Discusion of feminism

[sweetnpetite]

I posted this under Feminazi, but I think the name might have turned off anyone interested in the topic. Since I can't change the name of a thread, I thought I'd try again.


the underaged sex thread was being somewhat hijacked by the equally interesting topic of feminsm in its forms and extremes. Several people said that they where feminists. Several eronious things where said about feminists and feminism (straw man anyone?) So I thought that a thread to discuss feminism might be interesting and well recieved.

1. Are you a feminist? Why or why not?

2. What do you think feminists should focus there efforts on?

3. Do you think that there is still a need for feminism in this day and age?

4. Do you think the 'old gaurd feminists' have made themselves irrelevant?

5. Do you think the new guard feminists are making themsevs irrelvant?

6. What do you think of the term feminazi?

that should get us started. Answer any or all that you wish

 

[OldnotDead]

Dear Sweet n,

According to Mirriam, Webster, and all their latter day editors . . .
Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1895
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
- fem·i·nist /-nist/ noun or adjective

Note the DATE of origination. This concept is OLD - even older than me.

My basic concept of what I want to see in a feminist is:
- a woman CAN call and ask me out.
- a woman CAN pay for said date.
- a woman CAN initiate sex.
- a woman CAN leave after sex, go home, and does not have to call in the morning to see if I had a good time.

and if the date involved going to a CUBS game, she will not HAVE to call. She will be called promptly, begging for another date

 

[Parklife]

The problem is that discussing feminism is like discussing politics. We can agree on the subject but the particulars are so numerous it's difficult to get anywhere.

I've used the following two sites in numerous feminism-type discussions:

http://www.sou.edu/English/IDTC/Issues/Gender/Resources/femtax1.htm

http://www.sapphireblue.com/dissident_feminist/factions.shtml


To answer your questions:

Yes, I consider myself a feminist (of the male persuasion). I think feminist should focus their efforts on whatever they personally feel important. There are so many issues, so many areas. That's part of the problem (very little focus for a movement) and perhaps part of a solution (allowing people to focus efforts at what they believe in).

I dont' think any brand of feminism is 'irrelevant' but that many drown out their collective voices. There is also much dissent among the ranks it seems and this could lend to the appearance of irrelevance.

I believe Feminazi was a term specifically coined by Rush Limbaugh and was a direct reference to pro-abortion feminist (rather than ethnic cleansing, fetus cleansing). It has since been basterdized by males and females to describe any number of strands of feminist thought.

Park~

 

[Xelebes]

I don't mind the equality of the sexes on the work place, just that I don't expect women to take up stock positions as quickly as say... teaching positions.In the households, I think it is balanced right now. There's relationships where the woman or the man take sharge. My parent's relationshiup, I see it, is quite balanced. My mom prefers to do certain tasks while my dad does the other. *shrugs*

I'm mostly apathetic to politics in any form though.

 

[Icingsugar]

Ah, feminism. It's such a funny little word, isn't it? The interpretations to the word are so vast and means so different thingd to dofferent people, that it's virtually impossible to ask "are you a feminist" without adding "and with feminist I mean one that..."

But personally, I have never entitled myself a feminist. I can't limit my ambition for person-to-person equality to something as specific as gender.

I'm much rather a humanist. Everyone should have the same opportunity find a place, and grow as an individual. There are greater barriers than "cock or cunt" in western society.

And no, I can't really dig in to the word feminazi. Who is that? Eva Braun? Today we've got classroom nazis, police nazis, grammarnazis... All this abuse of the word Nazi is wearing it's real meaning out.

 

[snooper]

Ignoring the big philospohical questions, equality is a practical consideration.

In the workplace, equal pay for equal work sounds fine in theory, but how equal is equal? We had a female employee working in a relatively important, highly skilled job. Then one morning she came in to the office and announced that she was leaving; no notice, no heads-up, nothing. She had only come in to collect her personal belongings; unfinished work items did not matter to her. It transpired that her husband (working for an entirely different organisation) had been promoted to a post in a different office three hundred miles away, and she was going house- and job-hunting in the new location. Was her work the equal of the male employees who would never do that?

