PDA

View Full Version : Feminism vs. Radical Feminism



MistOfTheSea86
November 6th, 2001, 12:48 PM
Thoughts??

Myst
November 6th, 2001, 05:29 PM
Feminism - working towards showing people that men and women are equal, solving a situation wherein one is discriminated against for their gender, breaking through gender stereotypes

Radical Feminism - running around whining and screaming about how all men are stupid, ignorant, inferior, rude, pigs, etc. or about how oppressed and discriminated against women are by all men or about how discrimination makes it impossible for women to make their own choices in life and raising of their family, or suggesting that women are superior to men

Illuminatus
November 6th, 2001, 06:40 PM
Feminism - Productive, Worthwhile, Admirable

Radical Feminism - Counterproductive

Myst
November 6th, 2001, 06:57 PM
Right on Ill.

Swanspirit
November 6th, 2001, 07:15 PM
that to set up a dialogue as one versus the other can be creating conflct where none is needed .... and simply serves as a spouting session for opinions not based on historical definitions...........and misses out on the history and legacy of some very wonderful feminists .... and the feminist women in Afghanistan are considered radical at the moment so the terms are relative at best........thus........

Feminist Utopia: Feminism Defined

Because people who believe in the theory of feminism have so many different beliefs, some have
sectioned off and created labels that represent them best and their beliefs surrounding feminism. What
follows are different branches of feminism theory that are recognized by feminists and feminist
scholars. These different theories of feminism are widely acknowledged and taught in women's studies
courses, gender studies courses, and the like.

Like many, I also recognize that people have created their own definition of feminism to best suit them.
The definitions here are theorectical, and are an example of the diversity of thoughts and beliefs among
feminists. See where you fit in, or even if you do.

Feminism

Feminism is theory that men and women should be equal politically, economically and socially.

This is the core of all feminism theories. Sometimes this definition is also referred to as "core
feminism" or "core feminist theory." Notice that this theory does not subscribe to differences between
men and women or similarities between men and women, nor does it refer to excluding men or only
furthering women's causes. Most other branches of feminism do.

Depedning on why you believe in feminism and what your ideas are to make feminism a reality is what
branches you off to be defined in the types of feminism defined below.

If you find that you do believe in the theory of feminism stated above, but do not see yourself fitting into
any of the branches of feminism below, that is okay. You can believe that women and men should be
politically, economically and socially equal for your own reasons and hold your own ideas pertaining
how you can make that happen. Because of that diversity and the allowance to define feminism for
yourself with your own reasons for believing in it and your own ideas to make it happen, we end up with
different branches of feminism. But at the core, at the heart of the matter, feminism remains a theory
that men and women should be politically, socially and economically equal.

Feminist

One who believes in the theory of feminism that is mentioned above.



Amazon Feminism

Amazon feminism is dedicated to the image of the female hero in Greek mythology and in fact, as it is
expressed in art and literature, in the physiques and feats of female athletes, and in sexual values and
practices.

Amazon feminism focuses on physical equality and is opposed to gender role stereotypes and
discrimination against women based on assumptions that women are supposed to be, look or behave
as if they are passive, weak and physically helpless. Amazon feminism rejects the idea that certain
characteristics or interests are inherently masculine (or feminine), and upholds and explores a vision of
heroic womanhood.

An Amazon feminist, for example, would argue that some people are not cut out physically to be a fire
fighter, serve in combat in the armed forces or work in construction. Whereas some people are
physically capable of doing such jobs. No mention of gender need be made, as the jobs should be
open to all people regardless of gender. Those men and women who are physically capable and want
to, should pursue such jobs. Amazon feminists tend to view that indeed, all women are as physically
capable as all men.

Cultural Feminism

The theory that there are fundamental personality differences between men and women, and that
women's differences are special and should be celebrated. This theory of feminism supports the notion
that there are biological differences between men and women, for example, "women are kinder and
more gentle then men", leading to the mentality that if women ruled the world there would be no wars.
Cultural feminism is the theory that wants to overcome sexism by celebrating women's special
qualities, women's ways, and women's experiences, often believing that the "woman's way" is the
better way.

