RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist?

RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

LadyAngelika -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/15/2009 6:24:11 PM)
quote: So, you 'don't believe in women's equality with men, and the right of women to be who they want to be and do what they want to do '? Yes I do, but not on the same terms as did the Feminist agenda. Ergo, I'm not a feminist. One can share ideologies with a movement without having to adhere to the full movement. You have to realise that if you simplify the Feminist agenda to the simple line you posted above, you are missing a great deal of the movement. If you are interested, might I suggest that you scroll up and read my response to SnowRanger, or even better, the first post by hopelesslyInvo. I realise that in his second post, he had a similar response - LA

PeonForHer -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/15/2009 6:34:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hopelesslyInvo quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer believe in women's equality with men, and the right of women to be who they want to be and do what they want to do you don't have to be a feminist to satisfy those conditions. My point was that if you do satisfy those conditions, then - for many people - you are a feminist.

PeonForHer -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/15/2009 6:46:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: So, you 'don't believe in women's equality with men, and the right of women to be who they want to be and do what they want to do '? Yes I do, but not on the same terms as did the Feminist agenda. Ergo, I'm not a feminist. One can share ideologies with a movement without having to adhere to the full movement.- LA We've been here before in another thread, recently. I'd say: of course one can share ideologies with a movement without having to adhere to the full movement - feminism is so wide-ranging that it'd be unlikely anyone self-identifying as a feminist would agree with all of it, either. Likewise, most who call themselves 'socialists' seldom agree with every ideological outlook that's been considered to be implied by the word 'socialism'. You'll find a lot of socialists around, for instance, but far fewer Marxists. Also, there will always be quite different interpretations of 'equality' and 'liberty' - the two aims to which I was alluding when I defined feminism in the way that I did. They're very fraught ideas, no matter what ideology (feminism, socialism, whatever) we're talking about. That's especially true of a movement for change in society. Again, self-identifying feminists themselves continue to argue hotly about them.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/15/2009 6:55:26 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: hopelesslyInvo quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer believe in women's equality with men, and the right of women to be who they want to be and do what they want to do you don't have to be a feminist to satisfy those conditions. My point was that if you do satisfy those conditions, then - for many people - you are a feminist. Yeah, well to be quite honest, I really don't care what other people consider me. I only care what I consider myself to be. And that is not a feminist. It is not my fault if they use broad sweeping statements without understanding the underlying ideologies. I am not responsible for their ignorance. And before someone gets offended by that comment, I mean ignorance in it's true form, that is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information. - LA

Lucienne -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/15/2009 6:57:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika For the record, I loooove chivalry. I like a man to open doors for me, help me with my coat, walk out the curb side of the sidewalk, help me with my coat, pull my chair, get up when I excuse myself from the table. I expect that a man ensure my safety and comfort but in a strong, confident way. A lot of it is subtle and different for every man. For some men, it’s all about teaching them to “take it like a man” or “walk like a man”. <weg>. - LA One of the major criticisms that third wave feminism directed at second wave is the class based nature of second wave attitudes. For the lower classes, the idea that women need to work is not controversial. I benefited from being the offspring of an advancing generation. My parents were the first in their families to have a college education. Their parents were politically very conservative, but coming from the working class, they were very sympathetic to valuing the labor contributions of women. My family also values manners and courtesy. I was raised to appreciate the things you identify as "chivalry," but without the attendent expectations that women are weak or in need of such protections. In retrospect, I marvel at the extent to which I was raised with a simultaneous appreciation for traditional manners and a feminist outlook. I love it, and wish the whole world could enjoy the same.

PeonForHer -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/15/2009 7:02:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: quote: ORIGINAL: hopelesslyInvo quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer believe in women's equality with men, and the right of women to be who they want to be and do what they want to do you don't have to be a feminist to satisfy those conditions. My point was that if you do satisfy those conditions, then - for many people - you are a feminist. Yeah, well to be quite honest, I really don't care what other people consider me. I only care what I consider myself to be. And that is not a feminist. It is not my fault if they use broad sweeping statements without understanding the underlying ideologies. I am not responsible for their ignorance. And before someone gets offended by that comment, I mean ignorance in it's true form, that is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information. - LA I have to disagree. I don't think those people - which includes myself - are ignorant for taking that overall view of feminism. The most enduring aims of feminism have indeed been to achieve liberty and equality. Even third wave feminism has been argued to reflect those aims, albeit in a more a fine-tuned, individualised way.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/15/2009 7:12:26 PM)
quote: One of the major criticisms that third wave feminism directed at second wave is the class based nature of second wave attitudes. For the lower classes, the idea that women need to work is not controversial. I benefited from being the offspring of an advancing generation. My parents were the first in their families to have a college education. Their parents were politically very conservative, but coming from the working class, they were very sympathetic to valuing the labor contributions of women. My family also values manners and courtesy. I was raised to appreciate the things you identify as "chivalry," but without the attendent expectations that women are weak or in need of such protections. In retrospect, I marvel at the extent to which I was raised with a simultaneous appreciation for traditional manners and a feminist outlook. I love it, and wish the whole world could enjoy the same. Nice! You get it. :-) Now can you explain it to PeonForHer? ;-) - LA