 

[Icingsugar]

In the workplace, equal pay for equal work sounds fine in theory, but how equal is equal? We had a female employee working in a relatively important, highly skilled job. Then one morning she came in to the office and announced that she was leaving; no notice, no heads-up, nothing. She had only come in to collect her personal belongings; unfinished work items did not matter to her. It transpired that her husband (working for an entirely different organisation) had been promoted to a post in a different office three hundred miles away, and she was going house- and job-hunting in the new location. Was her work the equal of the male employees who would never do that?

Huh? Why would a male employee never do that?

That last line is where the problem lies. Society is not equal in that regard until it would be just as natural for a man to follow his significate other as the other way around. When it comes to things like empoyment, we always have to act the way we think things ought to be, or we will just keep on folding for the stereotype, instead of defeating it.

In your case, it means not assuming that the woman did what she did because of her gender, but because of facual circumstances. Maybe she didn't like her job? It also means thinking that the same thing can happen to a male employee too.

And it does. It did happen to me. I quit my dayjob, because my girlfriend had to move for work. It was more impoteant for her than my job was forme, and she got better paid too. I hated that damn office, so I jumped at the chance to get out as soon as we could afford the insecutity of not having two safe incomes in the household. So now I freelance write, have never been more content aboutwork, and make ends meet too. Noone ever said to me that "you wouldn't had dome that if you had been a woman"

end 'o' rant

/Ice

 

[Svenskaflicka]

*big hug for Ice*

Well said!

 

[Em Keli 2003]

SNOOPER


Her work is what should be judged, not whether life changes and circumstances meant that she was moving to a new location. Obviously her work was great or she would never have been hired into the position.

So far as I am concerned, the fact that she moved, left her job to be with her husband in his new employment and location, did not in any way have a bearing on the work she had performed up to that point.

 

[Dirty Slut]

I'm not for equality...

I'm for the world turning upside down, and realizing that each human being on the planet is priceless. And the only way I see that happening is if we women take over entirely. Now that's equality.

DS

 

[Seattle Zack]

"Feminist" is one of those words often chosen for its emotive connotations rather than any real meaning, like "environmentalist" or "conservative." In the context of a discussion like this, it's rather meaningless.

Personally, I consider myself a skeptical secular humanist. In my brief thirteen-year sojourn through corporate America, I never saw any instances of women being discriminated against or "held back" because of their gender. In the office I worked in, women who did the same jobs made the same as men.

On the other hand, I have witnessed incidences such as snooper describes, which illustrate the differing importance men and women place upon their careers. One big project I worked on, two women and two men, came down to the wire with major problems. We absolutely had to get it worked out before a major trade show. Unfortunately, during the last week of the project, the women couldn't stay past five o'clock because of "child care issues" (they had to get the kid from day care).

Me and the other guy finished the project, on time, by staying to midnight every night that week. I would have liked to go to my Thursday night poker tournament, but to suggest that would have been ludicrous.

I don't have kids, and one of the reasons is that I like to go play poker when I want or fly to Vegas for a weekend. If I had chosen to have kids, I would also realize that my earning potential had been compromised somewhat, and that other childless people (male or female) would probably have more successful careers than me because of their choices.

A recent survey popularized on CNN and a couple other websites asked "what would you do if you had more time" -- more than 70% of men replied that they would use it to advance their careers. Only 17% of women had the same answer.

Without getting into testimonials about different situations, understand that this is a survey, so it deals in generalizations. However, it does illustrate the differing importance that men and women place on their careers, which also explains the supposed "income gap" that doesn't really exist.

I know many women with advanced degrees (mainly college professors) but also lawyers and MBAs. Not one makes significantly less than her male counterpart with the same experience and schooling.

