Feminism - an explanation

[CM]

Can someone explain what exactly is feminism, because i am extremely confused when women refer to themselves as feminists or feminazis. I can understand a female from the third world specifically the Islamic world being a feminist, but why is there still a need for feminism in most "modern" societies?

Feminism from what i know started off with equal rights and treating women like human beings. The right to vote in 1920 in the US. In switzerland 1992. Allow them to have jobs, no discrimination in the job environment etc.

Secondly when did feminism take its male hating male bashing angle? Its seems a prominent concept with most feminists i have seen from Islamic society, they usually blame men for everything. But I doubt that was the intention when the feminist movement started.

Anyway if anybody can comment and further my knowledge on the subject it would be greatly appreciated.

[Chanak]

Everyone has a different angle on this. Basically I see feminism, like most other movements in societies, as reactionary. Consider the Civil Rights movement in America. What began as a struggle for the removal of "separate but equal" barriers (as there was no equality about any of it at all) grew into something beyond the original struggle. Over the years, groups that affiliated themselves with the brave souls of the late '50s and early '60s developed into powerful special interest groups and political lobbies, seeking more privileges, funds, and special considerations. Using the political and legal system to their advantage, they seek to engineer society in order to give their particular ethnic group special status above and beyond all others. The introduction of racial quotas mandated by the Federal government in the 1970s in the form of Equal Opportunity was a major victory for these groups. Not satisfied with the mere removal of laws which prohibited them from enjoying full American citizenship, they pushed and pushed for the government to give them rights possessed by no other citizen.

I see little difference in regards to the feminist movement. There are various sub-groups with agendas which vary by degrees, but most consider themselves superior to the opposite gender in some fashion. Many are militant in their hatred of anything associated with males...and don't realize that they are simply committing similar evils society once subjected their sex to. Unfortunately this does not help their cause whatsoever, as many people today - including women - find their manifestos to be repulsive and cliched. Thus feminism as a whole is dying out, slowly but surely.

[Weasel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM But I doubt that was the intention when the feminist movement started.

Male, Female or Other...White, Black, Blue, Green or Purple..given the chance 'some' will (As Chanak posted) seek for more, while 'others' will seek to limit. Sadly the 'some' and 'others' will always be among us.

The best advice I can give, judge a person by their behavior not the group they are in. Good people get drawed into groups without the full understanding of what the groups "real" goals are.

[C Elegans]

Alas Fas, you have no idea what an infected area you have just put your finger on. Feminism is one of my pet peeves, and I will try to explain why. First, a very brief review of the history of Western feminism

As you correctly point out, feminism originated from the idea that women should have the equal rights and equal value as human beings as men, which I believe few people would oppose today. A representative and also good book about the topic is Simone de Beavoir's "The second sex", which also contains the necessary historic background to understand the previous patriarchalic society in Europe. When Europe changed from an agricultural to an industrial society, lots of things changed which affected both male and female gender roles. Women started to work as employes, like men, and this increased dramatically after WWII. First, the men were in the war, then after the war an entire male generation was decimated so women became more necessary as a work force.

Then came the 1950's and the idyllic family ideas where the mother-and-housewife women's role ideal and the core family were strongy propagated for obvious reasons. In the late 1960's the feminist revolt was connected to the student revolt that swept over the Western world. Women all over Europe demanded equality and burned bras on the streets as a symbol for liberation. So far so good IMO - equal value, equal rights, equal opportunites for all human beings is a human rights issue and prior to 1970's, women were clearly discriminated in many fundamental issues in Europe, such as voting, education, right to inherit money or property, equal pay for equal work, sex, etc. However...

During the 1980's, there was a backlash similar to the cultural "God strikes back" backlash you saw in swiftly secularised and Western-friendly Arab world such as Iran or Algeria. Actually, a wave of neoconservatism swept over Europe for several reasons. The backlash effect was only part of it, the main reason was probably the integration between Eastern and Western Europe, which led to increased power for the previously supressed church in Eastern Europe. An example: When West and East Germany was united, a religious party (which was previously forbidden) managed to enter the parliament and bring up the issue of making abortion laws more strict. In West Germany, free abortion had not been an issue for many years - it was taken for granted as much as in the Scandinavian countries. But suddenly a new political party brought the question up.

