Lets talk about feminism.

[blake]

Because it's got a few mentions in the last day or so on the forum and I must confess it's not something I have ever studied and it's something I have heard and seen defined and acted upon in many different ways so I'm hoping you educated people will clear things up for me.

What I found most interesting is Laura's statement that man who claim to be proud to be feminist and make a big thing about it is offensive, because it should be a "given" that men hold feminist views? (sorry if I've misunderstood or misquoted you Laura!)

Because if by feminist we mean the fact that women should be treated equally, equal rights, equal opportunities, equal pay and they shouldn't be judged entirely on looks or treated as slabs of meat in a butchers shop against there will, then yes I think anyone who doesn't hold those views is deeply morally questionable and I would not wish to associate with them out of choice.

But however I know feminism is about more than all that. Like all ideologies it probably has its fundamentalists, it's moderates and it's nutcases. I have hear it implied or outright stated that Women are in someway morally or functionally superior to Men or that men's natural instincts to be attracted to women and *shock horror* to want sex is somehow demonic for instance. So it's clear there is no one definitive set of feminist views. So that leads to more confusion at Laura's statement that men "should" hold feminist views as a given. Feminist views to what extent?


Anyway I'm rambling now.

Fill me in!

[tombland]

My education on feminism has been... limited to say the least. I'm familiar with the concepts of First and Second Wave Feminism and after that post-feminism. But this is mostly through the study of Angela Carter and the like.

As I understand it, first wave feminism was involved in gaining women recognition in the more oficial aspects of life such as getting women the vote. I think it was started around the late 1700s by Mary Wolstencraft. She wrote a book. Though i don't know if it was the actual start or not. Rather ignorant.

And second-wave feminism the more unofficial aspects such as unequal treatment, which i suppose in theory should have continued up until today with the way that many women are viewed as pieces of meat, as Josh said. From what I can see, post-feminism is to an extent a criticism of these two "waves", saying they forced women to see themselves as victims and such. I've kinda gone off topic, but this is what I know of feminism and I'm sorry if I've stumbled through that without tact, as I said, I'm not particularly educated on the subject.

[blake]

haha my topic has now been "edited" as it was to long.

Thanks for the help Luke.

[Jacques Snaefells]

When I have studied sociology the term "Feminisms" was used as opposed to "Feminism", simply because all women are not a homogenous category and therefore neither are the ideologies which the feminist groups hold. The groups are so diverse: Marxist Feminism, Liberal Feminism, Radical Feminism, Black Feminism etc. and all have different agendas ranging from asking for equal rights to some suggesting that we should do away with men altogether.

[stentorsrevenge]

I prefer to see feminism in the light that women want to hold the same rights as men, not that they believe that they deserve better than men. Also, it's a given that men are better at some things and women at others; I accept that. The feminist material I usually read is mainly celebratory towards female culture, and it often involves the accomplishments of men as well.

[Clare]

tombland said:

As I understand it, first wave feminism was involved in gaining women recognition in the more oficial aspects of life such as getting women the vote. I think it was started around the late 1700s by Mary Wolstencraft. She wrote a book. Though i don't know if it was the actual start or not. Rather ignorant.

Yes, Mary Wollstonecraft kicked off UK feminism, pretty much.

Ummm. I'm a radical feminist - although there are a lot of arguments with Socialist friends about this (eye-roll material). I like to define this thus: I believe in the concept of patriarchy (a society that essentially is run by men, for men); and I believe that the only way to achieve true equality for women is by smashing patriarchy.

In some ways, this clashes with my Socialist beliefs, and my comrades never fail to try to engage me in arguments I have no interest in. Socialists believe that capitalism is a destructive force that drives us apart, creating inequalities - such as the inequality between sexes, races, sexualities, etc.

How can a Socialist believe in a patriarchy?

Well, I believe that patriarchy existed pre-capitalism. In some respects, capitalism was actually good for women! It allowed us into the work force and allowed us the economic stability to fight for our rights (e.g., suffrage). However, it still holds us back.

Patriarchy and capitalism are happy fwiends. They get on. One supports the other, and the other does the exact same. By smashing capitalism, through the act of revolution, we help to strike a blow against patriarchy.

But I guess it isn't that simple.

I don't know too much about the "what-happens-then" debates (mostly because it makes me fall asleep); but I think being a feminist is partly fighting for the now, and that's what I believe I should be doing. Fighting against patriarchy now, in our heads and in our homes.

I would like to think that we are all feminists, but it's obviously not the case. We do live in a sexist society, and we are all sexist to some degree. The first step against fighting inequalities, however, is to make yourself aware of these sexist attitudes we hold and pull yourself up about them.

I do believe that men can be, and should be, feminists; but, in the end, my values tell me that women must lead the feminist movement. Men cannot free us from oppression - we must do it ourselves. Like... The bourgeois cannot free us from poverty, the working classes must. Yeahhhhh, Socialist garbles.

[Lauren]

I am a feminist simply in the terms that I would like to see all genders with the same human rights. Human rights is the issue to which I constantly devote the largest percentage of my time and attention.