In fact, there's no wage disparity at all among full-time workers between the ages of 21 and 35 who live alone, according to the Employment Policy Foundation. What's more, the pay gap is only 3 percent among full-time employees who are married but childless, the foundation's information says.

The foundation's study concludes that's because women in dual-earner couples with children still bear most of the child-rearing responsibility and tend to work fewer hours than their husbands.

A study co-authored by Phyllis Moen, a Cornell University professor of sociology and human development, found that men do in fact usually work longer hours outside the home than their wives in dual-earner couples. That study also found working couples without children saying they have more satisfying family lives than their counterparts with kids.

The Employment Policy Foundation's study concluded that one reason women's pay is lower than men's is that women are more apt to be liberal arts majors who go into lower-paying jobs -- while men are inclined to choose engineering and computer-science courses and pursue higher-paying careers.

Foundation research also shows that women ages 35 to 44 with psychology degrees and working as social scientists earn 101 percent as much as their male colleagues. Women with engineering degrees between the ages of 33 and 44 make 95 percent as much as their male counterparts.

So, for me, the term "feminist" is pretty meaningless. I have some problems with the "feminist agenda," as I do with any extremist organization that favors legal redress over equality. People like Catherine MacKinnon are as repulsive to me as Jerry Fallwell.

- a woman CAN pay for said date.
- a woman CAN initiate sex.
- a woman CAN leave after sex, go home, and does not have to call in the morning to see if I had a good time.

and if the date involved going to a CUBS game...

now that's a feminist in my book.

 

[Guest]

Maybe I'm not old enough to remember what it "Used to be like" therefore I don't quite understand what we need feminism for. I'm all for equality for all people; male, female, black, white, young and old. It doesn't much matter to me. I beleive there are CERTAIN things that women can do better than most men. I beleive there are things that men can do better than most women. There are always exceptions.

I DO have a problem with any person pushing their beleives on me though. I think that when we start FORCING or even ENCOURAGING people to be "Like everyone else" we are getting into dangerous territory ie: Political correctness.

I think there is a branch of the feminists that are encouraging women to go out and do things they don't REALLY want to do. This includes encouraging women to go out and work when a LOT of women simply want to stay home and have babies. There's NOTHING wrong with that. Yes, it's old fashioned but just because somethings old doesn't mean it isn't right.

I have no problems with equality. I have no problem with a woman becoming president. I have a problem with someone telling me, my family, my wife or my future kids what they MUST do. I have no problem with women getting equal pay for equal work... as long as the women really wants to be there.

I do beleive there are some exceptions to every rule though. I don't think women should be in the Infantry for one. Not because I think they couldn't do the job. Simply because I don't think ANY woman would want to go through what would be necessary to be there and considering no woman in this country has ever been there, I don't think they realize the full ramifications of being there. For the most part, I beleive women are every bit a mans equal.

I also don't beleive ANY ONE should get SPECIAL treatment just because they are a minority. In the US we have hate crime legislation protecting blacks and homosexuals. You can actually get more time in prison for killing a black gay man just because he's black or gay than you would for killing a white heterosexual. This just isn't right. Equal under law is the phrase this country was founded on.

End of rant.

 

[sweetnpetite]

[B
.

On the other hand, I have witnessed incidences such as snooper describes, which illustrate the differing importance men and women place upon their careers. One big project I worked on, two women and two men, came down to the wire with major problems. We absolutely had to get it worked out before a major trade show. Unfortunately, during the last week of the project, the women couldn't stay past five o'clock because of "child care issues" (they had to get the kid from day care).

Me and the other guy finished the project, on time, by staying to midnight every night that week.

I don't have kids, . If I had chosen to have kids, I would also realize that my earning potential had been compromised somewhat, and that other childless people (male or female) would probably have more successful careers than me because of their choices.

