The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Public Example of Misogyny that Affects All Women Options
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 11:27:16 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-royals-culture-war/604981/

Interesting points.

"Policing correct female behavior keeps all women in their place"

When you watch for it, yes, this happens all the time and women are sometimes as much to blame as men.
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 12:03:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,062
Neurons: 66,973
Hope123 wrote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-royals-culture-war/604981/

Interesting points.

"Policing correct female behavior keeps all women in their place"

When you watch for it, yes, this happens all the time and women are sometimes as much to blame as men.


Hmm, a couple of questions come to mind:

Who "Polices" correct female behavior?

Who decides what is "correct female behavior"?

Is it misogynistic to ask females to behave correctly?

If so, who decides that, and by what standard?

This could get very tricky.

taurine
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:37:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 2,500
Neurons: 157,994
Location: South Dublin, Ireland
Here, I can use the word which is relatively new to me, that is, balderdash.
I do not see a point to repeat FounDit questions as they are unanswered.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 2:30:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-royals-culture-war/604981/

Interesting points.

"Policing correct female behavior keeps all women in their place"

When you watch for it, yes, this happens all the time and women are sometimes as much to blame as men.


Hmm, a couple of questions come to mind:

Who "Polices" correct female behavior?

Men.

Governments run by men - for example - Saudi Arabia and other countries; US state governments that make or try to make laws that a woman who gets an abortion is charged with murder etc.; religious institutions run by men - examples Muslim, Catholic church; corporations that don't pay equal pay for equal work; husbands who are stronger and beat their wives or use emotional bullying; movies; magazines; in this case/article - the press that shapes opinion, I was told a while back right on this forum that I did not know my place;
societies that think a woman cannot be a leader and do not vote for one. Etc.

Who decides what is "correct female behavior"?

See above answer.

Is it misogynistic to ask females to behave correctly?

If so, who decides that, and by what standard?

Who decides what is correct behaviour for both women and men? Society as a whole. Women have been speaking up for decades and still there is a long way to go for equality. Women need to keep at it. MeToo movement should keep going.


This could get very tricky.



Tricky? How so?
taurine
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 4:38:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 2,500
Neurons: 157,994
Location: South Dublin, Ireland
Saudi Arabia may not be the best example at all. It is important to realise that, women in Saudi Arabia actually have more, than average "speaker for women's rights" admits, influence over the daily life in this country, there. Nobody, in theory, knows what happens behind the closed door of households where the women are not responsible for preparing food, only. Saudi Arabia has not an ordinary role to play as a country where the Prophet came into being from. The tenets of the faith cherished by so many Muslims are the source of the cultural power where women have their respectful place. The outer garment covering women's face can be understood as a sort of shield against men who could otherwise, randomly offend women, there. I think that not only men are of this sort of opinion. I have chosen this example to avoid being stranded on the side of total ambivalence.
Placing the U.S. after beginning with Saudi Arabia seems to me to be rather flawed idea. Both countries have different origin in the history, and hence the cultural values underpinning the juxtaposed countries are not consistent with the attempt of explaining, without perceived bias, their, allegedly mutually shared, policy directed toward correcting women's behaviour.

As to the Catholic Church, I am not interested in spreading blasphemous rumours or accusations without examining in deep the reliability of charges. Nevertheless, I can state it without any doubt that, communism and socialism had played since the end of 1960s' till at least the beginning of 21 century, extremely important role in leading the Catholic Church to the point where so many accusations, of different shades, are made.

As to the corporation not paying equal pay for equal work, I am not surprised. It is the quality of work which should be remunerated equally, but not equal work.

As to the husbands beating their wives, the domestic abuse has often its source in women's behaviour, as it is often woman who shares with strangers and with all possible family members alike, rumours and accusations against their husband in order to get leverage in the expected ensuing court battle.

I think that, the women's voice is important as much as the quality of intellectual abilities of the person who represents their rights as their speaker.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 6:56:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
taurine wrote:
Saudi Arabia may not be the best example at all. It is important to realise that, women in Saudi Arabia actually have more, than average "speaker for women's rights" admits, influence over the daily life in this country, there. Nobody, in theory, knows what happens behind the closed door of households where the women are not responsible for preparing food, only. Saudi Arabia has not an ordinary role to play as a country where the Prophet came into being from. The tenets of the faith cherished by so many Muslims are the source of the cultural power where women have their respectful place. The outer garment covering women's face can be understood as a sort of shield against men who could otherwise, randomly offend women, there. I think that not only men are of this sort of opinion. I have chosen this example to avoid being stranded on the side of total ambivalence.

Placing the U.S. after beginning with Saudi Arabia seems to me to be rather flawed idea. Both countries have different origin in the history, and hence the cultural values underpinning the juxtaposed countries are not consistent with the attempt of explaining, without perceived bias, their, allegedly mutually shared, policy directed toward correcting women's behaviour.

As to the Catholic Church, I am not interested in spreading blasphemous rumours or accusations without examining in deep the reliability of charges. Nevertheless, I can state it without any doubt that, communism and socialism had played since the end of 1960s' till at least the beginning of 21 century, extremely important role in leading the Catholic Church to the point where so many accusations, of different shades, are made.

As to the corporation not paying equal pay for equal work, I am not surprised. It is the quality of work which should be remunerated equally, but not equal work.

As to the husbands beating their wives, the domestic abuse has often its source in women's behaviour, as it is often woman who shares with strangers and with all possible family members alike, rumours and accusations against their husband in order to get leverage in the expected ensuing court battle.

I think that, the women's voice is important as much as the quality of intellectual abilities of the person who represents their rights as their speaker.


Taurine, thank you for the response.

I gave only a couple of random examples off the top of my head, and in no specific order, nor were SA and US meant to be connected in any way other than that men try to control women in many ways and many women just accept it as "that's how it has always been".

For the sake of brevity, I did not add more examples from around the world nor mention such things as genital mutilation of girls in many countries. Nor mention that in British Columbia, Canada, the medical profession started refusing to tell pregnant women the sex of the baby after an ultrasound, because many Chinese women were aborting baby girls strictly because of their gender. Any countries still do dowries? Or have fathers give away the bride, or have "to honour and obey" their husband in the marriage ceremony?

All these are ways of controlling women through attitudes in society that tell women it is normal to behave in these ways - when such traditions need to change. And some are.

I remember even 56 years ago removing the "obey" from the marriage vows. I was not going to promise to obey anybody.


Here are some responses to your refutations:

Saudi Arabia - Reasons why women flee - https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/01/30/saudi-arabia-10-reasons-why-women-flee

Catholic church - The Catholic Church doctrine on the ordination of women, as expressed in the current canon law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that: "Only a baptized man (In Latin, vir) validly receives sacred ordination. Wiki It is not blasphemous to note that men control the Catholic church. It is a fact. I don't recall any female popes, ever, but then I pay little attention to popes and some of their neanderthal ideas.