hopelesslyInvo -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/15/2009 7:40:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: hopelesslyInvo quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer believe in women's equality with men, and the right of women to be who they want to be and do what they want to do you don't have to be a feminist to satisfy those conditions. quote: My point was that if you do satisfy those conditions, then - for many people - you are a feminist. quote: feminism is so wide-ranging that it'd be unlikely anyone self-identifying as a feminist would agree with all of it a term like feminism can be very broad, but it's still a centralized and focused idea/theory. the problem with reverse engineered conclusions about what someone is, is that it's what you think someone is rather than what they are, and that it's more often than not based on a narrow understanding or only one noted perception. for example, in someone else's eyes; if i support government health care i'm socialist, if i don't support abortion i'm conservative, if i don't think in god we trust should be removed from our currency i'm a religious fanatic, if i don't google something myself and ask another person for the answer instead i'm lazy or irresponsible; if i don't buy the most expensive brand i'm cheap or poor; if i'm submissive i'm into kinky sex; i'm if into bdsm i like leather; and if i think women should have the same rights as men i'm a feminist. (those are all ifs by the way, in case someone was jumping to one conclusion or another and wanting to derail the thread based on what i support, do, or like) what my point is; even someone who sympathizes with feminists can't be said to be a feminist, and what other people consider you to be doesn't make it so, or mean 'you are' or 'are willing' to stand behind it / be part of it. it takes more than throwing flour and eggs in the oven to make it a cake. even when you find all the necessary ingredients in a person to get what you might expect out of them... you might find that they're simply just "baked".

LadyAngelika -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/15/2009 7:46:41 PM)
quote: (those are all ifs by the way, in case someone was jumping to one conclusion or another and wanting to derail the thread based on what i support, do, or like) Nope. You added to the thread and helped me prove my point. Thanks.

PeonForHer -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/15/2009 8:03:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: One of the major criticisms that third wave feminism directed at second wave is the class based nature of second wave attitudes. For the lower classes, the idea that women need to work is not controversial. I benefited from being the offspring of an advancing generation. My parents were the first in their families to have a college education. Their parents were politically very conservative, but coming from the working class, they were very sympathetic to valuing the labor contributions of women. My family also values manners and courtesy. I was raised to appreciate the things you identify as "chivalry," but without the attendent expectations that women are weak or in need of such protections. In retrospect, I marvel at the extent to which I was raised with a simultaneous appreciation for traditional manners and a feminist outlook. I love it, and wish the whole world could enjoy the same. Nice! You get it. :-) Now can you explain it to PeonForHer? ;-) - LA What do you think needs to be explained to me, LadyAngelika? The bit about 'traditional manners and a feminist outlook'? I support both. Do you?

