|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 19, 2010 20:41:10 GMT
rise up and throw off the shackles of patriarchal door oppression and embrace a world where the only partition between rooms is a beaded curtain what about the automatic door? opens for everyone regardless of gender/race/sexuality/etc... yeah and species. so i take it that Man's reign over the animal kingdom will also be dissolved?
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 19, 2010 22:47:39 GMT
But if you're saying that rich, corrupt and power-hungry men are such a bad thing for the world that we should wait for that element of society for fade away before allowing women the freedom to have the equivalent.... nah, I can't get on board with that. This is in danger of turning back into your 'argument' about how all morgage paying jobs are bad, and everyone who works in the city or for a company or the government or the media is corrupt and evil and pandering to The Man, and so forth. I guess that means I should never be allowed the oppertunity to persue a career which you personally (and illogically) disagree with? I know I've said I'm walking away from this discussion about 12 times now, but I was thinking about this responce which I was walking around today and want to make what I meant a bit clearer. Please bare in mind that nothing I say here is in any sort of opposition to complete gender equality... and women getting the opportunity to be anything they want including things I subjectively don't like. I've always felt that their should be more female voices, power and influence in politics, media, art, business etc pretty much everywhere. Which I guess steams from the idea I've always had about men and women having certain inate neurological differences. I've never felt very comfortable being male, though I'm hardly the camp/metrosexual type that seems to be the only alterantive for boys. I've always valued qualities traditionally deemed "feminine" as something I more respect and aspire to. ("it takes guts to be gentle and kind") I've also always seen an over-representation and emphasis on the stereotypically "male" traits as a part of what makes this such a shitty world. I believed that the political, social and economic systems that control our world where designed by men with male desires and psychology in mind. I thought the greater role of women in running the world might offer up new and better philosophies and ways of doing things. Basically if there really is no difference between men and women other than those imposed by our socialisation... then if you get the radical changes you want, do away with that and we reach a strage of total gender equality, gender irrelevance even, well the world will be exactly the same as is it is now only with a equal share of positions of power among those with penises and those with vaginas. Now that's still entirely fair and right and I'm not saying it's not worth striving to achive, a HUGE deal to those women getting more equal opportunity,I wouldn't stand in the way of it for a second.. but I'm personally not really going to be applauding when a female CEO lays off 10,000 working people to give herself a bonus, or a female newspaper editor starts a new campagin to pick on some new marginalised group in society in this brave new world and going "wow, isn't it great that that females have as many opportunities to be bastards as men now? GO BASTARD EQUALITY!". I mean is a woman reaching the top against the odds ; say Margaret Thatcher as the really obvious example; always a silver lining to the potential dark cloud of what she does with her power? While I do support that gender equality and every woman or man's right to choose to do whatever the hell they want with their lives, to be honest from a personal level it makes me feel like the gender equality issue isn't really the "big picture" when it comes to my priorities for making the world a better place. Say Orwell was right and the future does comprise of a boot stamping on a human face forever, does it really make a blind bit of difference if that boot has a stiletto heel? Yes, I know I'm the only one on wolfboard who's THAT pessimistic... tl;dr? Personally deep down I'd like to see the framework of human society from how we interact to how we sustain ourselves change, not just total equality of opportunity within the frameworks we already have. If the genders really are exactly the same I see no reason why a gender equal world would be dramatically different to how things are now bar demographics. It's pretty selfish of me but that doesn't really inspire me. I hope that didn't come off as belittling to you ladies undeniably noble quest, I guess if anything I'm asking you to refute my gloomy/apathetic view and to convert me to getting onboard and fighting for your agenda (there's no reason you should have to of course..) The very beating heart of my world view is accepting people's rights to choose to live any way they please including making choices I might not personally like. Also I DO NOT think anyone who works for a company, government or the media is a "sell out" (there's some incredibly vital jobs to be done and lots of amazing positive people in all three areas) ps. please don't have a go at me about this, I'm thinking aloud, asking questions and trying to work my thoughts on all this out whilst making them understood.. I'm not looking to debate/score points just for dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by mimicry on Aug 20, 2010 2:37:18 GMT
I assure you, people who are championing feminism aren't going to applaud asshole decisions made by women simply because those are women in power.
Case in point: Sarah Palin.