[/B]

That is completly untrue. MEN with children usually do not have to sacrifice for there careers when they have children. Society tells them that they don't have to and also that they shouldn't want to.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't think women should be in the Infantry for one. Not because I think they couldn't do the job. Simply because I don't think ANY woman would want to go through what would be necessary to be there

And men do?

Equal under law is the phrase this country was founded on.

End of rant.

Slavery was legal when this country was founded. And slaves where counted as a 3/5ths of a human being.

 

[Guest]

Posted by sweetnpetite:

MEN with children usually do not have to sacrifice for there careers when they have children. Society tells them that they don't have to and also that they shouldn't want to.
--------------------------

You're half right. While it's true married men who have children don't have to allow their career to suffer in order to take care of the kids it's also true that men, for the most part, are also abused by the courts when A woman chooses to divorce her husband for whatever reason. Men, even today, rarely get custody of the children even if it's in the childrens best interest. Single fathers careers suffer just as much as a single womans career.

If a married woman's career is important maybe that woman should look for a man who's career will allow HIM to take care of the children most of the time. Or even look for a man who is willing to stay home and take care of the kids. That's IF the woman makes enough to support a family on such an arrangement. For every advantage a man has or is percieved to have, there is a disadvantage.

And I know no PERSON in their right mind would EVER want to be in combat. The point was, Combat, or even life in the field, would be much more difficult for a woman than for a man.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Good point, Doffy. It's also interesting to note that once the court has 'established' paternity, that man is responsible for paying child support for the next 18 years (or more) -- even if the man is later proven not to be the biological father.

This gives a big incentive for a promiscuous female (including married women) to identify the highest earner from among her sexual partners as the father. Incredibly, there is no penalty for a female if she knowingly commits paternity fraud.

In fact, many family courts and social workers encourage women to identify high wage earners as the father, knowing that the man has little or no recourse (especially if he neglected to get a paternity test within a year of the child's birth).

Even more amazingly, the "feminist lobby" (whatever that is, but they're well-funded) opposes the paternity fraud legislation currently pending in more than 30 states, which would make it illegal for a woman to fraudulently identify the father of her child.

 

[sweetnpetite]

You're half right. While it's true married men who have children don't have to allow their career to suffer in order to take care of the kids it's also true that men, for the most part, are also abused by the courts when A woman chooses to divorce her husband for whatever reason. Men, even today, rarely get custody of the children even if it's in the childrens best interest. Single fathers careers suffer just as much as a single womans career.

the facts of the matter are distorted. In most cases of child custody, the women get custody because it is uncontested. That is, the man agrees for one reason or another that the children should remain with there mother. When the custody is contested, the women usually loose custody. Women are often penalized in court for actions which men are either applauded for or are not even an issue. (working too much, not working (so they can be with children), going to bars, dating, having any kind of social life.) We have an idealized vision of motherhood, so it's quite easy to prove that a woman is an 'unfit' mother, whereas very little is expected of men as fathers, so every little bit they do is cheered. (He changes diapers--wow!)

Single fathers don't have to deal with the attitude that "it's there own fault" for choosing to have children in the first place. Or the idea that they are selfish for having a career when they should be caring for there child (because for a man, his careeer *is* the way he's expected to care for a child.) In fact, it's the woman's fault for leaving him "for any old reason" and then of course for "abandoning" her child.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Good point, Doffy. It's also interesting to note that once the court has 'established' paternity, that man is responsible for paying child support for the next 18 years (or more) -- even if the man is later proven not to be the biological father.

This gives a big incentive for a promiscuous female (including married women) to identify the highest earner from among her sexual partners as the father. Incredibly, there is no penalty for a female if she knowingly commits paternity fraud.

In fact, many family courts and social workers encourage women to identify high wage earners as the father, knowing that the man has little or no recourse (especially if he neglected to get a paternity test within a year of the child's birth).

