Are you a feminist?

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 5:44 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
An old fave of mine: Patti Smith

Oh Hell Yea....I can't believe I forgot to mention her

.....Thanks Voo

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon May 19, 2003 8:49 am

Originally posted by C Elegans
Feminism is not one thing, it is a broad term that has developed to cover many different theoretical schools and factions. It is not necessary implicated that it covers all gender equality issues, or even both sexes. For instance, the women's liberations movements i Japan, India, Iran or Jordan has little in common with the Swedish feminist movement. In Jordan, there is much focus on "honour killings", ie the practise that a father murder his daughter if she acts unsuitable, such as falling in love with the wrong person. The story Enchantress refers to got much attention, and the murdered girls best friend is today one of Jordans leading feminists. In Iran, women enjoyed equal rights to education etc in Shahen's time, but much of their rights were removed when Iran became a religions fundamentalist state. Today Irani women struggle against the very limited role and rights they have in society. In India, there are feminist movements working for an end to the practise of "acid throwing", ie the husband or the husbands family sometimes throw acid in a woman's face if they are not satisfied with her. That way, divorce is accepted, because a man has the right to divorce a woman who's looks are disrupted. (I am simplifying things here, but that is in order to give an overview).

In Sweden however, gender equality in law is fully achieved long since. Statistically, Sweden is the most gender equal country in the world. It is interesting to note what turns feminism has taken here. The following schools of thought are the prevalent ones here:

I know that these replies are very late and perhaps brings a topic to the surface that many would have been happy to see sink into the depth of sym.

However I have already written the replies so you will just have to suffer. The reason for my tardiness is that I have not been able to log on.

< edit: forgot to add this bit >

Feminisms most basic principle is that women have the same rights as men - any theory that denies this is not feminism (so says me and my friend Humpty Dumpty). As I said in an earlier post - you can't logically be for the equality of women with men without also being for the equality of men with women.

I would describe myself as a socialist, that does not mean that I agree with all forms of socialism.
That is why I am going to claim that you CE is a feminist whether you like it or not

. I do of course understand that you do not agree with many of those people that call themselves feminists in Sweden. It seems to me that some of these groups wrongly call themselves feminists.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon May 19, 2003 8:53 am

Originally posted by Tom
That is why I am going to claim that you CE is a feminist whether you like it or not . I do of course understand that you do not agree with many of those people that call themselves feminists in Sweden. It seems to me that some of these groups wrongly call themselves feminists.

Fear me!

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon May 19, 2003 8:55 am

Originally posted by C Elegans

So, my reply to Tom's question has feminism gone too far? is that yes it has in Sweden, and not only too far, in the wrong direction. Personally, I would never degrade myself as to accept a "Women exclusively" professor chair, because:
A: My gender should not be an issue at all, my research should.
B. If I wish to compete professionally, I compete with my professional merits. My gender is not a professional merit, and I see no reason to compete only with same sex people.
And these Women professor chairs say: women can't compete with men so they need their own little special professorships, and gender is an issue. Whereas I think gender should not be an issue, at all.

I am a little bit confused – do you think that it is a bad thing that only 13% of professors are females? Or in England where the situation is much worse? I personally think that it is a problem but agree with you that making chairs for only women or discriminate against men is the wrong solution.
If you do think that there is a problem. Where do you think the problem is and what do you think the solution is?
Personally I think that to a certain extend there are still discrimination against women but that this has been greatly reduced.

One resent example of discrimination is that some financial institutions in London appears to have given lower bonuses to women even if they reach the same targets as their male counter parts.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon May 19, 2003 8:56 am

Originally posted by C Elegans
Fear me!

OOHHH Not to worry there - I do.

Big KISS though - sister.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:08 am

Originally posted by fable
So if you believed in the inherent right of all people, regardless of sex, religion, nationality, or toenail color, to the same basic opportunities in life, feminist wouldn't be an appropriate term. What would be?