|
|
|
Post by tarantella on Aug 20, 2010 4:21:29 GMT
I assure you, people who are championing feminism aren't going to applaud asshole decisions made by women simply because those are women in power. Case in point: Sarah Palin. Absolutely. Josh, I agree with you that there are differences between men and women, including some that are biological in nature, though these differences vary from person to person. The problem I have with saying that the differences are innate is that it becomes essentializing and often a simplification of our complexities as humans (e.g. 'woman' etymologically meaning 'man with a womb' --> women thus characterized as different from men because they all have uteruses [which, no, is not the case] --> having a uterus made to signify that an individual is more tender, emotional, gentle, etc. [again, not the case]). But back to the point -- there totally are differences, whether socialized, biological, or a combination of the two. The point of gender equality is not just expanding opportunities for women, but also for men. Most feminists I know are fighting not just for the right of women to be CEOs, but also for the right of men to be stay-at-home dads, caretakers, etc. -- to hold jobs that have been traditionally occupied by women. We're saying that women can be tough, assertive, and ambitious, and that men can be gentle, compassionate, and considerate. Again, it's about opening up the ranges of self-expression for everybody. Sure, this means opening up the playing field for people like Palin and Thatcher, but in a sense I can appreciate their existence as strong conservative women. I don't want them having political power over me, but I'm glad for there to be more female voices represented in all political groups. To say that men and women are not fundamentally different is to breathe hope into the possibility that we can learn from one another, is to say that gender is fluid enough that we can pursue a combination of attributes from all sexes -- those which we find most appealing. I think that's pretty in line with the sort of future you hope for; or am I wrong? Sorry if this is confusing, I'm not sure I'm at my most eloquent right now.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 20, 2010 8:37:56 GMT
^ thanks for the responces laydeez. Lovely uplifting notions Tara ( :
I suppose the sort of changes that would lead to a more gender equal world would have to have pretty wide implications on society. I suppose it's in my nature to support a "hey, whatever" non-judgemental policy on pretty much everyone. Where as this discussion as been more about how certain actions; in this case say holding a door open for women or carrying their bags; is politically retrograde to certain ideological goals. I suppose I'm being a little unrealistic wanting no subjective judgements on actions, in terms of human nature and also blah murder, rape blah obviously there's something wrong with you if you don't judge them. Despite all this debate and respecting the concerns I still think there's a place for old fashioned romantics of both genders in this world ( : though is had made me aware to NEVER break out that bag holding shit unless I'm 100% certain it's been welcomed by an indidivual.
I want to ask another questions to the feminists on this forum and I mean to be open minded toward the answers and not pick at them.. but what can I do as an individual to help support equality of genders and prevent rape, abuse, misogyny and what not?
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 20, 2010 9:47:36 GMT
good question josh, i wish people would ask more often. i would say: BE AWARE. of everything. ever. learn as much as you can about the issues, and really challenge your preconceptions about things. personally, i hate stuff like rape jokes, and the usage of the word 'frape' and such for reasons that are explained well here: shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.htmlsome reading!: www.scarleteen.com/blog/felix/2010/03/22/how_men_can_support_women_and_feminismpoisonedriver.blogspot.com/2007/08/patriarchy-hurts-men-too.htmlfeminism.suite101.com/article.cfm/men_can_be_feministswww.feminist.com/resources/links/men.htmwww.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/guysguidetofeminism.blogspot.com/i-am-the-lighthouse.tumblr.com/i'll definitely find you more, but really i think what would benefit you in particular most is if you learned more about feminism, as i think your heart is in the right place a lot of the time, but your lack of awareness in regards to certain issues, history and even what feminism essentially is doesn't provide you with the most stable base to build from. here's some links to start you off: shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/01/feminism-101.htmlhappyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/01/feminism_is_not.htmlfeminism.suite101.com/article.cfm/types_of_feminismsorry if any of them seem a bit basic, but i think they're all worth reading, even if you already agree.
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 20, 2010 11:07:46 GMT
Josh, I'm so glad you made that post, because I completely understand what you mean. It's an interesting thought. Tara and Sibz have made wonderful, wonderful replies (and I'm probably going to spend all afternoon reading those links now). I can't process much of a reply myself, because I've not been awake for very long But here is one thought: maybe having women and men represented exactly equally, in all positions of power, and in all political groups, won't make the world a less corrupt, less power-hungry place. Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't at all - it's an interesting point and I have literally no idea. But having equal representation like that, along with all the other more specific aims of feminism, (from stopping rape and domestic violence to reducing pressures on body image) certainly would make the world a less cruel and violent and more comfortable place for women. Sadly, I can imagine that there are just as many greedy, shitty, bigoted women in the world as there are men. But no women deserves to be disadvantaged by her gender, and no man deserves to be pigeon-holed by his. Vague conclusion: gender equality would be the answer to many of the world's big injustices, but not all of them.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 20, 2010 11:28:36 GMT
i guess my opinion on that is... it's not the point of feminism. feminism is about equality for all genders, and the issue of people being twats is a valid concern, but doesn't negate the need for gender equality. twats come in all shapes, sizes, colours and genders, lets at least offer them an equal footing from which to be a twat, so that when we shoot them down, we know it's because of their ideas and not bigotry.
|
|
|
Post by tarantella on Aug 20, 2010 15:44:02 GMT
I just had a thought, to continue from my last post (and I'm going to be quick or else miss the ferry and be very late for work):
(My kind of) feminism is anti-deterministic. It's about free will. By stating that sex and gender and are not fundamental or fixed, people are able to choose to express themselves however they wish. You are not limited to the body or the gender norm you were born into. If men are from mars and women from venus, then that's tantamount to saying there is a huge chasm between men and women that is insurmountable without the use of, like, rocket ships. And that all the trans, intersex, and gender non-conforming people out there are just bits of stardust floating in the blackness between two giant rocks in the sky.