Ecofeminism

Ecofeminism is a theory that rests on the basic principal that patriarchial philosophies are harmful to
women, children, and other living things. Parallels are often drawn between society's treatment of the
environment, animals, or resources and its treatment of women. In resisting patriarchial culture,
eco-feminists believe they are also resisting plundering and destroying the Earth. They feel that the
patriarchial philosophy emphasizes the need to dominate and control unruly females and the unruly
wilderness (nature and the earth).

Ecofeminism states the patriarchial society is relatively new, something developed over the last 5,000
years or so and that the matriarchial society was the first society. In this matriarchial society, women
were the center of society and people worshipped Goddesses. This is known as the Feminist Eden,
the time in history where women were the center of society.

Feminazi

This term was made popular by the radio/tv host Rush Limbaugh. A feminazi is defined by
anti-feminists as a feminist who is trying to produce as many abortions as possible. Hence the term
"nazi." Limbuah sees feminists as trying to rid the world of a particular group of people (fetuses).

Individualist, or Libertarian Feminism

Individualist feminism is based upon individualist or libertarian (minimum government or
anarchocapitalist) philosophies. The primary focus is individual autonomy, rights, liberty, independence
and diversity.

Material Feminism

A movement in the late 19th century to liberate women by improving their material condition. This
movement revolved around taking the "burden" off women in regards to housework, cooking, and other
traditionally female domestic jobs. The Grand Domestic Revolution by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is a
reference.

Moderate Feminism

This branch of feminism tends to be populated mostly by younger women or women who have not
directly experienced discrimination. They tend to question the need for further effort, and do not think
that radical feminism is any longer viable and in fact rather embarrassing (it's thought that this is the
group most likely to espouse feminist ideas and thoughts while denying being "feminist").

N.O.W. Feminism (also referred to as Gender Feminism)

My own term for the type of feminism the National Organization for Women represents. This theory is
based on the notion that in order for men and women to be equal (as the core of 'feminism' states),
women must be granted some special privilages, and men should not be an issue in feminism.

This could be exemplified by N.O.W. publicly supporting women who wish to enter traditionally all-male
scools. While N.O.W. will take strong and loud stands to support that, they are silent regarding men
being able to enter traditionally all-female schools. Another example could be how N.O.W. is quick to
support women as public icons who are victims of sexual harassment, yet offer no public support for
men as pulbic icons who are victims of sexual harassment. In both instances, N.O.W. feminism
encompases only women and fights to offer special privilages to women only with the purpose that
doing so will bring the genders equal.

Pop-Feminism

Pop-feminism is often mistaken by people to be feminism in general... the negative stereotypical man
hating ideology. There is no proof that such feminists exist, I have yet to meet a feminist who hates
men and indeed, many men are feminists. But, if such a category of feminists exist, they should be
referred to as 'pop-feminists.' This would be the type of feminism that degrades men in all manners and
glorifies women.

Radical Feminism

Radical feminism is the breeding ground for many of the ideas arising from feminism. Radical feminism
was the cutting edge of feminist theory from approximately 1967-1975. It is no longer as universally
accepted as it was then and no longer serves to solely define the term, "feminism."

This group views the oppression of women as the most fundamental form of opression, one that cuts
across boundaries of race, culture, and economic class. This is a movement intent on social change,
change of rather revolutionary proportions, in fact.

Radical feminism questions why women must adopt certain roles based on their biology, just as it
questions why men adopt certain other roles based on theirs. Radical feminism attempts to draw lines
between biologically-determined behavior and culturally-determined behavior in order to free both men
and women as much as possible from their previous narrow gender roles.

Separatists

Separatists are often wrongly depicted as lesbians. These are the feminists who advocate separation
from men; sometimes total, sometimes partial. Women who organize women-only events are often
unfairly dubbed separatist.

The core idea is that "separating" (by various means) from men enables women to see themselves in a
different context. Many feminists, whether or not separatist, think this is a necessary "first step", by
which they mean a temporary separation for personal growth, not a permanent one.

It is equally inaccurate to consider all lesbians as separatist. While it is true that they do not interact
with men for sexual fulfillment, it is not true that they therefore automatically shun all interaction with
men.