PeonForHer -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/15/2009 8:50:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hopelesslyInvo a term like feminism can be very broad, but it's still a centralized and focused idea/theory. I'd disagree. It's been through multiple metamorphoses in the last century. There are many variations. I wouldn't say, therefore, it's a centralised and focused idea/theory - except in terms of fundamental principles, like those of liberty and equality. quote: the problem with reverse engineered conclusions about what someone is, is that it's what you think someone is rather than what they are, and that it's more often than not based on a narrow understanding or only one noted perception. In order to encompass what feminism is, I think you have to take a very broad view - as I've tried to do. It would, on the other hand, be to take a narrow understanding of feminism only to focus on a few ideas that are 'of a few noted' (and oft-lambasted) feminists. quote: . . . for example, in someone else's eyes; if i support government health care i'm socialist, if i don't support abortion i'm conservative, if i don't think in god we trust should be removed from our currency i'm a religious fanatic, if i don't google something myself and ask another person for the answer instead i'm lazy or irresponsible; if i don't buy the most expensive brand i'm cheap or poor; if i'm submissive i'm into kinky sex; i'm if into bdsm i like leather; and if i think women should have the same rights as men i'm a feminist. . . . . . . . what my point is; even someone who sympathizes with feminists can't be said to be a feminist, and what other people consider you to be doesn't make it so, or mean 'you are' or 'are willing' to stand behind it / be part of it. . Recalling, then, my view that feminism is about a belief in women's equality with men, and the right of women to be who they want to be and do what they want to do - are you saying that you'd sympathise with these principles, but stop short of supporting them or be willing to stand behind them, in practice? More generally, what I see happening here is mostly about labels and people's overly strong feelings about them. Some love a particular label and fiercely defend their right to use it (e.g. I so am a submissive, I so am a dominant!) Others are the reverse - they want to distance themselves from a label just as fiercely. This is what I see with regard to the label 'feminist'. It's become a dirty word. That's partly because of what some feminists themselves have done over the years, partly because of more basic changes in society (fragmentation, for instance) - but also partly because there has been a consistent maligning of feminists by their detractors ever since the time of the suffragists at the end of the nineteenth century. Secondly, the person who self-identifies with an outlook doesn't necessarily own it. I'm not necessarily a Catholic just because I say I am, for example. Likewise, if I support Hitler and his basic views, I'd say that people have the right to call me a Nazi whether or not I choose to label myself that way. I don't support Hitler's views. I do support the basic views of feminism as I've outlined them, therefore - without being either proud or ashamed to say so - I'm a feminist. The cap fits, so I might as well wear it. Thirdly, my main feeling about this subject: when I point to feminism being about liberty and equality, I'm raising two of the three tenets that have inspired so many movements for change - and still do. So many have drawn from the rallying cry of the French Revolution. It's been held that those three ideas - liberty, equality and fraternity - are inseparable. No one idea can survive without the other two. This is why I'd be very cautious about distancing myself from a movement that, historically, has been so good for me. I'd say, the choice is: either let the word 'feminist' stay dirty - or make it clean again. I'd go for the latter.