Another even that increased neoconservatism in Europe, was the appearance of HIV. The free-love-and-sex-for-all message from the 1970's fell back, and prejudice against gay people increased again due to HIV in Europe and the US initially being transferred mostly among gay men and heroin abusers that injected their drug.

Well, many factors played a role. Then - tada: the appearance of the biological determinism. This is partly a backlash on the social constructivism during the 1960's and 1970's, and also of course connected to the immense pace of new findings in molecular biology during the 1980's. In the life sciences, the 80's are called the decade of the gene, the 90's the decade of the brain, and the 2000's, after the finalisation of the mapping of the human genome in 2001, is nicked "the postgenomic era". Humans prefer simple explanation models before complex, and with the life science revolution, people started believing lots of erranous, oversimplified things and politicians are quick to use scientific findings to back up different ideologies.

The early 1990's saw a global recession, and as usual in Europe when there is a recession, women are no longer sought after at the job market. The politican wants us to reproduce (Europe has a problem with an aging population), stay at home and take care of the children (less cost for child care) and thus, stay away from the job market.

All these factors above, and more that I don't mention, made the new brand of feminism amazingly popular: biological feminism, ie biological determinism applied to gender issues.

So today in Europe, there are many brands of feminism, ranging from queer theory which is the modern variant of the social constructivist, equality-feminim of the 1970's, to the kind of man hating feminism you can see in the SCUM manifest by Valerie Solano(sp?) (men are redundant and violent and should be extince), to the dominating feminism today, which is the biological determinism that states that women and men are biologically, evolutionary adapted to fulfil the traditional gender roles. An example: It's natural for women to get silicon breast, because women has a "natural" instinct to be pretty and please men sexually. Thus, silicon breasts is a right. Another example: it's natural for men to use violence to dominate women, thus men should pay a special tax in order to provide health care for the abused women. You see what I mean?

Conclusion: It's impossible to say what a person mean when they say they are feminists. The definition of the term has changed a lot over time. The most popular type today in Europe is biological determinism, but that's not a concept most people who have these opinions even know. Feminism is a PC concept - it's expected that you say you are a feminist. If you are a man and not a feminist, then you're a chauvinist pig that wants to stay in power. If you (like me) are a woman and not a feminist, then you are either plain stupid or evil because you side with the chauvinist pigs. It's your choice. Personally, I am totally against feminism and all for humanism. Many people find it difficult to claim I'm stupid, so what normally happens is that many Swedish women view me as a evil Quisling.

Any questions?

[Magrus]

*claps* I liked that whole thing you posted C Elegans.

I find it half irritating, and half ironic that so many people spout things they don't understand and throw fits on issues simply to try fitting in in social circles they don't belong, or trying to "change things", when they don't know how things happen to truly be. I'm torn on quite a bit of many issues, but as I try and follow a rule for myself, and I feel it happens to be a good one. Treat everyone you happen to meet with respect, and should they treat you in a negative matter, ignore them. Granted it doesn't solve anything, but if people happened to treat others with respect from the start more often, I'd have to say there would be very little need for half the protests, fights, groups, and such thats going on. I have female friends that hate men, and many of them with good reason to hate quite a few individuals, but they adore me for being supportive of them. This happens to be a contradiction. Likewise, I have male friends who happen to denounce woman up and down, but can't seem to get enough of them, which doesn't make sense at all to me. It's a wonderful idea and concept for everyone, and everything to be equal. Unfortunately, it simply won't be happening among humanity. Greed, selfishness, and people who happen to be power hungry and such tend to destroy any semblance of equality around them in their lives and until those types of mentalities and actions are gone, everyone, and everything happens to be in a constant flux, small or large in a very large number of things.