Note: any smartass response will be napalmed by a series of personally-trained gerunds.

I think that with regards to the name the original feminists need to be cut some slack. If you had been around the days when there was extreme discrimination against women (sorry fable – I know you were – this is just a general point

) and you were starting a campaign to end this discrimination – what would you call your cause? To general a name and it might loose punch so go with a name that is relevant to what you want.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:22 am

Originally posted by Tom
Feminisms most basic principle is that women have the same rights as men - any theory that denies this is not feminism (so says me and my friend Humpty Dumpty). As I said in an earlier post - you can't logically be for the equality of women with men without also being for the equality of men with women.

I would describe myself as a socialist, that does not mean that I agree with all forms of socialism.
That is why I am going to claim that you CE is a feminist whether you like it or not .

But if the definition of feminism is going to be made that broad, I have to wonder what use it has, since it will fit just about everybody of good intention, including all of us in GB, regardless of our differing political, cultural, and social views. When both CE and Scayde can be comfortably ensconced as feminists by definition, perhaps we should reconsider that definition.

The soc.feminism FAQ gives in part the following definition of feminism:

1. The belief that women and men are, and have been, treated differently by our society, and that women have frequently and systematically been unable to participate fully in all social arenas and institutions.

2. A desire to change that situation.

This seems a more effective definition of feminism IMO. It says nothing about rights, which is a word in itself that's debated endlessly, but focuses on both treatment within a culture that can be detailed and argued according to factual content (ie, the number of professorial positions going to women in Swedish society, as you mentioned above), and a dynamic that presupposes intent to change the norm. CE might fit into the above definition, but I'm inclined to think that some members here would not. This definition is more workable as a construct for discussion, than the broad definition you provided.

That being said, both definitions ignore the fact that the views of people like CE and myself who believe the equality of men and women is just a single point on the much larger issue of cultural inequality. Limiting this issue to gender only overlooks inequality that still allow all cultures to regard their majority religion as the only "true" religion, for example. For all the claims by Bush that Islamic culture is rich and its religion extremely important, when was the last time that the US Congress had an Islamic mullah address a prayer to an opening session? Or for that matter, a Jewish rabbi, or a Wiccan priest? The chaplin is of a mainstream Christian denomination. I am not suggesting that this is a deliberate attempt at cultural insularity, but it is an instance that shows how the culture--any culture--works naturally to reinforce its own accepted values to the exclusion of all others, even after that culture has statistically evolved beyond those limitations. This is a form of inequality espoused in idea that has influence at a more basic level than the number of people of either gender or any given religion in a specific job type.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:27 am

Originally posted by Tom
I think that with regards to the name the original feminists need to be cut some slack. If you had been around the days when there was extreme discrimination against women (sorry fable – I know you were – this is just a general point ) and you were starting a campaign to end this discrimination – what would you call your cause? To general a name and it might loose punch so go with a name that is relevant to what you want.

Had I been a woman, I would have argued for a more all-embracing term, like "humanist" or "multi-culturalist," because discrimination against women is a) only part of the problem, and b) not the root of the problem. The problem isn't discrimination by chromosome, but cultural patterning along a host of lines that defines "we" and "they." The same problems occur when people go on a rampage, torching a shanty town because they wrongfully presume jobs are being taken away from them and given to lower class immigrants. Feminism by definition excludes a recognition of this aspect of the problem, as well as others, which is why I don't consider it broad enough a term.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:33 am

Originally posted by fable
But if the definition of feminism is going to be made that broad, I have to wonder what use it has, since it will fit just about everybody of good intention, including all of us in GB, regardless of our differing political, cultural, and social views. When both CE and Scayde can be comfortably ensconced as feminists by definition, perhaps we should reconsider that definition.

The soc.feminism FAQ gives in part the following definition of feminism:

1. The belief that women and men are, and have been, treated differently by our society, and that women have frequently and systematically been unable to participate fully in all social arenas and institutions.