hopelesslyInvo -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/15/2009 11:45:06 PM)
quote: quote: a term like feminism can be very broad, but it's still a centralized and focused idea/theory. I'd disagree. It's been through multiple metamorphoses in the last century. There are many variations. I wouldn't say, therefore, it's a centralised and focused idea/theory - except in terms of fundamental principles, like those of liberty and equality. i'd doubly disagree; take whatever amount of views... i don't care if they're in the thousand, those thousand views are the localized idea that "it" as a whole pertains to. feminism is definitely not so amazingly broad that it coincides with chauvinism, art appreciation, christianity, or the ideas held for proper business management. you can stuff one word full of as many definitions as you want, it'll never mean anything, but eventually lose all meaning. but regardless, it's not so big that you can just go "meh, they're a feminist even if they don't really care all that much about feminist ideals compared to others". feminism is a central idea, and as broad as it may be under one light, it's not even broad enough to even encompass the same issues it covers for women in regards to those same issues when present for concerns of race, age, etc. quote: quote: . . . for example, in someone else's eyes; if i support government health care i'm socialist, if i don't support abortion i'm conservative, if i don't think in god we trust should be removed from our currency i'm a religious fanatic, if i don't google something myself and ask another person for the answer instead i'm lazy or irresponsible; if i don't buy the most expensive brand i'm cheap or poor; if i'm submissive i'm into kinky sex; i'm if into bdsm i like leather; and if i think women should have the same rights as men i'm a feminist. . . . . . . . what my point is; even someone who sympathizes with feminists can't be said to be a feminist, and what other people consider you to be doesn't make it so, or mean 'you are' or 'are willing' to stand behind it / be part of it. Recalling, then, my view that feminism is about a belief in women's equality with men, and the right of women to be who they want to be and do what they want to do - are you saying that you'd sympathise with these principles, but stop short of supporting them or be willing to stand behind them, in practice? recalling... i already stated that i was a feminist. i could however cite something else in order to exemplify what you're asking if i that wasn't the case; like how i don't believe gays should be able to get married, but that they should be allowed 'a union' with the same legal benefits and so forth that married couples get, which is all they really have to complain is lacking; which would make all but the whiniest happy and without sullying what is a coveted religious practice that joins a man and a woman under GOD, a god who happens to have a very big problem with gay couples. since assuming that 'the majority of people will wish for the equal treatment of both genders' is enough for you to figure you can say next to everyone isn't a hardcore supremacist must then be a feminist; what i've just said is far more than enough for you to "suppose" that i'm both a gay activist/supporter and an activist/supporter of the church. i sympathize with the church on their view, and i also sympathize with the gays wanting fair treatment that straight couples get; but if either of these causes needed donations, or people to walk in their parade, or wear their buttons, or inform people about them, or me write my mayor for their interests... pffffft. i'm not supporting that, i'm not willing to stand behind it and take heat or personal attacks for something i don't really care about and am not concerned with or affected by in the least. i merely have an opinion on the situation. i'm no more of a gay/religious supporter/activist than a guy that thinks "yeah, women might as well be able to have the same rights as men" is a feminist. the reason i'm a feminist is because i take interest in women, i am concerned about women, and i am affected by them; sooooooo i will support them, i will stand behind them and stand up for them; i'd do a lot of things in regards to them. not because i simply have no qualms with their interest, or because i'm sympathetic with their interests, but because i SHARE their interests. quote: Secondly, the person who self-identifies with an outlook doesn't necessarily own it. I'm not necessarily a Catholic just because I say I am, for example. Likewise, if I support Hitler and his basic views, I'd say that people have the right to call me a Nazi whether or not I choose to label myself that way. lies and lack of awareness are always in effect; but supporting hitler wouldn't make you a nazi. like i've said, this is like reverse engineered logic. nazis were germans who operated under hitler's command, meaning they supported him, and he supported them. you saying "i support hitler" doesn't do much of anything to make you german, to make you someone who works under hitlers command, or make him accepting of you doing so. imagine how many jews could've just said "oh uh... i support hitler, i'm a nazi too!" and have hitler be like "well gosh really? that's just swell! here, have some strudel and some cool looking boots.". it wouldn't even work for americans; BEFORE getting on his bad side. it's like i said before, bit's and pieces aren't enough, assumptions aren't enough, and even having everything you would potentially need in order to be "something" doesn't mean you are that "something". hell, i'm potentially awesome and have everything it takes to become so, and i'd even support and stand behind my being awesome, but as it stands... yeah, pretty meager over here in the grand scale of things~ it takes more than passive indifference, agreement, or sympathy for someone's cause to join or be a part of a cause. at the very least, it takes far much more than the generalizations of someone or jumping to conclusions based on the knowledge of one or two things. saying someone "might as well be called something" kind of takes the piss out of them ACTUALLY being that thing if nothing else, no?

detroitsearcher -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/16/2009 1:39:43 AM)
i am only trying to explain the idea, it is not how i think, but this is as i understand it: Holding a door open for a woman is implying that women need help. This is the preset concept of womanhood that feminism begins with, that feminism is taking on at the start. Of course some react really bizarrely to this, like wearing lipstick meant you were selling out to man's expectations or wearing clothes that fit your body form rather than overly baggy and therefore gender neutral meant that you were trying to be perceived of as an object for man's desire (some of my experiences at college). Faint, soft, beautiful, merciful, nurturing, caregiver, home maker, cook, seamstress, mother, nurse, teacher, secretary, librarian, waitress, wife, mistress (other woman), whore, witch, healer, model, leader of volunteer groups towards the arts or community, active in church (for love of social hierarchy and being correct and believing a bit too much in fairy tales), not mechanically inclined, poor at math and science and logic, empathic, overly idealistic / not understanding the true brutality of operating in the real world, therefore bad at politics, and perhaps endangering herself with her naiveté of some of the uglier dangers of this world.