It is all well and good to protest, lobby, and complain. Certain changes are good, I promote some of them in those around me. Others that have occurred, simply end up taking the group that demands change and shifting them forward in the place of another group, never fixing the problem. It just switches to another group and keeps going. The militant groups, or the ones that promote hate for another group, simply because someone from said group has made their life miserable do nothing at all to fix the situation. Only fuel a problem that ends up achieving some sort of petty vengeance that helps massage their pride, with the random side effect of occasionally causing some situation that causes some law to be set that quells the noise of the two sides being at each others throats. All of these problems and such are easily and simply fixed, humanity simply is not ready to take that simply solution on a constant basis as a whole. At least thats just my opinion.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magrus *claps* I liked that whole thing you posted C Elegans. I find it half irritating, and half ironic that so many people spout things they don't understand and throw fits on issues simply to try fitting in in social circles they don't belong...

Did you mean social circles; and if so, can you provide an example or two of this? I'm having a hard time envisioning what you're saying, here.

[Chanak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans ...Personally, I am totally against feminism and all for humanism...

I enjoyed your entire post, but found this statement encapsulates how I feel overall. Well done.

I don't think anyone doubts that "pockets of resistance" persist here and there in Western societies, where the values and customs of years gone by still hang on. I speak specifically of old-fashioned gender roles and gender-related outlooks. Consider that in the past, this was more the norm, and we find that it simply takes time for society to change. The laws and quotas in my own country serve no purpose other than to inflame and divide, and encourage the existence of special interest groups like NOW (National Organization for Women). Without fuel for their fire, extreme special interest groups would probably vanish, and we might even forget that the entire "PC" nonsense ever exited.

I appreciate the differences between men and women and also understand that anyone is capable of doing whatever they set their minds to accomplish. I was a long distance runner years ago (I'm too lazy now to keep at it ), and the battle against gravity, terrain, and your breathing is a battle you wage in your mind. Much the same with taking care of a 3 month-old baby. An ex-girlfriend of mine was involved in an auto accident and it fell upon me to care for her 3 month-old son while she recovered. She didn't breast-feed him so one problem was already out of the way. I was his mother and father for 9 months while she learned how to use her arms again in therapy, and I learned alot from that experience. All of the inhibitions I was programmed with as I grew up concerning male roles melted away at 2 o'clock in the morning when he would wake up crying, and I would hold him 'till he went back to sleep.

[Magrus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable Did you mean social circles; and if so, can you provide an example or two of this? I'm having a hard time envisioning what you're saying, here.

I meant essentially any group of people, for example, if I and a group of friends happened to go meet on of my friends that happened to be one this first group never knew, because she simply wouldn't fit in with the group. If some sort of topic was brought up that caused a debate, and she stood on a postition opposing everyone else and voiced her opinion, but someone else in the group was unsure of what to say and he started babbling about the topic they were ignorant of, and then got defensive when she, or the group happened to call him on his views on the subject. Being unaware of what happens to the topic of discussion, jumping into it simply to fit in, and growing upset and deciding to keep arguing out of pride and such. People I went to school with years ago had a tendency to do this constantly, and I've found meeting new people, it occurs with them occassionally too. There's really nothing a situation this would accomplish but irritating people. Should someone however be in a position of power and not truly understand what it is they got involved in, that could cause serious problems.

There was a principle to my high school who ended up like this quite often, actually became superintendant for the district. It always seemed to me he would be handed information, and couldn't quite grasp it and process it properly, and would end up taking a course of action that neither solved whatever problems arose, calmed any people that were upset, or promoted any sort of gain except in making him look better in some manner, usually by saving money. There were many things he made decisions on that were detrimental to individuals that truly had very little to do with whatever situation happened to be going on at the time, for example expelling any students who happened to be wearing trenchcoats for fear of mass violence occuring from these students after school shootings occurred. Rather than question these students, parents and such and see that there really was nothing wrong with them, simply an affinity for wearing a certain article of clothing they had their education taken away in an attempt to make the principle look better for saving the school from a potential threat. This man never belonged in his position, and yet he was promoted. Over the last five years, the quality of education hasn't improved, and many decisions made have left a majority of the town unhappy. I've moved away, so I'm not aware of any of the actual things being said and such with the school board, but as my family still lives there, I hear things about how my cousins are having a horrible time dealing with things.