Even more amazingly, the "feminist lobby" (whatever that is, but they're well-funded) opposes the paternity fraud legislation currently pending in more than 30 states, which would make it illegal for a woman to fraudulently identify the father of her child.

You truly do live in the emerald city, becuase this is not reality that you are talking about. You can not just name some poor guy as the father. I have had three children out of wedlock (time for stone throwing, I'll duck). That's not the way it works. The man has to sign paternity papers voluntarily. If he contests, they DNA tests are orderd. THe man only has to pay the cost of the test if it shows that the child was his, otherwise the woman pays (for naming a false father I suppose)

I have never heard of courts and social workers encouraging women to identify high earners. (Obviously as a promiscuous woman, I'm fucking a rich guy a poor guy and some working class slob ) This would be pointless anyhow as a high earner is probably more likely to contest the paternity and order tests showing that he is not the father.

Men talk about women whining about wanting eqaul rights and equal pay and all that. This sounds to me like a bunch of men wining about having to take care of there responsablities. Don't sign the papers if the kids not yours. Otherwise, pay up and shut up.

 

[sweetnpetite]

The only exceptionn is when you are married, and that is the law of the state, not the woman's decision. IF you are married, you have no choice but to accept the child as yours. (Maybe this is something men should know before they get married) The husband is the legal father, the end.

IF you find out that your child is not biologically yours after 12 years of raisning the child as your own and you suddenly don't want anything to do with that child or refuse to pay child support because of DNA, you are shit for a dad and shit for a person. If you raise a kid for 12 years they are yours, period. I dont' care if the kid was switched at birth. Parenting is about love and sacrifice, and relationship not DNA and blood types. Get over it.

End Rant. (for now)

 

[Seattle Zack]

If he contests, they DNA tests are orderd. THe man only has to pay the cost of the test if it shows that the child was his, otherwise the woman pays (for naming a false father I suppose)

Very interesting... I've never heard of a court-mandated paternity test under the circumstances you describe. Among the fifty states, only Alaska has a law that requires unwed parents to establish paternity through genetic testing, thus insuring that child support orders are issued only to biological fathers.

Perhaps I do live in the Emerald City ... well Washington state, where men can be legally forced to pay child support even for a child that isn't theirs, if they've formed an 'emotional bond' with the child (no legal definition of this term, of course).

Legally, the courts in most of the 50 states rely on 500-year-old English common law, promulgating an epidemic of paternity fraud. Only Maryland and Ohio allow men unlimited time to challenge paternity using DNA testing. A Georgia paternity fraud bill now awaits the governor's signature.

Other states have addressed the problem by limiting paternity challenges: Iowa allows a maximum of three years for such challenges, Colorado allows 5, and Louisiana, 10. None of these states requires mothers make full and accurate disclosure of potential paternity disputes within the time limits.

(Obviously as a promiscuous woman, I'm fucking a rich guy a poor guy and some working class slob ) This would be pointless anyhow as a high earner is probably more likely to contest the paternity and order tests showing that he is not the father.

Well why not? It's not against the law, so there's no downside --- even if you know the rich guy isn't the father, there's no law against naming him. At the very least, you'll get the last guy on the totem pole, the one least likely to be able to afford the two grand for the paternity test, and you might do much better. It's all legal, right?

 

[Guest]

Men talk about women whining about wanting eqaul rights and equal pay and all that. This sounds to me like a bunch of men wining about having to take care of there responsablities.

Brava, brava, Sweet. I am not fully entering this discussion, just glad someone like Sweet is speaking up. I'm very disappointed at Doff and Zack's "attitude", and it is that, an attitude all too common among the elite, e.g., men in what is for all intents and purposes still a very patriarchal world. For any man or woman's statistics about the negative consequences of "feminism" I get extraordinarily angry, but it is a rational ire. However, I will not express it here in particulars.

Thank you, Sweets, from a fatigued and "old" femme.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

SweetNPetite, you're probably right. MOST fathers don't want custody. But those who do, don't get it.