This happens in Canada re Muslim girls: https://www.change.org/p/dont-segregate-menstruating-girls-in-public-schools

Equal pay for equal work assumes equal quality, quantity, and the same requirements of the job.

As for abusive partners - No man - or woman - has any ffffing excuse to lift their hand to another, no matter the provocation.

My niece's' sick ex husband raped her and still stalks her 14 years later - physically and in the courts until the judge told him to stop using the courts frivolously.

Many men kill their partners when they try to escape the control and the abuse.


And finally - I can't believe you actually blamed the females for the male brutality! It is how the male typically rationalizes his violent actions. Boys need to be educated to think differently. Women are not their toys nor their bashing boards.

That statement of yours re "source in women's behaviour" really ticked me off. Mature people of both sexes learn how to "fight" responsibly with words, while being respectful of the other.

FounDit
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 11:21:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,062
Neurons: 66,973
Hope123 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-royals-culture-war/604981/

Interesting points.

"Policing correct female behavior keeps all women in their place"

When you watch for it, yes, this happens all the time and women are sometimes as much to blame as men.


Hmm, a couple of questions come to mind:

Who "Polices" correct female behavior?

Men.

Governments run by men - for example - Saudi Arabia and other countries;
Really? All governments? All men and all women world wide? Really? Funny. I can't think of a single law in our country that tells men they can "police" the behavior of women. I know there are still some backward countries and cultures, but I think it is a bit much to make such a blanket statement that all men can police all women's behavior. In fact, you give lie to that by your own testimony when you said you would not obey anyone.

US state governments that make or try to make laws that a woman who gets an abortion is charged with murder etc.;
Wrong. The law of the land is that abortion is legal, and any woman who wants to can kill her child while still in the womb. It's called Roe v. Wade. Also, there are a great many women who object to the practice. It isn't just men, so your argument fails here too.

religious institutions run by men - examples Muslim, Catholic church;
And you have the choice to join or not join those religious institutions. No one forces you to do so. So again, your argument fails, since women are free to choose.

corporations that don't pay equal pay for equal work;
And again, it's your choice where you work. You're free to move on or demand more pay for your work. You aren't a slave.

husbands who are stronger and beat their wives or use emotional bullying; movies; magazines; in this case/article - the press that shapes opinion,
Again, this isn't all men, only some, and they by no means represent all men. In fact, a great many men would defend the woman against such bullying. So your argument against all men fails again.

I was told a while back right on this forum that I did not know my place;
societies that think a woman cannot be a leader and do not vote for one. Etc.
One person said this to you and you blame all men? Illogical - not because you are a woman, illogical because it is illogical thinking.

Who decides what is "correct female behavior"?

See above answer.
Right. See above answers.

Is it misogynistic to ask females to behave correctly?
I noticed you skipped this one. Is that because there are women who want other women to behave and you can't put the blame on men?

If so, who decides that, and by what standard?

Who decides what is correct behaviour for both women and men? Society as a whole. Women have been speaking up for decades and still there is a long way to go for equality. Women need to keep at it. MeToo movement should keep going.
So now you admit that you were wrong to place all the blame on men. It is all of society, both men and women who believe in the proper behavior of people towards one another.

This could get very tricky.



Tricky? How so?
Tricky because you are wrong on every point you made when you blame all men.
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, January 17, 2020 2:31:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,175
Neurons: 665,489
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Amazing. Such a short thread and we already have victim blaming and the "not all men" diversion.

I only need the following to complete my anti-feminists argument bingo and win another toaster. Please provide:

- "We no longer need feminism, women already have equal rights" and its subset "I'm a woman and I don't need feminism"
- "You shouldn't complain, the women of X country have it far worse"
- "Feminist just hate men"
- "Men get abused too"

Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, January 17, 2020 3:23:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,175
Neurons: 665,489
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Hope123 wrote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-royals-culture-war/604981/

Interesting points.

"Policing correct female behavior keeps all women in their place"

When you watch for it, yes, this happens all the time and women are sometimes as much to blame as men.


Thanks for the article, Hope. It's very telling how society and the media leap on public figures like that, painting a target on them and using them to make statements on how (not) to behave. Policing the behaviour of women this way, limiting their lives like that, is toxic.

We need more articles like this one, asking questions and shining a light on how society polices women, forcing them into a corset of expectations and pretending it's meant to offer them support.

I recommend reading the essay "Grandmother Spider" by Rebecca Solnit. It has telling insights, such as:
Quote:
When I was young, women were raped on the campus of a great university and the authorities responded by telling all the women students not to go out alone after dark or not to be out at all. [...] Some pranksters put up a poster announcing another remedy, that all men be excluded from campus after dark. It was an equally logical solution, but men were shocked at being asked to disappear, to lose their freedom to move and participate, all because of the violence of one man.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 17, 2020 12:41:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Let's be clear. This thread is not meant as hostility towards individual men! Or ALL men. It was an attack on the media for policing “correct” female behaviour to keep women in their place.

It is just a fact that it's a man's world. There's even a song with that title. It is not always laws or rules that make it so, but opinions spread by media and just accepted. Often it is subtle, and handed down from generation to generation. This thread was meant to be a discussion by both men and women so that women readers from around the world can see how past traditions from a "man's world" can be changed by a change in attitudes of individual women. How individual awareness can make society as a whole have a more impartial-to-gender outlook or status. One voice at a time.

FD's moral outrage that men could not possibly want to control women in spite of most cultures today being patriarchal, all the history of women fighting for equality that has not happened completely yet, and the few - of many - examples I mentioned of current practices doing just that is definitely the opposite to those facts. My personal TFD example goes on the list with all those other examples I mentioned - it is not a one off. Sorry to ruin your favourite objection to a single individual as it was just given as a further example. I guess you missed all the other examples?

Falsely interpreting what I said so that the words mean what you want and not what I said seems to be a habit you can't break, FD. I said "Men" while going on to mention and explain which men - those with a voice in the media, those in power in general, and governments in general run mostly by men - not ALL governments and ALL men. You added the word “all”. It is just a fact that with a few exceptions, it is mostly men in power around the world. (In the States - old white men. Just look around the table in photos and see how many women and diverse ethnicities you see.) I also later mentioned women who just accept the status quo.

BTW - “Is it misogynistic to ask women to behave correctly?” assumes what behaving “ correctly” is and who it is that is doing the asking. So thus the question answers itself.

To be perfectly clear - Misogyny by either men or women saddens me.

Therefore I incorporated the answer with the next question of the idea of it being men and women in society who for whatever reason just go with the status quo of men being stronger and thus in charge. From Adam and Eve forward.

People do have choices about following religion, but it is the pervasive subtle concepts from those and many sources that unaware people absorb - especially when the media shapes it that way.

Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 17, 2020 12:45:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Lotje1000 wrote:
Amazing. Such a short thread and we already have victim blaming and the "not all men" diversion.

I only need the following to complete my anti-feminists argument bingo and win another toaster. Please provide:

- "We no longer need feminism, women already have equal rights" and its subset "I'm a woman and I don't need feminism"
- "You shouldn't complain, the women of X country have it far worse"
- "Feminist just hate men"
- "Men get abused too"



Exactly, Lotje.

Also, what a perfect example by Rebecca Solnit of men being shocked by an equally logical solution while not seeing the irony that women as potential VICTIMS were being told a solution by authority to lose their freedom to move but men were not prepared to do the same when it was their gender that was capable of causing the problem.

The purpose of such articles as in the OP is to bring about discussion so that women in all countries do not accept subservience as they are told to do by religious authorities, governments, the media, and traditions and become independent people who can then be equal partners in all their relationships and wisely choose a partner who believes the same.

Back in 1962 many things such as "obey" in marriage vows were just accepted by many women as being "just how things are". Many women still accept the status quo in similar issues today.

It would have given me great pause for thought if my intended in 1962 had disagreed with my assertion. In fact he shrugged. I expect we would not have been married at all, let alone for all those years. At that time I didn't even realize how important my symbolic decision was. It was just who I was. I also didn't realize until many many years later that I had absorbed this from my mother who in her quiet way had actually done several things as an example for me. And my husband had learned from the examples of his parents.

Such awareness is bringing about changes even in healthcare where women are now being included as test subjects in studies about heart disease and by pharmaceutical companies testing new drugs. Women are now speaking up about abuses of power and sexual coercion.

The younger generation of women in many countries are refusing to be told what to wear, and gaining power by forcing changes of laws about being able to drive, something North Americans take for granted. But it's an ongoing battle. The hard work of Suffragettes brought about federal Canadian government full suffrage in 1918, partly because of the war. And 102 years later, women still earn less than men for equal jobs.

Equality can be done. Teachers here have always earned according to their qualifications. Gender never entered into it.
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, January 18, 2020 11:26:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,062
Neurons: 66,973
Lotje1000 wrote:
Amazing. Such a short thread and we already have victim blaming and the "not all men" diversion.
Just for my own amusement, I'll attempt a rational dialogue.
No one here has blamed the victim, and it is certainly true that "not all men" engage in the behavior described as "policing" women, so it certainly isn't a diversion. It's a fact.

I only need the following to complete my anti-feminists argument bingo and win another toaster. Please provide:

- "We no longer need feminism, women already have equal rights" and its subset "I'm a woman and I don't need feminism"
To be treated as equal is right. To demand special treatment for being female or a victim is not.

- "You shouldn't complain, the women of X country have it far worse"
You should complain about treatment that isn't right, but it is also true that women in other countries have it far worse.

- "Feminist just hate men"
Some certainly appear to do so, but that can't be said as a blanket statement for all women who want to be treated fairly.
- "Men get abused too"
This, too, is a fact.
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, January 18, 2020 11:35:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,062
Neurons: 66,973
Lotje1000 wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-royals-culture-war/604981/

Interesting points.

"Policing correct female behavior keeps all women in their place"

When you watch for it, yes, this happens all the time and women are sometimes as much to blame as men.


Thanks for the article, Hope. It's very telling how society and the media leap on public figures like that, painting a target on them and using them to make statements on how (not) to behave. Policing the behaviour of women this way, limiting their lives like that, is toxic.
Megan is a member of the Royal family, so British society has developed a code of behavior for them that applies to no one else. That is just a fact. It has nothing to do with society in general. You all are taking one extreme example and applying it to everyone. It doesn't fit everyone. But is seems to help in playing the victim game.

We need more articles like this one, asking questions and shining a light on how society polices women, forcing them into a corset of expectations and pretending it's meant to offer them support.
All societies have rules, laws, customs, traditions, and religious guidelines for behavior. They do not apply just to women but to everyone in the society. The idea that only women are "policed" is silly.

I recommend reading the essay "Grandmother Spider" by Rebecca Solnit. It has telling insights, such as:
Quote:
When I was young, women were raped on the campus of a great university and the authorities responded by telling all the women students not to go out alone after dark or not to be out at all. [...] Some pranksters put up a poster announcing another remedy, that all men be excluded from campus after dark. It was an equally logical solution, but men were shocked at being asked to disappear, to lose their freedom to move and participate, all because of the violence of one man.

As well they should. Just as it would be silly and illogical to ask all women to obey some rule simply because one woman behaves badly. But logic seems to have become an orphan in this movement.
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, January 18, 2020 12:00:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,062
Neurons: 66,973
Hope123 wrote:
Let's be clear. This thread is not meant as hostility towards individual men! Or ALL men. It was an attack on the media for policing “correct” female behaviour to keep women in their place.
And yet your answer was: MEN - governments, corporations, media and churches run by men. Even though you added women in your OP, when I asked you about it, you only said "MEN", as if women had absolutely no say in how women behave.

You completely overlook the fact that throughout history, so many of the significant things done were done to either please or impress a woman, or women. Both sides have to be acknowledged. Oh, sorry. That's how I think. Feminists don't seem to see anything but victim-hood.

It is just a fact that it's a man's world. There's even a song with that title. It is not always laws or rules that make it so, but opinions spread by media and just accepted. Often it is subtle, and handed down from generation to generation. This thread was meant to be a discussion by both men and women so that women readers from around the world can see how past traditions from a "man's world" can be changed by a change in attitudes of individual women. How individual awareness can make society as a whole have a more impartial-to-gender outlook or status. One voice at a time.
I have no argument with that.

FD's moral outrage that men could not possibly want to control women in spite of most cultures today being patriarchal, all the history of women fighting for equality that has not happened completely yet, and the few - of many - examples I mentioned of current practices doing just that is definitely the opposite to those facts. My personal TFD example goes on the list with all those other examples I mentioned - it is not a one off. Sorry to ruin your favourite objection to a single individual as it was just given as a further example. I guess you missed all the other examples?
Yes, along with all of the examples you omitted of the influence women have had in history on the men in their societies.

Falsely interpreting what I said so that the words mean what you want and not what I said seems to be a habit you can't break, FD. I said "Men" while going on to mention and explain which men - those with a voice in the media, those in power in general, and governments in general run mostly by men - not ALL governments and ALL men. You added the word “all”. Simply because when I asked you who "policies" women, you said all of them in that one word: MEN. You completely ignore the influence women have on other women.It is just a fact that with a few exceptions, it is mostly men in power around the world. (In the States - old white men. Just look around the table in photos and see how many women and diverse ethnicities you see.) I also later mentioned women who just accept the status quo.
Color is irrelevant, although I know those of you on the Left see the world through race-colored glasses.