Granted this has nothing to do with Feminism, or any group pushing for social changes, but it's simply one person who happens to have an opinion on how things should be, and a job where he can make change, yet doesn't at all belong in the position where his voice can be heard or his changes can be implemented. Failure to either understand the situation your in, whether through being unable to or simply not taking the actions to understand it, and acting upon your desires can create a great number of problems. I'd have to say ignorance would be among the top of the list of the causes of a situation like this.

If some person like this were to come to the head of some organization that was pushing for drastic changes in things, and lets say it was in gun control, or feminism, or abortion rights or whatever. Chances are overall the changes would end up getting barred from being made law all over the country, but what about in someplace else? Or even simply some person just happening to show up at a meeting of some sort that had no clue of the facts involved with what was being discussed, listened for a while, and picked a side to vote on. That vote would end up counting, whether or not the person understood what he voted for, even if he supported what it was his vote would accomplish should that side win. I had a friend in canada, and she mentioned there was a nazi party where she lived, whether in her province or simply all over canada. She mentioned to me, I believe it was during our 2000 election, how she felt about the two candidates here, and how she felt about her system, and how that nazi party was only getting a tiny part of the votes, like how our say green party or something ends up with a very small percentage of votes. This happens to be a situation that would be very unlikely, but should it ever come down to that party being in a close race with another, and people simply voted for them because, hey taxes were promised to go down, and had no clue about anything else, their say in matters would affect things. Then, the people who simply did not belong in a postition to vote, because they were unaware of what they were deciding on, would have caused a horrible situation if they won.

The same goes for essentially any group I would say, large or small, fighting for just about anything. A person voicing their opinion on say, the groups main focus, and not caring about the rest of the things they wanted to end up doing, happens to be supporting all the things they wanted, since they stand with the group. This person truly would not belong in that group since they are only knowledgable of one aspect of it, and by going along with that one aspect, they support the rest, which they happen to not know about.

I've got a tendency to ramble, and not come across clearly in what I meant to say occassionally. Maybe that made things more clear?

[CM]

Wow! Now this what you call information overload. Thanks alot you guys. So just like i suspected, Feminism has basically out lived its original purpose. Rather now it is a lobby group to promote the superiority of one gender above anothers. No questions. Thanks. If i need anything else i will let you know dont worry

[fable]

Feminism has basically out lived its original purpose.

Er, no. What's being said, if I follow it correctly, is that feminism in the West has become a movement in which lack of personal responsibility is bolstered by pop science. Fas, that has nothing to do with the way feminism is acting as a force to correct some truly horrific wrongs in, say, Bangladesh, or Nigeria, or many other nations where women have virtually no rights precisely because of gender. In such places, feminism acts as a focal point for the dissemination of knowledge and the flow of contacts. It serves a very important purpose.

This is the problem with using one word to mean many different things in many different cultures. In the US, feminism is an excuse for bad choices, bigotry and free handouts. In India, it can save a woman's life when she's been kicked out of her home after being raped and beaten.

[CM]

Fable i stated in the first post that i can see the reason for it in the developing world. Secondly everybody here has discussed it from the perspective of the west. Out of the 8 posts (yours being the 9th) nobody discusses its positive affects in the eastern socities. Following from the general trend of the conversation which solely discussing feminism in the west, it has basically out lived its original purpose which was to provide equal rights as they have been attained.

[fable]

I know what you wrote in your original post, Fas, but your last post that I quoted seemed to say something else. That's what prompted my response. If by "Feminism has basically out lived its original purpose" you mean "feminism in the West aside has basically out lived its original purpose, aside perhaps for rural cultures in those same nations that still insist women should stay at home and raise children or deserve inferior jobs," then yes, I would agree with you.

Of course, I'm with CE in how this kind of problem is best dealt with. The difficulty comes in convincing others who need a simpler, more immediately emotive issue to rally around, that humans being mistreated by humans is sufficient for correction. Unfortunately, that usually doesn't work out.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM Fable i stated in the first post that i can see the reason for it in the developing world. Secondly everybody here has discussed it from the perspective of the west.