As for proving a woman UNFIT, I don't know about most places, but I know in this state, saying "She works!" is not enough to prove her unfit. It takes abuse, neglact, abandonment, drugs or some such. Working and having a social life (unless it's VERY promiscusous(sp?) is not going to be punished in court. It's a myth. NO JUDGE would penalize a parent for WORKING. For earing a living.

Aren't attitudes pretty much what we're discussing? IF we change the attitudes, we need to change BOTH sides. We need MEN to be just as responsible as women for the children. We need BOTH parents feeling an obligation to Financially and emotionally support each and every child they have.

What happens if the FATHER hasn't even been NOTIFIED of the birth? OF the pregnancy? What if the father and mother are no longer together? The father isn't AT the hospital. He may NEVER be told that his name was put on the birth certificate. When asked the fathers name.. the woman gives the name. The man my NEVER be notified. If he is, it's a good chance it's because the woman wants to sue for MONEY!!

And if you want MEN to be more responsible for children, shall we get into ABORTION? How is it fair that a woman can simply walk into a clinic, see a doctor, see a psychologist, talk for a while and then KILL that baby. MY BABY? How is that fair? They don't need my signature. They don't NEED a father. IF you're going to make men more responsible for babies, they should have a say in whether that baby is born or not. It may be YOUR body, but it's HALF my BABY!!! (FYI, I AM pro-choice. I'm playing devils advocate)

Also, how is it fair, that a husband signs a birth certificate for a child his wife gave birth to, and then, LATER, he discovers that his wife has been cheating on him and the baby may not be his. Paternity tests are done and it's proven that the child is not his. Why is that man, the husband, still responsible, after the divorce and all, why is he still responsible for the child?? Women want equality, but it seems to me that the MEN are getting ripped pretty bad here too.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Perdita, bless you, I have a lot of respect for any old "femme" as my mother was one, and the notion of equality is something that I was forcibly fed every morning with my Sugar Smacks.

It seems to me that giving up equality for the sake of preferential treatment is a step backward ... for anyone who's been subject to discrimination. The women's movement was founded on free speech, and now their leading proponents want to stifle it. That hypocricy is what I object to.

--Zack

P.S. "elite"? Jesus Christ, you should see my apartment. I need a maid ...

A Fearful Freedom: Women's Flight From Equality

 

[Guest]

Perdita, I have no problem with feminism. I have a problem with the MILITANCY that the feminist movement has adopted.

The Blacks did it in the sixties and it got Martin Luthor King and others killed for their efforts. I'm not saying King was a militant but others, Malcolm X and the Black Panters WERE militant.

Those fighting for "equal" treatment for gays and lesbians are now moving into this territory also.

I have no problem with EVERYONE being equal. But I DON'T and WON'T support a movement that puts ANYONE above someone else. I won't support a movement that will give women, gays, latinos or blacks more power, or better treatment by the government or the courts, than the average white, heterosexual male.

It may sound Male-centric, but as I see it, it's just fair.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Brava, brava, Sweet. I am not fully entering this discussion, just glad someone like Sweet is speaking up. I'm very disappointed at Doff and Zack's "attitude", and it is that, an attitude all too common among the elite, e.g., men in what is for all intents and purposes still a very patriarchal world. For any man or woman's statistics about the negative consequences of "feminism" I get extraordinarily angry, but it is a rational ire. However, I will not express it here in particulars.

Thank you, Sweets, from a fatigued and "old" femme.

Perdita

oh perdita, you believe that silly old myth about patriarchy? It just isn't so!!!! White men are the only truly second class citizens in the world today After all, the white men *I* know aren't rich, so that proves that there's no culteral advantage to being male. It's in your silly feminist head. See why they want us to stay in the kitchen and bake cookies? When we try to think it comes out all wrong, confused and distorted. But it's not our fault you know, our brains are so much smaller than theirs.