BTW - “Is it misogynistic to ask women to behave correctly?” assumes what behaving “ correctly” is and who it is that is doing the asking. So thus the question answers itself.
No it doesn't. Women have a tremendous influence on other women, so if influencing other women is done by women, does that count as misogyny, since misogyny is the hatred of women?

To be perfectly clear - Misogyny by either men or women saddens me.
So if a women seeks to influence the behavior of another woman, that saddens you? Is that only when the influence is something you disagree with? Would it be misogyny if she influenced another woman to be good to her husband, children, society, by following the norms of that society? What if they are deemed to be good norms?

Therefore I incorporated the answer with the next question of the idea of it being men and women in society who for whatever reason just go with the status quo of men being stronger and thus in charge. From Adam and Eve forward.

People do have choices about following religion, but it is the pervasive subtle concepts from those and many sources that unaware people absorb - especially when the media shapes it that way.
So everything is the fault of the media? Women and men in society have nothing to say about it? Or is it only the men in media that are guilty?
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, January 18, 2020 9:06:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Amazing. Such a short thread and we already have victim blaming and the "not all men" diversion.
Just for my own amusement, I'll attempt a rational dialogue.
No one here has blamed the victim, and it is certainly true that "not all men" engage in the behavior described as "policing" women, so it certainly isn't a diversion. It's a fact.


Guess you missed this re it often being the behaviour/fault of the abused, not the abuser:

Taurine wrote: “As to the husbands beating their wives, the domestic abuse has often its source in women's behaviour, as it is often woman who shares with strangers and with all possible family members alike, rumours and accusations against their husband in order to get leverage in the expected ensuing court battle.”

Nobody said “all men and only men” try to control women. Some men do make laws to control women and do try to control their partners, but most men in their private lives in the “west” don't. The problem is in the attitudes in general accepted by both sexes that men are stronger, superior, more intelligent, and SHOULD automatically have control over women. And that women's lives should be subjugated to his - but that is gradually being changed by BOTH men and women in many countries.



I only need the following to complete my anti-feminists argument bingo and win another toaster. Please provide:

- "We no longer need feminism, women already have equal rights" and its subset "I'm a woman and I don't need feminism"
To be treated as equal is right. To demand special treatment for being female or a victim is not.


Correct re demanding special treatment for females, if they did indeed demand special treatment. Women don't demand special treatment. Asking to control their own lives is just what men take for granted. In fact many of them demand to pay their own way and open their own doors. What they want is to make their own decisions without being shamed for not being the traditional woman of yesteryear.

Don't know what you mean that victims shouldn't demand “special” treatment. How should victims be treated, exactly? If you are a rape victim, male or female, how should you be treated?


- "You shouldn't complain, the women of X country have it far worse"
You should complain about treatment that isn't right, but it is also true that women in other countries have it far worse.

- "Feminist just hate men"
Some certainly appear to do so, but that can't be said as a blanket statement for all women who want to be treated fairly.
- "Men get abused too"
This, too, is a fact.


BTW - Kate is being smart in accepting the life she bargained for and in making sure she gives the same appearance as the rest of the royal family. I rather suspect William is just her husband in private! But she has a different personality than Meghan and is not being treated the same way by the media as, for whatever reason, they are treating Meghan. Meghan might have done the same if the treatment had been fair. I don't blame her and Harry for getting out.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, January 18, 2020 9:23:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-royals-culture-war/604981/

Interesting points.

"Policing correct female behavior keeps all women in their place"

When you watch for it, yes, this happens all the time and women are sometimes as much to blame as men.


Thanks for the article, Hope. It's very telling how society and the media leap on public figures like that, painting a target on them and using them to make statements on how (not) to behave. Policing the behaviour of women this way, limiting their lives like that, is toxic.
Megan is a member of the Royal family, so British society has developed a code of behavior for them that applies to no one else. That is just a fact. It has nothing to do with society in general. You all are taking one extreme example and applying it to everyone. It doesn't fit everyone. But is seems to help in playing the victim game.


Not a logical argument.

So adult women not wanting to be told what to do and how to do it, is just a “victim game” to you. Bet if it were men being told how to behave - as in Lotje's story example - it would be a different story from you. (LOL, Just got to the end - it WAS a different story.)




We need more articles like this one, asking questions and shining a light on how society polices women, forcing them into a corset of expectations and pretending it's meant to offer them support.
All societies have rules, laws, customs, traditions, and religious guidelines for behavior. They do not apply just to women but to everyone in the society. The idea that only women are "policed" is silly.


Not silly.


I recommend reading the essay "Grandmother Spider" by Rebecca Solnit. It has telling insights, such as:
Quote:
When I was young, women were raped on the campus of a great university and the authorities responded by telling all the women students not to go out alone after dark or not to be out at all. [...] Some pranksters put up a poster announcing another remedy, that all men be excluded from campus after dark. It was an equally logical solution, but men were shocked at being asked to disappear, to lose their freedom to move and participate, all because of the violence of one man.

As well they should. Just as it would be silly and illogical to ask all women to obey some rule simply because one woman behaves badly. But logic seems to have become an orphan in this movement.


You missed the whole point on purpose - Women WERE asked to behave differently because one man behaved badly. Women ARE told to dress differently and how to behave because some men can't resist temptation - which is ridiculous.

Ever read about rape trials and what prosecutors do to the victims?
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, January 18, 2020 9:54:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
Let's be clear. This thread is not meant as hostility towards individual men! Or ALL men. It was an attack on the media for policing “correct” female behaviour to keep women in their place.
And yet your answer was: MEN - governments, corporations, media and churches run by men. Even though you added women in your OP, when I asked you about it, you only said "MEN", as if women had absolutely no say in how women behave.

Taking one word out of context is how you twisted it to try to say I meant ALL men. There was a whole paragraph explaining WHICH men.

You completely overlook the fact that throughout history, so many of the significant things done were done to either please or impress a woman, or women. Both sides have to be acknowledged. Oh, sorry. That's how I think. Feminists don't seem to see anything but victim-hood.


Baloney on your victimhood. Feminism means equality, NOT special treatment.


It is just a fact that it's a man's world. There's even a song with that title. It is not always laws or rules that make it so, but opinions spread by media and just accepted. Often it is subtle, and handed down from generation to generation. This thread was meant to be a discussion by both men and women so that women readers from around the world can see how past traditions from a "man's world" can be changed by a change in attitudes of individual women. How individual awareness can make society as a whole have a more impartial-to-gender outlook or status. One voice at a time.
I have no argument with that.

FD's moral outrage that men could not possibly want to control women in spite of most cultures today being patriarchal, all the history of women fighting for equality that has not happened completely yet, and the few - of many - examples I mentioned of current practices doing just that is definitely the opposite to those facts. My personal TFD example goes on the list with all those other examples I mentioned - it is not a one off. Sorry to ruin your favourite objection to a single individual as it was just given as a further example. I guess you missed all the other examples?
Yes, along with all of the examples you omitted of the influence women have had in history on the men in their societies.