The New Scholars in Feminism:

No, this isn't the name of a theory. This is an idea that is gaining much attention and has not yet been
labled (that I know of). There are some feminist scholars emerging with loud voices and strong
evidence, who feel strongly that there are no personality differences between men and women,
biologically, or otherwise. I suppose you could consider these supporters the opposite of what cultural
feminism is.

These new scholars are emerging from gender studies and women's studies programs in colleges all
over the U.S. The majority of them believe that gender differences are a result of social and
environmental influence. From what I've heard and read, thier arguments are good and scientifically
based.
source
http://www.amazoncastle.com/feminism/ecocult.htm
Love and light
Swannie

Myst
November 6th, 2001, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Swanspirit
that to set up a dialogue as one versus the other can be creating conflct where none is needed .... and simply serves as a spouting session for opinions not based on historical definitions...........and misses out on the history and legacy of some very wonderful feminists .... and the feminist women in Afghanistan are considered radical at the moment so the terms are relative at best........thus........

I think it creates the opportunity to discuss opinions of a political matter in a political forum in a community designed for discussion of opinions. I also look forward to seeing more opinions, being as that's why I come here to MW.

Swanspirit
November 6th, 2001, 07:55 PM
"I think it creates the opportunity to discuss opinions of a political
matter in a political forum in a community designed for discussion
of opinions. I also look forward to seeing more opinions, being as
that's why I come here to MW."
I agree .. couldnt agree more...... however it helps when those opinions have actual information.....as a basis .. but it isnt necessary .......
As for feminism...... a lot of people have opinions and have very little actual information..... reminds me of how SOME christians have opinions of pagans ..... and it is either based on littel to NO information or erroneous information.... BUT they ARE entitled.....
Love and Light
Swannie

MistOfTheSea86
November 6th, 2001, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by Illuminatus
Feminism - Productive, Worthwhile, Admirable

Radical Feminism - Counterproductive

Very well said.

Myst
November 6th, 2001, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by MistOfTheSea86


Very well said.

I couldn't agree more. To me, what Ill said there IS fact.

Dellit Tandannon
November 6th, 2001, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Swanspirit
I agree .. couldnt agree more...... however it helps when those opinions have actual information.....as a basis .. but it isnt necessary .......

it helps even more when you post your own thoughts in your own words.

feminism is a great cause. i support total equality of the sexes. what i don't support is a group that isn't looking for equality but superiority. you are not better then me and i am not better then you.

MistOfTheSea86
November 6th, 2001, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Dellit Tandannon


it helps even more when you post your own thoughts in your own words.

feminism is a great cause. i support total equality of the sexes. what i don't support is a group that isn't looking for equality but superiority. you are not better then me and i am not better then you.

precisely! I could not have said it better. Me and SS once, were sitting in English class. And the class was discussing myths. The teacher asked, so know any other myths? I am ashamed of you young ladies, The myths ARE Sexist. There are no females! I was like, OMG. This woman find sexism in the most miniscule uneccessary places.

I am all for feminism, and fully support the cause... BUt I feel, just as Illuminatus said, that radical feminism IS counterproductive.

She has a bumper sticker in her classroom that says:

"Feminism is the radical notion, that women are people"

I feel it should be this
"Feminism is the Notion, that women are people.

Myst
November 6th, 2001, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by MistOfTheSea86
I feel it should be this
"Feminism is the Notion, that women are people.

How about
"Radical feminism is the notion that women are superior"
or
"Radical feminism is the notion that no man thinks women are people"

SpikesPet5150
November 6th, 2001, 08:26 PM
What I wanna know is, why is there SOOO many different feminism names? Like the ones that swanspirit posted... sorry, but I didn't read any of those. I don't think there's a need to have THAT many different branches of feminism.

I also agree that feminism is good.. and radical feminism is very counter-productive. There's no need for any one gender to be better than the other.. just equal. :) And even if someone says, "Men and Woman aren't equal." Sorry, buddy, but we are... we don't need to change the fact that we "aren't" equal.. we need to change the fact that some ignorant people don't think we are.
~Bree

Myst
November 6th, 2001, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by SpikesPet5150
And even if someone says, "Men and Woman aren't equal." Sorry, buddy, but we are... we don't need to change the fact that we "aren't" equal.. we need to change the fact that some ignorant people don't think we are.