2. A desire to change that situation.

This seems a more effective definition of feminism IMO. It says nothing about rights, which is a word in itself that's debated endlessly, but focuses on both treatment within a culture that can be detailed and argued according to factual content (ie, the number of professorial positions going to women in Swedish society, as you mentioned above), and a dynamic that presupposes intent to change the norm. CE might fit into the above definition, but I'm inclined to think that some members here would not. This definition is more workable as a construct for discussion, than the broad definition you provided.

I did not mean to imply that equal rights was all there was to feminism. The problem I have with that description is that it seems to rule out being a feminist while believing that you live in an equal society.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:41 am

Originally posted by fable

That being said, both definitions ignore the fact that the views of people like CE and myself who believe the equality of men and women is just a single point on the much larger issue of cultural inequality. Limiting this issue to gender only overlooks inequality that still allow all cultures to regard their majority religion as the only "true" religion, for example. For all the claims by Bush that Islamic culture is rich and its religion extremely important, when was the last time that the US Congress had an Islamic mullah address a prayer to an opening session? Or for that matter, a Jewish rabbi, or a Wiccan priest? The chaplin is of a mainstream Christian denomination. I am not suggesting that this is a deliberate attempt at cultural insularity, but it is an instance that shows how the culture--any culture--works naturally to reinforce its own accepted values to the exclusion of all others, even after that culture has statistically evolved beyond those limitations. This is a form of inequality espoused in idea that has influence at a more basic level than the number of people of either gender or any given religion in a specific job type.

Clearly discrimination against women is but a part of a larger picture. None the less I think that a movement will loose impact if its focus is too wide. Personally I think that feminism is a good compromise. It is clear what the goal of the group is and so makes it easier to push for politically. If you are fighting a reluctant political system you need a clear message. While equality as a general rule is what is needed it wont do for a political movement that need to convince the masses.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 19, 2003 7:01 pm

Originally posted by Tom
Clearly discrimination against women is but a part of a larger picture. None the less I think that a movement will loose impact if its focus is too wide.

I would suggest, with respect, that feminism has lost its humanity by being too narrow in focus. When I hear major women's groups commenting that more funding is needed for women's abuse clinics, instead of abuse clinics, because only women are truly abused today, then something is very, very wrong with the movement, itself. And I am not referring to radical feminists like Z Budapest, but to people representing the views of mainstream feminist organizations. Context has been lost; women's cultural problems are all too often being seen (at least, in the US; I can't speak for anywhere else) as gender-only issues, without reference to the greater concern with cultural prejudice as it manifests in all forms.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon May 19, 2003 7:11 pm

Originally posted by fable
I would suggest, with respect, that feminism has lost its humanity by being too narrow in focus.

Just a small interjection here, but that is my problem with it

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue May 20, 2003 8:05 am

Originally posted by fable
I would suggest, with respect,

Too much respect fable – I don’t really deserve it. Be a bit nasty.

Originally posted by fable
that feminism has lost its humanity by being too narrow in focus. When I hear major women's groups commenting that more funding is needed for women's abuse clinics, instead of abuse clinics, because only women are truly abused today, then something is very, very wrong with the movement, itself. And I am not referring to radical feminists like Z Budapest, but to people representing the views of mainstream feminist organizations. Context has been lost; women's cultural problems are all too often being seen (at least, in the US; I can't speak for anywhere else) as gender-only issues, without reference to the greater concern with cultural prejudice as it manifests in all forms.

It is certainly sad to see that kind of claim. Not only is it ridiculous but I could also imagine that it might be offensive to those that have been abused. Thank god I have not heard any feminists in the UK say similar things.