Falsely interpreting what I said so that the words mean what you want and not what I said seems to be a habit you can't break, FD. I said "Men" while going on to mention and explain which men - those with a voice in the media, those in power in general, and governments in general run mostly by men - not ALL governments and ALL men. You added the word “all”. Simply because when I asked you who "policies" women, you said all of them in that one word: MEN.


It is just a fact that with a few exceptions, it is mostly men in power around the world. (In the States - old white men. Just look around the table in photos and see how many women and diverse ethnicities you see.) I also later mentioned women who just accept the status quo.

Color is irrelevant,

that's why it is in brackets.

although I know those of you on the Left see the world through race-colored glasses.


This is new for you. Lefties, according to you, are too fearful to see with rose coloured glasses. Whistle

BTW - “Is it misogynistic to ask women to behave correctly?” assumes what behaving “ correctly” is and who it is that is doing the asking. So thus the question answers itself.
No it doesn't. Women have a tremendous influence on other women, so if influencing other women is done by women, does that count as misogyny, since misogyny is the hatred of women?


To be perfectly clear - Misogyny by either men or women saddens me.

So if a women seeks to influence the behavior of another woman, that saddens you? Is that only when the influence is something you disagree with? Would it be misogyny if she influenced another woman to be good to her husband, children, society, by following the norms of that society? What if they are deemed to be good norms?


Women do indeed compete with, may not support other women, even attack them or shame them to validate their own choices. If you have any more facts to support why this might be mostly to control them, I'd be happy to hear them. But the consensus usually is that it is more competition, jealousy, a wish to validate their own opinions, and pettiness than hatred of their own sex. It is not misogyny or hatred to try to influence others, but if they try to shame others into being anything other than they wish to be, then that is controlling. Some women don't want to marry, or have children or be good moms, and that is their decision and none of anyone else's business.



Therefore I incorporated the answer with the next question of the idea of it being men and women in society who for whatever reason just go with the status quo of men being stronger and thus in charge. From Adam and Eve forward.

People do have choices about following religion, but it is the pervasive subtle concepts from those and many sources that unaware people absorb - especially when the media shapes it that way.
[color=blue]So everything is the fault of the media? Women and men in society have nothing to say about it? Or is it only the men in media that are guilty?



Again the word “ everything” similar to “all”. No. Complicated issues are not black and white or boiled down to one reason. The topic was that the media shape opinions to help create misogyny by controlling women. Policing correct female behaviour to keep all women in their place - the difference between treatments here just made a good example.



Y111
Posted: Sunday, January 19, 2020 3:41:17 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 373
Neurons: 1,854
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
It is not misogyny or hatred to try to influence others, but if they try to shame others into being anything other than they wish to be, then that is controlling.

I don't quite understand what hatred has to do with seeing someone as inferior and wanting to control them. We see cats and dogs as inferior but that doesn't mean we hate them.

Hatred is probably more likely to be found in women for men if they see them as their oppressors throughout history.
Romany
Posted: Sunday, January 19, 2020 8:35:16 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,399
Neurons: 55,955
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
As Hope pointed out recently, Foundit seems to be increasingly troubled with memory lapses, "forgetting" the language, the opinions, the verbal abuse he's directed at the female members of this forum - especially when he had his good mate Parser to back him up and give him support.

But even for people who weren't around then one has only to know that he supports the man who is now known world-wide for his unsavoury attitude to women; even underaged ones. Ordinary men despise him for this behaviour and rightfully put such behaviour beyond the Pale. So, who are those who don't call out someone for serial cheating, seeing teenage girls as sexual prey, debasing women in public, stripping them of the rights accorded to all other women in the developed world? Why, those who slavishly agree with him, naturally. I mean, that's a no-brainer.

Any opinion by FD on this page any different to the ones he suddenly unveiled when Parsar joined? Nope. Even the phrasing is the same. Anything to show he has taken on board what has been said to him - by both men and women- over the years? Nope. Any accusations/opinions which have been soundly disproved missing from his repertoire? Any sign anywhere that any one thing, opinion, experience, proof he's been given over time hasn't gone in one ear and out the other?Nope. ANY sign, anywhere,that this isn't one of the tropes about which he gets such self-admitted pleasure from stirring the pot for his own amusement? Nope.

What he HAS done is gleefully admit that he gets his jollies by stirring up feelings and emotions in his constant search to find things which enable him to roll on the floor laughing.

The shallowness of a person using a serious subject to "tease", to "have a bit of fun", to brighten up his day is shameful. It's the kind of thing schoolyard bullies do. It's hurtful too - though that, I suspect, plays no part in FDs "game" other than to score a bonus point, maybe. FDs world-view does not include Lotti, Hope and I as people - people with histories and families and problems and love - but, conveniently as Everywoman - interchangeable, amorphous, fungible, snowflakes, lefties, Liberal...he has boxes and labels for everyone who doesn't think the same way he does and he packs us all away in the same box together when he's not on-line attributing every other thought, idea, opinion or attitude he is against to us all equally. (And the thing that makes me ROFL is that so far he hasn't twigged to the fact that nothing actually needs to be said in rebuttal: he illustrates his mind-set towards women in these very behaviours!)

Though he skims along the surface FD is way, way out of his depth here: like any of the subjects upon which he expounds, there's no research, no knowledge, no in-depth attempts to get to grips with the subject, no desire to hear anything which might contradict his views.

I suggested long ago that FD go and spend some time sitting in a hospital emergency ward, or helping out at a shelter, or interacting with children whose lives have been distorted and ruined by male violence. It would bring him down to earth where the rest of us live.

The first time I had to go into hospital for reparatory surgery to my genital area because of my husband, in a small mountain town, there were 7 other women there for the same thing. The next time I had to go in, in a larger hospital, there was a ward full of us. When I had to have rectal repairs I slunk in sure I was the only person in the world to have such horrors visited upon them. But I needn't have worried: this too was a "routine" operation and I was in good company. How dare you talk of people's experiences as "one-offs" and dismiss them in your ignorance Foundit! Of course people hesitate to come forward or to talk about their experiences in public...but, having now talked with hundreds of women from different countries, and heard their stories, and counselled them I, like anyone who does work in this sector, KNOW that my informed opinion, whatever you might say (and you will say it, I know) carries much more reality with it than your unformed "point-scoring" with bits of information that have evolved purely in your mind.

Too much information? Rude of me to talk about such intimate things? Not playing fair to let reality intrude? Being "unwomanly" to talk about such things?

No. The murky depths of man's inhumanity to woman is a cesspool of behaviours that "good" people, "nice" people, "ordinary" people shy away from, and don't really want to learn about because "it could never happen" to them. Let's all have a little floor-rolling moment about that, shall we?