PeonForHer -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/16/2009 5:11:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hopelesslyInvo quote: quote: a term like feminism can be very broad, but it's still a centralized and focused idea/theory. I'd disagree. It's been through multiple metamorphoses in the last century. There are many variations. I wouldn't say, therefore, it's a centralised and focused idea/theory - except in terms of fundamental principles, like those of liberty and equality. i'd doubly disagree; take whatever amount of views... i don't care if they're in the thousand, those thousand views are the localized idea that "it" as a whole pertains to. feminism is definitely not so amazingly broad that it coincides with chauvinism, art appreciation, christianity, or the ideas held for proper business management. you can stuff one word full of as many definitions as you want, it'll never mean anything, but eventually lose all meaning. but regardless, it's not so big that you can just go "meh, they're a feminist even if they don't really care all that much about feminist ideals compared to others". feminism is a central idea, and as broad as it may be under one light, it's not even broad enough to even encompass the same issues it covers for women in regards to those same issues when present for concerns of race, age, etc. I agree that a word can end up meaning so many things that it can mean almost nothing. But I didn't say this. I said that feminism concerns itself with liberty for women and equality with men. Presumably, you think this is too broad a definition? How would you define 'feminism'? My concern is that a lot of the post-feminist arguments which came up particularly in the 1980s and 1990s portrayed second-wave feminism as a monolithic thing, depending upon generalisations that were false (partly because they were so often media-generated demonisations). This was a particular point in Susan Faludi's book, Backlash. quote: . . recalling... i already stated that i was a feminist. i could however cite something else in order to exemplify what you're asking if i that wasn't the case; like how i don't believe gays should be able to get married, but that they should be allowed 'a union' with the same legal benefits and so forth that married couples get, which is all they really have to complain is lacking; which would make all but the whiniest happy and without sullying what is a coveted religious practice that joins a man and a woman under GOD, a god who happens to have a very big problem with gay couples. since assuming that 'the majority of people will wish for the equal treatment of both genders' is enough for you to figure you can say next to everyone isn't a hardcore supremacist must then be a feminist; what i've just said is far more than enough for you to "suppose" that i'm both a gay activist/supporter and an activist/supporter of the church. No, to repeat: for me, a person who supports equality and freedom for women may be called a feminist. An activist, for most (including me), implies more of an active role. Similarly, a socialist may be someone who may be actively involved in campaigning for socialism, or he/she may be someone who just supports the aims of socialism. If that only means voting once every four or five years for a party that adheres to socialist ideas and not, say, conservative ideas, then that is still doing something to support socialism. quote: i'm no more of a gay/religious supporter/activist than a guy that thinks "yeah, women might as well be able to have the same rights as men" is a feminist. the reason i'm a feminist is because i take interest in women, i am concerned about women, and i am affected by them; sooooooo i will support them, i will stand behind them and stand up for them; i'd do a lot of things in regards to them. not because i simply have no qualms with their interest, or because i'm sympathetic with their interests, but because i SHARE their interests. You come dangerously close with that 'i'd do a lot of things in regards to them' to saying you're a feminist activist. ([;)] If so, well . . . good!) But when a movement's goals reach a certain point of acceptance in wider society it tends not to need so many activists. quote: nazis were germans who operated under hitler's command, meaning they supported him, and he supported them. you saying "i support hitler" doesn't do much of anything to make you german, to make you someone who works under hitlers command, or make him accepting of you doing so. Nazism can, for some, refer to the philosophy of national socialism and there are those who self-identify as Nazis for that reason alone. Still, my bad for using that particular example and thus raising the risk of someone falling foul of Godwin's Law. Perhaps we should stick to examples we on this forum all know and 'love' - terms like 'gentleman' or 'lady'. Should everyone who appears on this forum saying he is a 'gentleman' always be accepted as such? I doubt it. quote: it's like i said before, bit's and pieces aren't enough, assumptions aren't enough, and even having everything you would potentially need in order to be "something" doesn't mean you are that "something". I'm not sure what that means. If a creature only potentially has four legs and a trunk, isn't it still an elephant? quote: it takes more than passive indifference, agreement, or sympathy for someone's cause to join or be a part of a cause. Not in politics, it doesn't. This is why the phrase 'if you're not with us, you're against us' is so common in that particular game. And that oft-quoted line, 'for evil to succeed all it takes is for good men to do nothing'. It's these sorts of sentiments that have been, in part, behind Angela McRobbie's and others' attacks on the indifference of many of those who've called themselves 'post-feminists'. One doesn't always need to do much, but one does need to do something.

Lucienne -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/16/2009 6:39:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hopelesslyInvo recalling... i already stated that i was a feminist. i could however cite something else in order to exemplify what you're asking if i that wasn't the case; like how i don't believe gays should be able to get married, but that they should be allowed 'a union' with the same legal benefits and so forth that married couples get, which is all they really have to complain is lacking; which would make all but the whiniest happy and without sullying what is a coveted religious practice that joins a man and a woman under GOD, a god who happens to have a very big problem with gay couples. I'm going to put my gay rights activist cap on and point out that no one has ever proposed a law that would require religious institutions to sanctify marriages for gay couples. Such a law would be a clear violation of the first amendment. Now I'm going to replace that cap with my "God isn't an asshole" activist cap and state that God is love and has no problem with gay couples. My feminist activist hat is at the haberdasher getting some fresh feathers, but even without it, I feel comfortable stating that Peon's points make perfect feminist sense to me and I'm not sure what the argument is about.