It is certainly sad if certain organisations out there have lost the plot. As I said I think that a political movement need to have a relatively narrow focus to be effective. If you look at the civil rights movement (a better name?) some radical elements of that group have gone too far as well. That kind of thing is sadly unavoidable but it should be remembered that such individuals do not make less legitimate the original ideals of equality that the movements had.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Tue May 20, 2003 11:56 am

@fable: Excellent points. Personally, I have perceived the same flaws in the feminist movement over the years myself. It's really all depressingly familiar...IMO, feminism has little to do with the achievement of equality amongst the sexes. It has everything to do with an agenda that is fueled by a backlash of hatred for past injustices. Not content with the mere removal of barriers which prevented women from mobilizing successfully in the workforce and other arenas of daily life, feminists have pushed for quotas, government-mandated preferential treatment in business dealings (those familiar with government contracts in the US know that a business owned by a female is given priority over a business owned by a male; a special category exists for them)...in short, they are nothing but a special-interest group in our country, complete with lobbyists in Washington. Quite frankly, the entire affair is odious to me, for anyone who seeks to establish quotas which favor themselves in the first place is essentially saying "I can't do it, so create an enviroment where I can."

If equality were truly their goal, then the feminists could have rested on their laurels many years ago in this country. Instead, they seek to engineer a system which affords them a special status, garnering them treatment above and beyond what others might receive. They follow in the footsteps of certain minority activist groups who sought more than the removal of the barriers which prevented them from having the same opportunity to achieve success as anyone else....they sought to engineer a system which favored them exclusively. In my eyes, this is as great an evil as the injustices which were inflicted upon them in the past. The old saying applies here: "Two wrongs do not make a right." So true. Replace an aging inequality with a new inequality....that is the modus operandi of the Feminist special interest group.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu May 22, 2003 9:24 am

Originally posted by Tom
Feminisms most basic principle is that women have the same rights as men - any theory that denies this is not feminism (so says me and my friend Humpty Dumpty). As I said in an earlier post - you can't logically be for the equality of women with men without also being for the equality of men with women.

I would describe myself as a socialist, that does not mean that I agree with all forms of socialism.
That is why I am going to claim that you CE is a feminist whether you like it or not . I do of course understand that you do not agree with many of those people that call themselves feminists in Sweden. It seems to me that some of these groups wrongly call themselves feminists.

I totally reject being labelled a feminist on the basis of my belief in equal rights for everybody regardless of ethnic group, nationality, gender, sexual preferences, religiousity, age etc. Equality between men and women are no less or no more important that equality between other groups humans can form. Thus, I am as much a gay-right's activist, an anti- both cultural and biological rasist, and gero-ist and a child-ist and a whatever-ist. It seems absurd to choose to single out one of the many variables that can differ between people and thus lead to discrimination. I propose that within the very term "feminist" lies a inherent suggestion that gender is in focus. To me, gender is not in focus, not any more than other variables. So I find it inadequate and incorrect to label my views of equality as "feminism".

I will try to reply to your other points next week...

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Thu May 22, 2003 10:15 am

Originally posted by Chanak
@fable: Excellent points. Personally, I have perceived the same flaws in the feminist movement over the years myself. It's really all depressingly familiar...IMO, feminism has little to do with the achievement of equality amongst the sexes. It has everything to do with an agenda that is fueled by a backlash of hatred for past injustices. Not content with the mere removal of barriers which prevented women from mobilizing successfully in the workforce and other arenas of daily life, feminists have pushed for quotas, government-mandated preferential treatment in business dealings (those familiar with government contracts in the US know that a business owned by a female is given priority over a business owned by a male; a special category exists for them)...in short, they are nothing but a special-interest group in our country, complete with lobbyists in Washington. Quite frankly, the entire affair is odious to me, for anyone who seeks to establish quotas which favor themselves in the first place is essentially saying "I can't do it, so create an enviroment where I can."