Wanna accuse ME of victim-blaming, FD? Wanna go through all my posts to find where I've said I "hate" men? Or that "all men" are..well anything at all? Wanna shoot some of my "leftist bullshit" at me over this? Gonna reproduce all the things I've said which prove I'm a snowflake? How about all the times I've said men are the enemy? Why not shut my mouth forever by searching out all the passages where I must, of course, have supported the Third Wave "feminism" you you keep telling Hope, Lotje and I we support so strongly? Go for it. Happy hunting. And, yeah, a giant coffee urn as well as a toaster will be winging your way if you can produce any.

I don't "hate" anybody. The word 'hate' has no place in my vocabulary - it's a histrionic word now that it's value has been debased to mean "disagree with". Having told you this umpteen times, and you never letting such an opinion enter into your constructed view of humanity, I - and everyone else who's familiar with your style - know perfectly well that what I've said here will be "vitriol, vomit, ranting, abuse, bile"...any of the usual limited list of key-words with which FD storms into injured righteousness. Once again - go for it. It does nothing other than further my case: bullying women "for fun" (even Ruth!!) is what you do well, after all.

So, let your Freudian slip show once more, as per usual. It's time we all had a chance to ROFL. Except that ...this is a serious subject. I feel absolutely no desire to get the giggles over it - neither do my (male) offspring. But you wouldn't let a little thing like that stop you, would you?
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, January 19, 2020 4:11:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Y111 wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
It is not misogyny or hatred to try to influence others, but if they try to shame others into being anything other than they wish to be, then that is controlling.

I don't quite understand what hatred has to do with seeing someone as inferior and wanting to control them. We see cats and dogs as inferior but that doesn't mean we hate them.

Hatred is probably more likely to be found in women for men if they see them as their oppressors throughout history.


That statement is probably logical.

But feminists are not usually misandrists. That is a common misconception.

People who hate men are called Misandrists. Sort of different from Feminists. :)

This article is written by a man.

https://www.itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/12/reasons-people-believe-feminism-hates-men/

Yes, there are a minority of women who hate all men just as there are a minority of men who hate all woman. The man who mowed down 14 people because they were women at the Polytech University in Montreal, Canada, in 1989 is an example of misogyny carried to the extreme. His suicide note blamed feminists for ruining his life. These days there is a group who call themselves Incels, who attack women because they can't connect with a woman and get them to like them so they blame the women instead of themselves.

I'm not aware of the opposite where women hate men so much they attack them but it could happen. If there are examples, I'd be interested to know about them.

Canada's Horrible Massacre of Women


Even Romany who has experienced terrible brutality by one man, who had to move out of the country to get away from him, does not hate men. She has brought up two great sons. She has many male and female friends. She does hate it when either sex acts in ways to support misogyny or those who support it and even act upon it.
Y111
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 12:53:54 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 373
Neurons: 1,854
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
But feminists are not usually misandrists. That is a common misconception.

I think one source of this mistrust toward feminists is their name. If they are for equity, they should call themselves 'equitists'.

It's natural that every group strives for its rights and let others take care of theirs, but this means competition, not cooperation. It divides, not unites.

If you heard of a group called 'blackists' or 'whitists', would you think they were for racial equity? Similarly, when I hear about feminists, I simply think that they are women wanting more rights for themselves. When a man calls himself a feminist, it sounds odd, almost like "I am feminine". So I just can't associate myself with this movement. Most likely many men feel the same.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 3:06:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,175
Neurons: 665,489
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Y111 wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
But feminists are not usually misandrists. That is a common misconception.

I think one source of this mistrust toward feminists is their name. If they are for equity, they should call themselves 'equitists'.

It's natural that every group strives for its rights and let others take care of theirs, but this means competition, not cooperation. It divides, not unites.

If you heard of a group called 'blackists' or 'whitists', would you think they were for racial equity? Similarly, when I hear about feminists, I simply think that they are women wanting more rights for themselves. When a man calls himself a feminist, it sounds odd, almost like "I am feminine". So I just can't associate myself with this movement. Most likely many men feel the same.


I find this an interesting point. The word "feminist" really does seem to bring out a lot of mistrust. However, while feminism is about equality between the sexes, that naturally means focusing on increasing women's rights (to the point where the match men's rights) - hence the name feminism.

It's interesting that when women strive to have their voices heard equally loudly as men's voices, suddenly people think that they want to silence men. It's a defensive reaction very similar to what some people experience when they hear "white privilege", "black lives matter" etc. Asking people to listen to a specific group of people never means we have to forget everyone else. This gut reaction implies that these people think feminists want to compete, when really we want to cooperate.

A lot of resources online explain how feminism works, how it's about equal rights, cooperation, unity. If, despite this explanation, you still feel like it sounds odd, like you can't associate yourself with this movement, then I ask you to look at yourself and analyse why you feel that way. I can tell you the earth orbits the sun, and if that feels odd to you - well, that doesn't change facts. So maybe just accept the facts, regardless of how that makes you feel.
Y111
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 6:35:20 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 373
Neurons: 1,854
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:
I can tell you the earth orbits the sun, and if that feels odd to you - well, that doesn't change facts. So maybe just accept the facts, regardless of how that makes you feel.

But what I wrote above is also facts. That gut reaction, as you call it, won't disappear just because you dislike it. The name 'feminism' doesn't imply cooperation between sexes; it implies a movement for the benefit of women. Therefore I think that the name works against you, not for. Maybe just with simple folks like myself, but still. It's up to you to decide whether it's of any importance or not.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 7:02:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,175
Neurons: 665,489
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Y111 wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
I can tell you the earth orbits the sun, and if that feels odd to you - well, that doesn't change facts. So maybe just accept the facts, regardless of how that makes you feel.

But what I wrote above is also facts. That gut reaction, as you call it, won't disappear just because you dislike it. The name 'feminism' doesn't imply cooperation between sexes; it implies a movement for the benefit of women. Therefore I think that the name works against you, not for. Maybe just with simple folks like myself, but still. It's up to you to decide whether it's of any importance or not.


It is a movement for the benefit of women. I find it weird that you think that doesn't imply cooperation between the sexes. Or rather, that it seems to require the opposite.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 7:47:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,175
Neurons: 665,489
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
On the topic of feminism and equality, Oxfam published a global overview on economic inequality between the sexes: https://indepth.oxfam.org.uk/time-to-care/

It talks about the results of "a flawed and sexist economic system that values the wealth of the privileged few, mostly men, more than the billions of hours of the most essential work – the unpaid and underpaid care work done primarily by women and girls around the world."

Oxfam advocates the following:
Quote:
Governments around the world can, and must, build a human economy that is feminist and benefits the 99%, not only the 1%. This world would be one where everyone has secure jobs paying decent wages, where nobody lives in fear of the cost of falling sick, and where every child has the chance to fulfil their potential. In this world, our economy would thrive within the limits of our planet, handing a better world to every new generation.