Exactly :D

talamh
November 7th, 2001, 12:57 PM
Who says "radical feminists" say that women are superior to men?

Please read the definition of "radical feminist" in the comprehensive and very helpful survey and definitions provided by Swanspirit.

Please don't forget that if it were not for "radical feminists" of 100 years ago, women today would not have the right to vote... or most of the other basic equality rights that are now enshrined as law.

Why is it that it is the enemies of feminism that seem to be defining what a feminist is? In the same way it has been the enemies of witches who have been defining what and who a witch is?

My opinion is that a feminist is anyone who believes in equality of opportunity regardless of gender.

A "radical" feminist is a feminist who advocates solutions to gender inequality that are outside of the societal norms.

Oddly enough the Oxford English Dictionary defines radical as : essential; fundamental; affecting the foundation; going to the root. So a "radical" feminist is one the goes to the root of the problem? Hummmm. Interesting thought. bb talamh

Myst
November 7th, 2001, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
Who says "radical feminists" say that women are superior to men?

I did. And feminists who say that are radical IMHO.


Originally posted by talamh anEiac
Please read the definition of "radical feminist" in the comprehensive and very helpful survey and definitions provided by Swanspirit.

You know, I'm kind of bored of this attitude - if you read it in a book or survey it MUST be true, regardless of what opinions people have. I come to MW to discuss opinions, and what I share is my opinions. I read the article and I disagreed with it. That's my prerogative.


Originally posted by talamh anEiac
Please don't forget that if it were not for "radical feminists" of 100 years ago, women today would not have the right to vote... or most of the other basic equality rights that are now enshrined as law.

Yes, radical feminists had their time. Does that mean they are needed or constructive now necessarily in the opinions of myself and some others?


Originally posted by talamh anEiac
Why is it that it is the enemies of feminism that seem to be defining what a feminist is? In the same way it has been the enemies of witches who have been defining what and who a witch is?

I'm an enemy of feminism now? Regardless of the fact that I've stated I'm a woman and I believe men and woman are equal? To me that is the *essence* of feminism, making it known and understood that we are equal, so I don't know who you are calling an enemy of feminism here. Besides that, people make their own decisions and interpretations every day - it's not illegal or against MW rules for Christians to think Witches are Satan worshippers, it IS however to harm them or force beliefs upon them.


Originally posted by talamh anEiac
Oddly enough the Oxford English Dictionary defines radical as : essential; fundamental; affecting the foundation; going to the root. So a "radical" feminist is one the goes to the root of the problem? Hummmm. Interesting thought. bb talamh

Now I don't have the OED on hand nor a subscription to access their online version, but if you take a look at http://dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=witch you'll see several dictionary definitions that epitomize why I personally don't base any of my beliefs wholly on what I can read out of a dictionary.

Now of course your opinion is welcome, necessary, appreciated, and noted. However, I just thought I'd reply to some comments you made.

Dellit Tandannon
November 7th, 2001, 01:11 PM
it has not been said that radical feminists believe that they are superior to men. what has been said is that we do not agree with the women who feel this way. we did not label these women radical feminists.

Myst
November 7th, 2001, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Dellit Tandannon
it has not been said that radical feminists believe that they are superior to men. what has been said is that we do not agree with the women who feel this way. we did not label these women radical feminists.

I said feminists who say that are radical *not* feminists who are radical say that.

It's like saying all Wiccans are Pagans, but not all Pagans are Wiccans. Yes Pagans can be Wiccans but no, not all of them are. Yes radical feminists can say that but no, not all of them do.

SpikesPet5150
November 7th, 2001, 01:42 PM
"Originally posted by talamh anEiac
In the same way it has been the enemies of witches who have been defining what and who a witch is?"

The enemies of witches do not define who a witch is... at least to me. Just because my "enemies" think I'm a devil worshipper does not make it so.... I make my own deffinitions. I like to think of myself as my own dictionary.
~Bree

talamh
November 8th, 2001, 09:30 AM
Myst - did you try looking up the word "radical"? bb talamh

Myst
November 8th, 2001, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
Myst - did you try looking up the word "radical"? bb talamh

Did you try looking up the word "witch" - I even left a link for you?

Margie
November 8th, 2001, 10:26 AM
Opinions were asked for here and I don't know why those who have a strong opinion are being told they're WRONG.