I am not looking for an Amazonian world ruled by women where men are prisoners. (Though I do like to read Andrea Dworkin ever so often for amusement.)

One of the things irking me a lot right now is the unequal salaries for each gender.

[tombland]

Clare, how exactly would you describe a radical feminist?

[Clare]

A radical feminist is just a feminist who believes that the way to true equality - which includes destroying sexist ideals - is not through reform, but, uhhhh, revolution, I guess. Destroying patriarchy.

[blake]

tombland said:

Clare, how exactly would you describe a radical feminist?

I second this question.

[Jacques Snaefells]

littleredgrrl said:

Well, I believe that patriarchy existed pre-capitalism. In some respects, capitalism was actually good for women! It allowed us into the work force and allowed us the economic stability to fight for our rights (e.g., suffrage). However, it still holds us back.

Patriarchy and capitalism are happy fwiends. They get on. One supports the other, and the other does the exact same. By smashing capitalism, through the act of revolution, we help to strike a blow against patriarchy.

I agree with you there. I think that both capitalism and patriarchy are bound up with one another. It's like they say, women are subject to a triple shift, or double bind. The patriarchy acts to support capitalism; women, stereotypically, do not only work to contribute to the household income, but they are also expected to be a carer for and to socialise a future generation that are subjected to capitalist ideologies and to provide emotional support for their partner.

[blake]

littleredgrrl said:

but, uhhhh, revolution, I guess. Destroying patriarchy.

How?

What sort of revolution?

[Clare]

blake said:

littleredgrrl said:

but, uhhhh, revolution, I guess. Destroying patriarchy.

How?

What sort of revolution?

I would prefer Socialist.

[Lauren]

Oh to go back to the good old days when ancient humans worshipped woman and lived in lovely little matriarchical societies...

In theory revolution is nice. But actual violence is certainly not.

[stentorsrevenge]

Amsterdam is pretty free.

[Lauren]

Amsterdam is a lovely place.

[tombland]

littleredgrrl said:

A radical feminist is just a feminist who believes that the way to true equality - which includes destroying sexist ideals - is not through reform, but, uhhhh, revolution, I guess. Destroying patriarchy.

Why is a revolution required, exactly? Through first-wave feminism, at least, women have gained all their official rights. And since then women have been becoming more equal in the eyes of society. How exactly would you go about this revolution? What exactly would happen? Replace it with a Matriarchy?

[Clare]

Revolution, in my opinion, is necessary because I believe - like the vast majority of Socialists - that to build on an old, corrupt system would never work. You can't reform out of capitalism, therefore you can't reform out of patriarchy.

It can only go ahead when society is in the right sort of place, and people understand the various viewpoints and why some believe a revolution is needed. And then people agree. I hope. In the mean time, what I do is civil resistance, spreading the word, challenging attitudes and, errrrr, selling newspapers. Little by little, I hope it helps to change people's attitudes until we're in a good sort of place to change society.

Marx said that capitalism wasn't sustainable, and revolution would occur when we reach the point of capitalism and destruction; or revolution and survival. Maybe we'll need to wait until then? Dunno.

And no, I wouldn't like to see a matriarchy in place. I don't believe it's any better than a patriarchy. I would like to see a Socialist system where, in theory, we live in equality. This would mean that, with true equality, we really would be able to judge people on ability alone and the numbers of the genders in workplaces and positions of power no longer matter.

It's all a bit airy-fairy.

[stentorsrevenge]

littleredgrrl said:

Revolution, in my opinion, is necessary because I believe - like the vast majority of Socialists - that to build on an old, corrupt system would never work. You can't reform out of capitalism, therefore you can't reform out of patriarchy.

It can only go ahead when society is in the right sort of place, and people understand the various viewpoints and why some believe a revolution is needed. And then people agree. I hope. In the mean time, what I do is civil resistance, spreading the word, challenging attitudes and, errrrr, selling newspapers. Little by little, I hope it helps to change people's attitudes until we're in a good sort of place to change society.

Marx said that capitalism wasn't sustainable, and revolution would occur when we reach the point of capitalism and destruction; or revolution and survival. Maybe we'll need to wait until then? Dunno.

And no, I wouldn't like to see a matriarchy in place. I don't believe it's any better than a patriarchy. I would like to see a Socialist system where, in theory, we live in equality. This would mean that, with true equality, we really would be able to judge people on ability alone and the numbers of the genders in workplaces and positions of power no longer matter.

It's all a bit airy-fairy.

In socialism, people really aren't judged on ability, though. They really just acquire a position. In capitalism, you are judged on ability, but it's difficult to change positions.


Although I would like to live under socialism for a time...

[tombland]

littleredgrrl said:

Revolution, in my opinion, is necessary because I believe - like the vast majority of Socialists - that to build on an old, corrupt system would never work. You can't reform out of capitalism, therefore you can't reform out of patriarchy.

Why are they, in your mind, so intricately connected!?

I don't even know how you've managed to use feminism and a patriarchal society as a springboard for advertising a socialist revolution.