(emphasis mine)
Y111
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 11:46:32 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 373
Neurons: 1,854
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:
I find it weird that you think that doesn't imply cooperation between the sexes.

There is only one sex in the name. I don't see how it's supposed to imply cooperation between two.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 12:44:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 13,019
Neurons: 603,945
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Foundit wrote - "
religious institutions run by men - examples Muslim, Catholic church;
And you have the choice to join or not join those religious institutions. No one forces you to do so. So again, your argument fails, since women are free to choose."

Foundit, you cannot be serious! In Muslim countries and in some Catholic countries women - and men- have no choice about joining or not joining such religious institutions. Even if they are not members or adherents of official religious centres they are still forced to do as they are told by the men who have the power. Your argument falls, FD.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 7:44:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 34,213
Neurons: 224,906
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
This is just semantics - but it IS an important point which Y111 made. It's the word itself.

If you heard of an elitist movement, would you automatically feel it was based on equal rights for all, including the elite? Or does it sound like the elite are treated favourably?

If you heard that someone had started a masculist movement, would you consider automatically that it was intended to treat women equally? Or that the masculine should be favoured?

THAT is the impression the WORD "Feminist" creates - just by the way the English language works.
I KNOW that the definition is not meant to mean the feminine should be favoured - but that's what the word sounds like.

It's a bad choice of word from a century ago. The word DOES work against women.
"Egalitarianism" would have been a better choice, but it's a bit late now.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 11:32:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Y111 and Drago are correct about the word Feminism itself.

Yes, Egalitarians would be a better term. Should we try to change it? Whistle They change all kinds of words and meanings these days.

Charles Fourier, a utopian socialist and French philosopher, is credited with having coined the word "féminisme" in 1837. The words "féminisme" ("feminism") and "féministe" ("feminist") first appeared in France and the Netherlands in 1872, Great Britain in the 1890s, and the United States in 1910.

Stephen Murphy, Published poet, performed playwright & songwriter:
Feminism. Masculism. Misogyny. Misandry:

If Feminism seeks to promote the rights and equality of women and see them equal with men, the opposite of this would be Misogyny, which is the disrespect and oppression of women through word and action.

The comparative word for Feminism is Masculism, which has its place in some niches (male workplace paternity rights etc.) but isn’t quite the same as the age-long struggled for women to have equal rights and status as humans and not be perceived and treated as lesser beings. Anyone who feels the need to safeguard the rights of a strongly established hegemony (men) is probably barking up the wrong tree.

Misandry (the disrespect and ill-treatment of men on ideological grounds) is the counterpart of Misogyny and should be avoided as it is equally discrimination and there is no need for more negativity in an already negative world.

Lotje1000
Posted: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:38:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,175
Neurons: 665,489
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Women have long been erased from history. Feminism is called that because it's a movement that wants to make women visible again. (Similarly, that's why it's "Black lives matter" and not "All lives matter".) Focusing on one issue does not make other issues cease to matter. Supporting women does not mean erasing men. Yet when someone brings up the subject of women, it's not long before the attention is drawn back to men. That's not because it's called "feminism". That's because it's a knee-jerk defensive mechanism. Just calling it another name isn't going to magically fix the discomfort those in power have when a group starts to stand up for itself.

Does the word "feminism" make people uncomfortable? Good. Sit with that discomfort and ask yourself why it makes you uncomfortable. Ask yourself why some men are uncomfortable because they feel "I am feminist" sounds like "I am feminine". Ask yourself why being feminine is a bad thing. Ask yourself why every essay, article, post, interview, forum thread about women's rights has to include a long-winded disclaimer "of course not all men" or why we have to keep explaining what feminism means. It's not because it's called "feminism". It's because it's easier to blame a word, fall back on defensiveness and outrage than it is to actually listen to what is being said.

If only we all took half the time we spent dissecting and explaining the term and instead applied it to:
- listening to and acknowledging women's experiences
- acknowledging the existence of our outdated gender expectations
- working together to get rid of said expectations
- or, if all else fails, stop making life difficult for other people who are just trying to exist.

I swear it's like arguing if the titanic is a boat or a ship while we really should be getting people into life boats.

March Hare
Posted: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:50:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/4/2014
Posts: 306
Neurons: 2,148,666
Location: Zedelgem, Flanders, Belgium
Lotje1000 wrote:
Women have long been erased from history. Feminism is called that because it's a movement that wants to make women visible again. (Similarly, that's why it's "Black lives matter" and not "All lives matter".) Focusing on one issue does not make other issues cease to matter. Supporting women does not mean erasing men. Yet when someone brings up the subject of women, it's not long before the attention is drawn back to men. That's not because it's called "feminism". That's because it's a knee-jerk defensive mechanism. Just calling it another name isn't going to magically fix the discomfort those in power have when a group starts to stand up for itself.

Does the word "feminism" make people uncomfortable? Good. Sit with that discomfort and ask yourself why it makes you uncomfortable. Ask yourself why some men are uncomfortable because they feel "I am feminist" sounds like "I am feminine". Ask yourself why being feminine is a bad thing. Ask yourself why every essay, article, post, interview, forum thread about women's rights has to include a long-winded disclaimer "of course not all men" or why we have to keep explaining what feminism means. It's not because it's called "feminism". It's because it's easier to blame a word, fall back on defensiveness and outrage than it is to actually listen to what is being said.

If only we all took half the time we spent dissecting and explaining the term and instead applied it to:
- listening to and acknowledging women's experiences
- acknowledging the existence of our outdated gender expectations
- working together to get rid of said expectations
- or, if all else fails, stop making life difficult for other people who are just trying to exist.

I swear it's like arguing if the titanic is a boat or a ship while we really should be getting people into life boats.



Applause
Romany
Posted: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 8:11:44 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,399
Neurons: 55,955
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Lotje - thanks for focusing the discussion, and freeing it from the collective voices of the age-old Querelle des Femmes -which has been going on since Medieval times - 600 years!

I have never identified as a Feminist - nowhere, in print, public lectures or in private. I'm not a "joiner", nor have I ever come across a movement with which I identify 100%. I prefer individualism.

I don't like boxes or categories or pre-judgement either. The only word with which I identify - if pushed - is as a Humanist. However, I got the surprise of my life when FD informed me that in HIS private lexicon, a "Humanist" is akin to a horned devil. Although this proves he has absolutely no idea of what the whole Humanist "revolution" was all about, he decided I wasn't one.

I'd already been branded a Lefty (amusingly he STILL has not looked up the word with which I describe my political affiliations: - "a-political"), so into the "Lefty/snowflake/yada,yada, yada Box. I went.

As a Humanist, I fight for the rights of those who are under-dogs, and that includes women. To a person who has no knowledge or understanding of Humanism, that's too difficult. So, on TFD I got popped into the "Feminist" box so I could get blamed, along with the only other 2 active female members, for every ridiculous excess, no-brainer, gibberish, that has ever come out of another woman's mouth.

