and a necessary movement so the women can get the basic rights that they lacked for millenniums.

The first feminism's battle was against the men in power who were holding them back, and they made it, that was the first feminist victory and a major step forward in many human civilizations.

However, the phase 2 for feminism is more complicated and harder and the radical feminism is doing it wrong. Radical feminists are still aiming at men and blaming them for the patriarchal system and the hidden unfairness such as unfair pays and the likes.

From now on, they should not only aim at the anti-feminist men , but they should also focus more on the female population, the new feminism should move from the Confrontation phase to Long-term Awareness campaign phase, you'll understand what I mean below.

In order to achieve an ultimate egalitarian society , people's attitudes and especially women's attitudes need to be changed, otherwise no force in the world would let it happen.

There are several things that are still keeping the male gender as the stronger gender, and no , I am not talking about the male political dominion legacy here but about things are far more basic than this :

- The hypergamy tendency among females: to this day , this tendency is still strong , many justify this tendency with biological and evolutionary reasons but this doesn't change the fact that this tendency strengthens the patriarchy. As you hear and see, most women want husbands who are taller, stronger ,smarter, wealthier, more successful , older than themselves , you notice the "er" and the "better" trend, most women seek husbands who are overall 'better' than themselves. If ,let's say 90% of husbands are the breadwinner and are better than their wives intellectually , financially , physically or/and intellectually then male gender will remain the ruling power. Family is the cell unit of the society , dominate most of the cells and you dominate the society.

Check this survey : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... inner.html ----> this is a blow to feminism.

and this http://www.mid-day.com/relationships/20 ... ul-men.htm

As long most women wouldn't adopt an indifferent attitude whether their male partners are 'better' than themselves or not , then things will never change , the gender roles will never change and the patriarchal system will remain as strong as ever.


- Parents, and especially mothers, should start raising their boys and make them do house works earlier and more frequently as their daughters , and they should screw Disney love stories.


- Women still have the tendency to go to easier majors and less-paying jobs : please check this chart : http://blog.socialcast.com/wp-content/u ... -final.png

^ as you can see on this chart, the female contribution in the tech field is still significantly low , let's face it , technology is the new power in the world. Engineers and Tech people are the ones who rules the modern corporate life ,and they are the ones who earn most. I personally knew a lot of intelligent females at school but yet they went to easy majors.

That poster also shows that some feminists are starting to become aware what's really going on.

Also the viewing of the pay gap as myth that is the pay gap as a result of gender discrimination has come to the forefront a few times this last year, as well as the beginning of this year.

Their have been studies done on womens behavior that have explained the gap, as well as comparisons between childless females and males that show wage favoring women or wage with roughly no gap.

See

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/ ... _myth.html (His numbers are good bear with the rest)

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba392

Also see

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/03/comment ... /index.htm

This article puts forth another explanation, that while I don't really agree with it(Both because the study is a bit open ended, and because the other two links contradict it's overall claims.) I can understand it's sentiment, it also provides solutions for dealing with the potential viewpoints of the people question.

Gender "equality" is complete and utter BS. Men are men and women are women for a reason.
They should have the same rights in a majority of situations, but they should not be treated equally.
I treat fellow females as females, and men as men.

The problem is that often peoples notion of what is is to be a man or woman is shaped by the arbitrary customs in their society, and not by any real physical or mental limitations. Society 60 yearfs ago would dictate men would have to be jockish bodybuilding breadwinners, and women should be subservient housewives. By treating people to be exactly equal, even when they aren't, we don't pigeonhole them into predefined stereotypes

Do you care to elaborate upon what you mean by 'society'?

There is a fantastic Documentary called 'The F Word, Who Want's to be a Feminist?' It discuses how the term Feminist has become distorted and how people now think of it as a negative term. To be a Feminist really means that women have the right to opportunities, and that there is more to being a woman then motherhood. Woman's rights took a big leap in the 60's but has since stalled and people now think that no more progress is needed. Not only do women earn less then men, but as a wife or mother, they do far more unpaid work then men do, when it comes to all the tasks that a typical wife/mother does, each job was calculated by the task and hours... and it turns out that if motherhood was a paid job, they would earn more then $100,000 a year.

Today people have linked the term feminist to 'Anti-male' which just isn't the case at all. Some women where randomly asked if they where a feminist or not, and of course the ones that did not know what the term meant said 'no'.

There is more to women then their biological function, so yes, I am a feminist. People who say they are 'anti-feminist' most likely don't realize what the term actually means. Before woman's rights can get back on track, the word 'feminist' has to get it's real definition back., which ironically some of today's women are making it hard.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFeZ3PLMvaw[/youtube]

Here is the link to the whole documentary, but because it is on CBC, I am not sure if anyone outside of Canada can watch it.
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone ... index.html

But the home-care mothers provide isn't a job paid for by money(If it is paid for it is by personal non-financial gains), so why would you even bring it up in the context of equal wage? Why would you even put a price on it? Are you suggesting homemakers be paid a wage by someone(who?)? Are you suggesting they have any relevance at all in the equal wage argument, if so on what basis?

Also if a woman wishes to make her life solely about homemaking and motherhood why would you stand against it neko?(Your statement "To be a Feminist really means that women have the right to opportunities, and that there is more to being a woman then motherhood." would imply that a woman who focuses on motherhood and homemaking is not a complete woman, this is false and I would say it is disrespectful to homemakers.)

I don't think you really read my post.
Being a mother/wife is not a paid job, however the work involved is just as constant and intense as some of the paying jobs out there.... I guess the doc is saying that even though women are working wage jobs and still do work at home as mother/wife, they are still earning less. According to the UN, women make up 53% of the world’s population, but they own only 1% of the world’s wealth, feminism was supposed to make it more equal so the doc explores on what happened.
The documentary can explain it better then me.



YOU said it, not me.



'Right' doesn't not mean 'obligated'
The whole point of right to opportunities means women can make their own choices on careers, stay-at-home mom ect....
years ago women did not have that right, they where obligated to have kids and stay home, and if their husband approved of their wife working, the jobs that women could do where limited. Feminism replaces 'obligated' with 'Right', women can choose what they want without being scrutinized. Years ago women 'deciding' not to want a child was considered 'radical' so was voting.

If you are able to access the documentary, give it a watch, could make this discussion more interesting.