Yvonne Belisle
November 8th, 2001, 11:47 AM
I personally have no problem with feminism in general it's the self rightious ones that think that their way is the only way that I think are scum. These are the type who tell me I am not a fulfilled woman because I am a housewife. These are the ones that kick a guy in the balls for opening a door for them or allowing a woman to go first. I have a problem with the ones who say that all the problems of the world are the fault of the men of the world. We women had something to do with that too. Yes we are equal but no we can't always do the same jobs! DIFFERENT DOES NOT EQUAL INFERIOR sadly some men and some women seem to believe it does.

Danustouch
November 8th, 2001, 11:55 AM
I agree, Yvonne. The whole point of feminism, is so that women will be able to CHOOSE what they want to be and what they want to do. WHATEVER their choice, that they be given the opportunity, and respect, to do so.

So If a woman Chooses to be a housewife, Kudo's. She's making a decision. For herself. If a woman chooses to be a police officer...Kudo's..she's making a decision for herself.

The idea of feminism, was so that womens lives, were no longer dictated by the men in their lives. I.E, fathers, and husbands.

When Feminism first became a movement, these were the issues they were facing. Their lives were NOT their own to make decisions. A woman had only a handful of choices. Marry, be a nurse (if you were lucky), be a nanny, be a prostitute, etc. Victorian times held that Fathers and Husbands were the ones who had power over the lives of "their women". Women were possessions. We are no longer in Victorian Times. We've come a LONG way, baby. Now...women can choose whatever field they want. And if they have the ability, if they have the desire, and the motivation, they can succeed.

Yes, there are still men out there who are sexist. There are still some men out there who think a woman shouldn't work, or that she should..."obey" her husband (urgh)...but that is far from the accepted frame of mind these days.

So women who CHOOSE to be a housewife, are Feminists. Because they've made a CHOICE regarding their own lives. Noone has made it FOR them.

Myst
November 8th, 2001, 12:07 PM
Not to mention sometimes I think people are turning it from men making decisions for women to women making decisions for women. And I see a lot of women going "oh all women should be housewives" and other women chiding women for being housewives because it's "bending to a man's will". THAT is the essence of what I mean by not believing another woman can make her own choices as discriminatory.

Yvonne Belisle
November 8th, 2001, 12:21 PM
Thank you Myst and Danustouch. There was a thread here on Mystic that hurt me in many ways because I like the things I do for my family. I like rubbing my husbands shoulders and bringing him his slippers and having something waiting for him when he gets home. That thread made fun of the things that were once expected of women. I don't do these things because I have to and if my husband demanded it of me I would probably hit him with the slippers rather than take his shoes of for him and rub his feet. I do those things because I WANT TO! That is the difference I have the power to say no. I am a woman in my own right and when someone and beleive me I have met a lot of them says something along the lines of how I am setting back feminism years I think that they are the ones doing it. I sould not have to change what I want to do for another person to make them feel empowered. Yet many women are told that they have to be superwomen hold a job and run the house to be a fullfilled woman. That is a crock of ****. Let's face it no man has that much power over me and I sure as shooting am not going to give it to another woman either. When these types of feminists start spouting thier propaganda all it does is make people unwilling to listen and it sets back the feminist movement because it is the loudest ones that get the publisity.

Myst
November 8th, 2001, 12:39 PM
I agree von.

At my home I clean the apartment and do the dishes and make meals most of the time, but that's because I'm not working right now and my fiance is. If I ask him to do something he always does it, he always offers to help me out when I'm cleaning. Believe you me, if he ever refused when I asked help or demanded I do the housework etc. we'd have a big problem. I do the extra stuff because of MY choice not because I'm bowing to a man. Now there are a lot of feminists who will call that setting back the woman's movement - that's ridiculous! It is the *essence* of the woman's movement because I make my own choices regardless what any man or woman thinks!

Danustouch
November 8th, 2001, 12:43 PM
I do all the housekeeping, I do all the cleaning, I do all the cooking. i do the grocery shopping, I do the errand running, I answer the phones.