As a female writer/journalist working in many places where women had no voices, I've often been the only member of the Press Corps who is even ALLOWED to talk to women. The horrors that I've encountered would turn anyone's stomach. So, I fight for women. And for homeless people, and ex-cons, and animals, and racism, and the poor and the destitute, and the aged.

But all that, of course, is meaningless from the POV of those sheltered individuals whose narrow world-view sees "Woman = Feminist" "Feminist = bad." It's a simple creed, isn't it, tailored specifically for those who have very little idea of how the world - not just their own, tiny little patch of it - actually works.

So: Feminist, Man-Hater, Whiner, Female with Balls? It really matters little what one is CALLED. What's important is what one DOES. And as, in a forum of absolute strangers, no-one has any idea of what other posters are doing with their lives, well "sticks and stones", are the self-absorbed's only weapons.
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 10:47:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Lotje1000 wrote:
Women have long been erased from history. Feminism is called that because it's a movement that wants to make women visible again. (Similarly, that's why it's "Black lives matter" and not "All lives matter".) Focusing on one issue does not make other issues cease to matter. Supporting women does not mean erasing men. Yet when someone brings up the subject of women, it's not long before the attention is drawn back to men. That's not because it's called "feminism". That's because it's a knee-jerk defensive mechanism. Just calling it another name isn't going to magically fix the discomfort those in power have when a group starts to stand up for itself.

Does the word "feminism" make people uncomfortable? Good. Sit with that discomfort and ask yourself why it makes you uncomfortable. Ask yourself why some men are uncomfortable because they feel "I am feminist" sounds like "I am feminine". Ask yourself why being feminine is a bad thing. Ask yourself why every essay, article, post, interview, forum thread about women's rights has to include a long-winded disclaimer "of course not all men" or why we have to keep explaining what feminism means. It's not because it's called "feminism". It's because it's easier to blame a word, fall back on defensiveness and outrage than it is to actually listen to what is being said.

If only we all took half the time we spent dissecting and explaining the term and instead applied it to:
- listening to and acknowledging women's experiences
- acknowledging the existence of our outdated gender expectations
- working together to get rid of said expectations
- or, if all else fails, stop making life difficult for other people who are just trying to exist.

I swear it's like arguing if the titanic is a boat or a ship while we really should be getting people into life boats.



Drool Applause Applause

Well said, Lotje. You are correct that even if the name were changed to a more descriptive one, nothing else probably would. (Your analogy “ I swear it's like arguing if the titanic is a boat or a ship while we really should be getting people into life boats“ made me think that could also be applied to the still ongoing climate change arguments by those who benefit and want to keep the status quo.)

I never really thought of it and had no idea that my life views were considered to be feminist until I joined this forum several years ago.I did know that I was an atheist who agrees she could be wrong about it, but I still never speak of it except on the Forum. Now I just found out from Romany that my views are also those of a Humanist. Humans are responsible for themselves but help for those in need is always the way to go.

Humanism- an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

:::

Has anybody seen the movie “Bombshell”? It was released last year and is about Fox News women, Barbied-up with lip gloss, false eyelashes and tight short skirts, who were victimized and then eventually fought back against the disgusting sexual harassment of them by the late Fox News CEO Roger Ailes, who was finally fired and paid millions more than they were to go away. He did it not just because of sexual appetite but because he had the power and he could. He liked the fear he created in them as they knew he had their careers in his hands.

I have not seen it nor plan to, but from reports from women whose views I've used in this bit, who have seen the movie (don't think it is doing well at the box office?) they come out madder than ever. And really mad at privileged right wing women who won’t even call themselves feminists.

Y111
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 1:36:44 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 373
Neurons: 1,854
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:
Ask yourself why being feminine is a bad thing.

I never wrote it was a bad thing. By this logic I must also think it's bad to be masculine because it would also sound odd to me if a woman said she was a masculist. If you feel an urge to accuse, at least accuse people of what they did.

As I see it, forums like this one are for discussions, not accusations. They are places where people can try to understand one another, even when they are of different cultures and have different gender expectations. It may be difficult, but it's the only constructive thing that we can do here. You can't change me and I can't change you with accusatory posts. We have no authority over each other. Does it make you uncomfortable?

Lotje1000 wrote:
If only we all took half the time we spent dissecting and explaining the term and instead applied it to:

A couple of posts is too much time to discuss a term? Come on. We are on a language website, after all. It's only natural that people coming here are interested in language and sensitive to word meanings. But even if it weren't a language site, I still don't see what's wrong with sharing thoughts about the role the name of a movement plays in its reputation. How is it supposed to prevent you from doing more important things? Do you feel controlled by me? You could simply have ignored my post. If you didn't, it was your free choice. So I don't quite understand your "if only".
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 2:53:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,175
Neurons: 665,489
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Y111 wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Ask yourself why being feminine is a bad thing.

I never wrote it was a bad thing. By this logic I must also think it's bad to be masculine because it would also sound odd to me if a woman said she was a masculist. If you feel an urge to accuse, at least accuse people of what they did.


No, you didn't write explicitly say that being feminine is a bad thing. You said it was odd. You said that men sounding like they were saying they are feminine was odd to you, to the point where it was enough to make you (and "most likely many men") not want to associate with feminism. That sounds to me like being associated with femininity and promoting women's rights seem like a thing a man should not do. Or, like it's a bad thing for a man to do. In short, being feminine is bad for a man.

Feel free to tell me if I've misinterpreted, but even so - that post wasn't directed at you specifically.

Y111 wrote:
As I see it, forums like this one are for discussions, not accusations. They are places where people can try to understand one another, even when they are of different cultures and have different gender expectations. It may be difficult, but it's the only constructive thing that we can do here. You can't change me and I can't change you with accusatory posts. We have no authority over each other. Does it make you uncomfortable?


Nope and also no, I am not accusing you.

Y111 wrote:
A couple of posts is too much time to discuss a term? Come on. We are on a language website, after all. It's only natural that people coming here are interested in language and sensitive to word meanings. But even if it weren't a language site, I still don't see what's wrong with sharing thoughts about the role the name of a movement plays in its reputation. How is it supposed to prevent you from doing more important things? Do you feel controlled by me? You could simply have ignored my post. If you didn't, it was your free choice. So I don't quite understand your "if only".


You seem to be taking this quite personally. I do not feel controlled by you. In that post I made, I am not talking solely to you or about your messages. I am talking about a general trend that happens in reactions to feminist discourse. People seem far more interested in questioning the term than to actually listen to the things feminism stands for or read its definition. Like I said, it's a common defensive reaction when people are confronted with something they find uncomfortable. It's easier to attack the messenger (or the term) than to listen to the message.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.