PeonForHer -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/16/2009 9:21:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne . . . I'm not sure what the argument is about. For me, two things, at bottom. The first is the time-honoured strategy of 'divide and rule'. Split up your enemies - and thereby control them. If any movement for change is about 'liberty, equality, fraternity', you're best off as a governor attacking the 'fraternity' principle. Make out that one of your enemy-group is mad, and the others won't want to associate with him. The second thing is nicely encapsulated in an article, from Wikipedia, on 'post-feminism'. My bolds: Post-feminism describes a range of viewpoints reacting to feminism. While not being "anti-feminist," post-feminists believe that women have achieved second wave goals while being critical of third wave feminist goals. The term was first used in the 1980s to describe a backlash against second-wave feminism. It is now a label for a wide range of theories that take critical approaches to previous feminist discourses and includes challenges to the second wave's ideas.[38] Other post-feminists say that feminism is no longer relevant to today's society.[39] Amelia Jones wrote that the post-feminist texts which emerged in the 1980s and 1990s portrayed second-wave feminism as a monolithic entity and criticized it using generalizations.[40] One of the earliest uses of the term was in Susan Bolotin's 1982 article "Voices of the Post-Feminist Generation," published in New York Times Magazine. This article was based on a number of interviews with women who largely agreed with the goals of feminism, but did not identify as feminists.[41] Some contemporary feminists, such as Katha Pollitt or Nadine Strossen, consider feminism to hold simply that "women are people". Views that separate the sexes rather than unite them are considered by these writers to be sexist rather than feminist'.'[42][43] In her book Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, Susan Faludi argues that a backlash against second wave feminism in the 1980s has successfully re-defined feminism through its terms. She argues that it constructed the women's liberation movement as the source of many of the problems alleged to be plaguing women in the late 1980s. She also argues that many of these problems are illusory, constructed by the media without reliable evidence. According to her, this type of backlash is a historical trend, recurring when it appears that women have made substantial gains in their efforts to obtain equal rights.[44]

thetammyjo -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/16/2009 9:38:20 AM)
I'm a Radical Feminist the late 1960s definition even though I wasn't born until 1969. Why? Because that branch said everything changes through two ways: Within yourself and through education. It also was built on the idea that people are people first and that gender is a social construct that limits everyone. I believe 100% in all of that. Personally, a man who said he was a submissive or slave but then made such anti-feminist statements is either showing his ignorance about the social and political movements or he is is really only in any of this for his own pleasure. Neither of those interest me at all.

aidan -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/16/2009 11:32:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I'm a Radical Feminist the late 1960s definition even though I wasn't born until 1969. Why? Because that branch said everything changes through two ways: Within yourself and through education. It also was built on the idea that people are people first and that gender is a social construct that limits everyone. I believe 100% in all of that. Personally, a man who said he was a submissive or slave but then made such anti-feminist statements is either showing his ignorance about the social and political movements or he is is really only in any of this for his own pleasure. Neither of those interest me at all. I haven't said it in a while so I think I'm due again: you're one of my favorite posters here Tammy Jo and one of the few reasons I keep coming back to peruse. Don't know how I feel about gender being purely or even mostly a negative, but then I'm not as up-and-up on the philosophy involved here. Anyway, thanks. :)

NovelApproach -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/17/2009 2:48:30 AM)
I'm absolutely a Feminist, very much in line with what TammyJo posted. I'm also a rabid Pastafarian, and one of the commandments of that religion is this: [The FSM'd] really rather you didn't judge people for the way the look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this in your thick heads: Woman=Person. Man=Person. Samey=Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion, and I'm sorry but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia. While I recognize that the Gospel of The FSM is largely a tongue-in-cheek document, I still hold the eight I.R.R.Y.D.'s as my highest ethical ideals.

SomethingCatchy -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/17/2009 5:25:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR I'm afraid there'll be a strong tendency for a sizeable number of people to shout "No, I'm not a feminist!" because the word has become so loaded with negative connotations by now that, for these, 'feminism' is 'a bad thing' simply by definition. I've had many many people approach me with the 'it's bad to be a feminist' idea because I was outspoken about my choice. I reckon it's a lot like being bisexual. A lot of people just aren't going to understand it, and that's ok.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625