And ya know what...I don't mind, most of the time. Because he is bringing in the money. It's the least I can do. I do wish he'd be a lot neater than he is, so that my job wasn't so big every day...but ..I don't mind being the housewife. I wish I had a job, because it would get me out of the house a bit more, and help me meet new people. But..I don't resent having his dinner cooked for him every night. Actually, it gives me a great feeling of accomplishment when I cook something that he raves over :) I like making him happy, most of the time:)

talamh
November 8th, 2001, 01:32 PM
Myst, Yvonne, Danustouch - Guess what? i agree with you on those last three posts. It *is* about choice and anyone of either gender who denegrates another person's free choice is a puppet to doctraine. And probably doesn't have much of a sense of humour either.

Interestingly enough, the traditional women's movement has always been in the forefront in advocating pension benefits for home makers. When i was married i was called "an anachronism" for enjoying doing nice things for my husband... and this was back in the mid-eighties. Sheesh.. if you're not going to be nice to each other, why live together??

And yes, Myst.. i did look up the word witch.. both on the link you provided and in my trusty OED. The cliche definition of witch as ugly old hag-type was usually second or third in the definition rank. Things are changing... but i still sigh and roll my eyes every Hallowe'en at the "ugly old witch" stereotype.

BTW - did you look up "radical"? bb talamh

Myst
November 8th, 2001, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
And yes, Myst.. i did look up the word witch.. both on the link you provided and in my trusty OED. The cliche definition of witch as ugly old hag-type was usually second or third in the definition rank. Things are changing... but i still sigh and roll my eyes every Hallowe'en at the "ugly old witch" stereotype.

BTW - did you look up "radical"? bb talamh

I think you fully and completely missed the point on that one.

Illuminatus
November 8th, 2001, 01:59 PM
rad·i·cal (rd-e-kel)
adj.
1 - Awesome, Gnarly, Sweet.
2 - Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: of a bodacious origin or standing.
3 - Slang. Excellent; wonderful; Cowabunga.

"That last ride was totally radical man!"

n.
1- One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radicals seeking to overthrow the social order.
2 - One who is radical in nature; ie Michaelangelo from the Ninja Turtles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, of a root, from Late Latin rdclis, having roots, from Latin rdx, rdc-, root. See wrd- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
radi·cal·ly adv.
radi·cal·ness n.

yemayasdaughter
November 22nd, 2001, 01:14 AM
I believe that radical feminism occurs when there is a desperate need for radical feminism. For example when early Suffragettes fought for the right to vote, and more importantly to NOT be considered property. I believe the level or intensity (for lack of a better word), at least in the eyes of others, comes from the obstacles at hand.

I am a proud feminist.. though I have never kicked a man in the groin for opening the door for me ;) :D But there seems to be a great deal of misogyny being applauded in recent times, which stirs that RADICAL fire within me.

For example, the best selling book, The Surrendered Wife: A Practical Guide to Finding Intimacy, Passion, and Peace With a Man , By Laura Doyle. This woman is making a lot of MOOLAH (again, for lack of a better word) and is gaining a following by teaching women to "Abandon the Myth of Equality" (this is actually the title of a chapter!!), and how to become the perfect New Millenium Jennie (Thus my subject for my reply). She suggests that women let "their men" do the thinking. I guess, because thinking gives you wrinkles or something:rolleyes:

And the fact that there is a strong uprising of my sisters out there, who are proudly calling themselves antifeminists, it makes the few women (or should I say, womyn?) out there who are demanding equality, necessary.

This is my opinion, so NO LENGTHY replies about how utterly wrong I am!!;) :)

Myst
November 22nd, 2001, 03:50 PM
The thing is, if there are women who want men to "do their thinking" then that's their business. They make their own choices, and if they are happy there, who are we to judge and force those judgments?