If equality were truly their goal, then the feminists could have rested on their laurels many years ago in this country. Instead, they seek to engineer a system which affords them a special status, garnering them treatment above and beyond what others might receive. They follow in the footsteps of certain minority activist groups who sought more than the removal of the barriers which prevented them from having the same opportunity to achieve success as anyone else....they sought to engineer a system which favored them exclusively. In my eyes, this is as great an evil as the injustices which were inflicted upon them in the past. The old saying applies here: "Two wrongs do not make a right." So true. Replace an aging inequality with a new inequality....that is the modus operandi of the Feminist special interest group.

You raise interesting points that I don’t know enough about to discuss. I am not convinced that the US is as equal as you claim but I do agree with you that setting up rules that favour women over men is the wrong way to achieve equality. Perhaps later I will have time to look into and discuss the state of equality in the US.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Thu May 22, 2003 10:26 am

Originally posted by C Elegans
I totally reject being labelled a feminist on the basis of my belief in equal rights for everybody regardless of ethnic group, nationality, gender, sexual preferences, religiousity, age etc. Equality between men and women are no less or no more important that equality between other groups humans can form. Thus, I am as much a gay-right's activist, an anti- both cultural and biological rasist, and gero-ist and a child-ist and a whatever-ist. It seems absurd to choose to single out one of the many variables that can differ between people and thus lead to discrimination.

But are you not for gay rights and all the other things implied by the general principle that you subscribe to? Lets define ‘gayism’ as the belief that gay people are equal to other people and should be treated equally. Are you a gayist? It seems to me that we should not hesitate to say yes. All the gay rights activists that are out there fighting for equality – should we charge them with not fighting for the general principle but only part of it? If not, then why the problem with feminism? I don’t think that there is anything absurd about isolating part of what ones general principle implies and emphasising that part to effect the political change that one desires.

Originally posted by C Elegans
I propose that within the very term "feminist" lies a inherent suggestion that gender is in focus. To me, gender is not in focus, not any more than other variables. So I find it inadequate and incorrect to label my views of equality as "feminism".

You charge feminism with holding that discrimination against women is more important than other kinds of discrimination. This would violate the principle of equality.
I totally disagree that this is part of feminism. Fable raised a similar point and I think that such a position is wrong. What some feminists might argue is that discrimination against women is a big problem and therefore requires more resources than say discrimination against old people (ageism). What I think very few are claiming is that individual cases of equivalent discrimination is not of equal importance.

I am not saying that your view on equality can be labelled as feminist – nor can mine. I saying (with considerable respect and some fear

) that your view on the relation between men and women with regards to equality can be called feminist, according to my perception of what feminism is.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu May 22, 2003 11:06 am

Originally posted by Tom
But are you not for gay rights and all the other things implied by the general principle that you subscribe to? Lets define ‘gayism’ as the belief that gay people are equal to other people and should be treated equally. Are you a gayist? It seems to me that we should not hesitate to say yes. All the gay rights activists that are out there fighting for equality – should we charge them with not fighting for the general principle but only part of it? If not, then why the problem with feminism? I don’t think that there is anything absurd about isolating part of what ones general principle implies and emphasising that part to effect the political change that one desires.

Of course I am for equal rights for gay people, but again - I think using a label that implicate a specific group of people, to denote that I am for equal rights for everybody, is misleading.

You charge feminism with holding that discrimination against women is more important than other kinds of discrimination. This would violate the principle of equality.
I totally disagree that this is part of feminism. Fable raised a similar point and I think that such a position is wrong. What some feminists might argue is that discrimination against women is a big problem and therefore requires more resources than say discrimination against old people (ageism). What I think very few are claiming is that individual cases of equivalent discrimination is not of equal importance.

So if no extra focus is on discrimination against women, why on earth is your definition of feminism even called feminism?

It sounds very arbitrary to call it feminism in that case, the label becomes meaningless if it focuses as much at gay rights, ethnical discrimination etc.

Also, I do not agree that discrimination against women is a larger problem than many other types of discrimination.