I'm fighting for a conception of gender and sex that gives people choice, which is what so many aspects of feminism are about -- the right for a woman to choose to be a firefighter, to choose when to become pregnant, and to choose to have an abortion. For a man to choose to undergo testosterone and surgery if he was born into a female body. For all men to be able to have meaningful friendships with other men that aren't tinged with homophobia or labeled 'bromances,' For straight men to wear glitter or cry without having their sexuality or manhood called into question. Anyway, you get the picture.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 20, 2010 18:10:36 GMT
awwww tara <3
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 20, 2010 18:29:26 GMT
Isn't holding a door open for someone or offering to carry their bags just... not being a douche?
Because - male or female - I totally support not being a douche.
(I am aware of the irony of referring to a feminine hygeine product in a post about feminism, but, frankly, fuck you, douche bags are hilarious!)
Cheerio, Michael. xxx
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 20, 2010 20:09:25 GMT
Did ya read the thread, Michael? Being nice to people regardless of gender is great. Assisting women with tasks that 99% of the time they're not actually struggling with, simply because they're female, is douchey because it makes women seem incapable. That's how chivalry differs from simple kindness.
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 20, 2010 20:32:01 GMT
Assisting women with tasks that 99% of the time they're not actually struggling with, simply because they're female just so we're clear, we also plan to promote the lessening of assumptive, reactionary ' THIS is the only reason you're being nice to me' responses if being universally nice is considered nice, right?
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 20, 2010 20:38:44 GMT
what can I do as an individual to help support equality of genders and prevent rape, abuse, misogyny and what not? yowza, this is phrased in almost pitch-perfect, stock may-or-may-not-be-frequently-asked FAQ type wording.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 20, 2010 22:32:59 GMT
just so we're clear, we also plan to promote the lessening of assumptive, reactionary ' THIS is the only reason you're being nice to me' responses if being universally nice is considered nice, right? Usually I just read your posts and think, 'Ha! I bet that's hilarious if you know what the fuck he's talking about.' But I actually... agree? You were being sarcastic, right? Cheerio, Michael. xxx
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 20, 2010 22:52:57 GMT
Oh! It all makes sense now. Women are being too reactionary, always assuming that chivalry has an ulterior motive from plain niceness. If only I'd been on the receiving end of chivalrous acts as much as you two men have! Then I would have so much experience that I wouldn't have to make assumptions, and I'd realise how much we were all over-reacting.
NB: I'm sorry if this scathing reply is completely uncalled for - I can't confidently say I understood what Joeb was talking about. I just took a guess.
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 20, 2010 23:17:01 GMT
but shouldn't this bit be a part of gender equality too? anyone being able to honestly "help " any gender without being branded as anything other than a nice person? i guess it's a difficult balance...living as you want to live while still having to bear what life is actually like. i am equally unsure if what i said deserved that tone. You were being sarcastic, right? Cheerio, Michael. xxx i haven't really been able to tell for certain myself ever since that temporal shift that sent supervirgin into the time vortex. :/
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 21, 2010 7:54:43 GMT
Joeb, if someone helped me when I did need it, say when I'd just dropped all my stuff all over the floor, then I'd know they were being nice, regardless of gender. If someone helped me in a way that was completely unessesary, just to "be nice", then I'd know that it had more to do with their preconcieved notion of how to treat me as a women. I'm not going to start screechingly rejecting help from all men just incase it might be chivalrous. But as someone who has experienced both behaviours all my life (same goes for the other ladies in here), I think you can trust us to tell the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 21, 2010 8:27:13 GMT
Do you know what happens when you drop your books all over the shop at a wolfboard meetup and a nice teenage girl helps you? Chival-rhi!
.........
*tumbleweed*
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 21, 2010 8:49:50 GMT
*...in the corner pocket* Joeb, if someone helped me when I did need it, say when I'd just dropped all my stuff all over the floor, then I'd know they were being nice, regardless of gender. If someone helped me in a way that was completely unessesary, just to "be nice", then I'd know that it had more to do with their preconcieved notion of how to treat me as a women. I'm not going to start screechingly rejecting help from all men just incase it might be chivalrous. But as someone who has experienced both behaviours all my life (same goes for the other ladies in here), I think you can trust us to tell the difference. well, it seems to me that you're using your preconceived notions of what a sexist male is, and putting whatever meaning you choose into his actions which, if i'm not mistaken, would be sexist! what would the interplay between two women be in that scenario? would the mind conjure up some different kind of suspicion on why they'd be nice? if so, that reeks of gender inequality! i guess i just don't get the point of saying 'being nice to people regardless of gender is great' if the nature of the act and whatever other variable conditions decide whether it is actually regardless of gender and not simply the people involved. essentially, i am asking for the benefit of the doubt to not be so scarcely given. you're reaffirming the point that a woman will get mad at me if i'm being nice regardless of gender [something that i don't think should really be necessary to 'know' by the other party] and ask if i can be of some use and lighten the load of whatever she's carrying. this established and apparently acceptable cynicism of why a man will act kindly just seems like a stark contrast to the ideals mentioned in this thread.
|
|