Since you stated initially that your questions were regarding Western society, I only discussed feminism in that context, but I'd like to stress that I agree with you that feminism still have a meaningful purpose in soceities where females are still systematically discriminated. Now, I of course think that discrimination of gender should be dealt with the same way as discrimination of any group, ie under the paradigm of humanism and not feminism. However, I can understand that equality movements often start out with the largest and most visible group, and in a society for instance immigrants, homosexuals, women and people of a certain religion are discriminated against, women is usually the largest group.

A good example IMO is Japan. Although an extremely modern and high tech society, women are still to a large extent expected to quit working when they get a family. Getting a good education is equally important for males and females, but when two professional, highly educated people marry and start a family, it is expected that the women give up her career and stay home with the children full time. Thus, if the Japanese feminist movement focus on equality and not some stupid, unscientific biological determinism, I think the feminist movement in Japan still have some tasks at hand.

Another example is some Northen African countries, where daughters have less rights to inherit money and property than the sons. Since this is systematic discrimination based on gender, a feminist movement may be of some use.

However, the above examples are cases where I am not totally against feminism and view it as destructive. I still prefer to focus on human rights and not gender specific rights.

[CM]

I dont doubt nor disagree that feminism can do alot of good in the developing world. It has for all its faults RAWA is very much a feminist organization. RAWA is the female or feminist organization that was widely quoted on anti-taliban activities.

I do have another question though in the light of developing countries, in these societies as in mine the female psyche is extremely warped to believe they are inferior. When feminist organizations come into play they do the opposite. Showing that they do indeed have equal rights or are better depending which brand of feminism you get. This of course causes a polarization and can lead to extreme causes of abuse and attacks.

Now do you think that feminist organizations in such cases should tackle just females or society as a whole. Because from what i have seen in Pakistan they tackle only one specific group - females - and it leads to these women facing alot of physical abuse stuff they dont have t go through if they were more subtle about their ways.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM I do have another question though in the light of developing countries, in these societies as in mine the female psyche is extremely warped to believe they are inferior. When feminist organizations come into play they do the opposite. Showing that they do indeed have equal rights or are better depending which brand of feminism you get. This of course causes a polarization and can lead to extreme causes of abuse and attacks. Now do you think that feminist organizations in such cases should tackle just females or society as a whole. Because from what i have seen in Pakistan they tackle only one specific group - females - and it leads to these women facing alot of physical abuse stuff they dont have t go through if they were more subtle about their ways.

Like Steven Biko said, "The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." If discrimination is part of common culture, it is inherent in all discrimination that the discriminated group will integrate the negative self-image. Women, gay people, people of a certain skin colour or religion or ethic group. However, despite this, it is my firm opinion that equality must come from society as a whole and thus, new views must be implemented at a societal level, not only among the oppressed groups.

Some feminist groups use the "revenge" and "time to strike back" messages. This I totally reject. Ideas that convey reversed discrimination, I reject even more. Actually, I view the concept of revenge/retaliation and the idea that some groups are better than others as the most destructive ideas humankind has ever come up with.

I don't think targetting only females will lead to a quicker change towards equality. Gender roles are cultural concepts, and like all cultural change, it must be done at the level of society. Obviously it is possible to start a change by targetting the oppressed group and make them protest, by changes will go both swifter and with less conflict if these groups work with society as a whole.

A friend of mine used to work with equalty-related information in immigration groups in Sweden. The aim was to spread information about social rights to women who have immigrated from cultures where women's role was limited to the home. Often, and especially if the are elderly, this group of women rely entirely upon their husbands for information. For instance, there are women from rural areas in Turkey or central Africa who have lived 20 years in Sweden but have never learned the language (and thus cannot take in information by themselves) and may have husbands who are quite happy to keep their wives isolated at home.
First, only women came to the information meetings. Then my friend got the idea that she should convince the women they had to bring their husbands. So she started providing the group with information, arguments if their men was unwilling to come, etc, etc. After a while, a few men dropped in. After some months, there were more men than women on these information meetings.