I am not saying that your view on equality can be labelled as feminist – nor can mine. I saying (with considerable respect and some fear ) that your view on the relation between men and women with regards to equality can be called feminist, according to my perception of what feminism is.

According to your perception perhaps, but:
1. According to your perception I should be called all these things (gayist, ageist, feminist, what-have-you-ist) and not only one since I reject giving priority to one type of discrimation against the other.
2. Your perception is not what is commonly meant by "feminism" where I live, and as far as I understand the biological determinist feminism is the dominating school not only in Sweden and the US but in many parts of Europe. Since both the academia and media have defined the term otherwise and it is of importance to me not to be confused with the current defininition of feminism. One might claim that people should try to "claim back" the word, but I see no point in this since I still reject to label my humanistic equalitarianism in term of such a limited concept as gender.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu May 22, 2003 11:19 am

Originally posted by Tom
Clearly discrimination against women is but a part of a larger picture. None the less I think that a movement will loose impact if its focus is too wide. Personally I think that feminism is a good compromise. It is clear what the goal of the group is and so makes it easier to push for politically. If you are fighting a reluctant political system you need a clear message. While equality as a general rule is what is needed it wont do for a political movement that need to convince the masses.

I actually think a movement towards equality risk too loose out more on being too specific and tend to focus on only certain groups. Other groups risk to be forgotten and overlooked, and I think that is very much what has happened in Sweden. This is IMO because group-specific needs are tended to, instead of general, fundamental mechanisms that create and maintain the concept inequality.

Swedish feminism is a prime example. A lot of action regarding equality has been directed towards the typically white Swedish middle-class woman with a decent job. For instance that has meant that disabled people and immigrants has not been in focus for similar equality programs, which in turn has increased their marginalisation in society. Which, ironically, has resulted in first- and second generation immigrant women from non European cultures to be probably the most invisible, the most discriminated against and the least powerful group in Swedish society. In the meanwhile, the white middle-class women still choose to stay at home with kids and not focus on career. Many actions have been misdirected and not as successful as expected, and IMO that is because culture does not change because you have the opportunity to change it. More on that later, when I post my critisism against quota-systems. Quota-systems may work initially to create a swift change in the beginning of a movement, but not as a cheap surragate for more fundamental, long term changes that of cause also are more expensive to perform.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu May 22, 2003 11:23 am

Originally posted by Tom
What some feminists might argue is that discrimination against women is a big problem and therefore requires more resources than say discrimination against old people (ageism). What I think very few are claiming is that individual cases of equivalent discrimination is not of equal importance.

An activist automatically believes their own concerns are of greater importance than those of others. They can be gentle or ruthless in the expression of this, but it all comes down to the same thing: what I want is more important than what you want, and since I need funding and/or support for my position, I am going to try and get it and leave you without. If you don't think this occurs en masse all the time, at local, regional, state and federal levels in the US, then you might want to try writing a few grants or speaking with lobbyists and congresspeople. As someone who wrote federal and state grants for roughly twelve years (in the US public radio system) and conducted a large number of interviews for radio broadcast, I have to say that all my experience works against your statement.

More specifically, while there are visionaries within the feminist community who see it as part of a larger picture, the majority within see it as an end in itself: empower women, and that will take care of many of the world's problems. To state some of the views that are generally accepted by at least a fair percentage of the movement, women are more concerned about life, because they give birth; women are more concerned about the environment, because they are linked to Nature; women are more amenable to discussion, because they have less testosterone, and don't go to war. These ideas, whether consciously or unconsciously, strongly effect the feminist movement in the US and the way its members regard the world.

I think this feminist ideal, like that of black rights, gay rights, Christian rights or any other rights, is fundamentally flawed in that it focuses on the detail and loses sight of the overall cultural picture. It divides people and treats symptoms, instead of dealing with the underlying problems of cultural indoctrination and lack of critical thinking.