I've been thinking about this, and to me radical feminism is that feminism which is (in my opinion) unnecessary. Therefore when feminists were burning bras and screaming for their rights to vote, etc. etc., then they were feminists, not radical feminists. Feminists who scream at me for letting my man open a door for me - they're radical. Those who scream about how men are oppressing and women need to be equal - they're radical. I *am* equal, and as I was just hearing in a show about the last few decades that I was watching, there has been a time when women stopped asking for or demanding equality - it became a time when women *knew* they were equal. I don't think the way to become equal is to scream at being oppressed or books written that you don't want to read, I think the way to become equal is just to BE equal. So if you see inequality in your business or home, remedy it. But sorry I can't take you seriously if you're running around screaming about how men have oppressed you or how we need to prove we're equal - we ARE equal, and personally I don't know anyone who doesn't believe that (and I don't believe the majority of people do either), so to me that kind of action is radical.

talamh
November 22nd, 2001, 07:40 PM
Myst - i really do ask you to correct me if i am wrong.... but are you by any chance, white and from a middle-class, affluent background with an above average education? Are you. per chance.. privleged??

i think it is a very positive thing that you, personally, have never experienced gender prejudice. But are you saying that every woman who says she experiences gender prejudice is... wrong.... or sniveling... or crying wolf? Every single one? Yes, affirmative action gets exploited. So does everything else. That doesn't mean the basic principle is wrong.

i would be so very very happy if you were right and that women have, indeed, achieved total equality.

But what i see and read and learn every day tells me differently. Not what i experience. Today, i experience equality... but really..... so many of my sisters don't.

Do you really really think that ALL women have achieved gender equality and that the time for awareness and solidarity and support is long gone?? That every woman everywhere can truly stand on her own two feet with all the confidence and backing of a totally equitable society? Oh, hun.... as i've said before... i *so* wish that you were right. bb talamh

Myst
November 22nd, 2001, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
Myst - i really do ask you to correct me if i am wrong.... but are you by any chance, white and from a middle-class, affluent background with an above average education? Are you. per chance.. privleged??

Actually I'm half Indian and I'm trying to sludge through college on government assistance. My dad is out of work and has been due to illness for years, my mom stayed at home and never worked outside of the home until I'd moved out and my dad stopped working. I don't have a job, a car, and I live in a small one bedroom apartment only due to the fact that my boyfriend can support me. So in short, no.


Originally posted by talamh anEiac
i think it is a very positive thing that you, personally, have never experienced gender prejudice. But are you saying that every woman who says she experiences gender prejudice is... wrong.... or sniveling... or crying wolf? Every single one? Yes, affirmative action gets exploited. So does everything else. That doesn't mean the basic principle is wrong.

Is that what I said? I said I've never experienced prejudice and most people don't feel women aren't equal. Unless you're going to tell me that 51%+ of the men you've met and all men in the world feel that way as well as women then I'm going to continue believing that. I don't recall saying anyone lied. However, I have never met anyone who has been prejudiced against. In fact I can think of two stories, total, that I've even *heard* that included a man who thought women were inferior or women feeling inferior to men.


Originally posted by talamh anEiac
That every woman everywhere can truly stand on her own two feet with all the confidence and backing of a totally equitable society? Oh, hun.... as i've said before... i *so* wish that you were right.

Read the preceding paragraph.

Again, did I say NO woman feels inequality? No. I said from what I've seen most have not, and those who do should face the issue individually and case by case and in that they will have my support.

talamh
November 22nd, 2001, 07:55 PM
What kind of suppot, hun?
bb talamh

Myst
November 22nd, 2001, 08:01 PM
Women prejudiced against at work

- I help her explore legal options
- I help her research her company and it's policies
- I help her seek a lawyer
- I help her take action at work - reporting the problem, getting help
- I talk to her and listen to her problems
- I help her find out if this person has been prejudiced against women in other times
- I help her find a new job if necessary

Women prejudiced against outside of work

- I help her get out of the situation if necessary
- I help her get out of the house if necessary
- I help her explore legal options
- I help her find a lawyer if necessary
- I help her raise her own esteem if it's been lowered due to the person's prejudice
- I help her meet understanding people
- I talk to her and listen to her problems

talamh
November 22nd, 2001, 08:53 PM
And all those legal options and company equity policies and safe houses and self-esteem movements...... they came from the women's movement... from the hard work and blood and sweat and tears of...... radical feminists.

It takes action at all levels to move forward.... radical, cutting edge, vanguard, leaders and majority. Everyone finds where they can best contribute.

But to say the battle has been won is to let down the guard.... and there goes pro choice, affirmative action, matrimonial properties legislation, funding for safe houses, well baby clinics, universal pre-natal care...... It will all be sacrificed to "fiscal necessity".... it's already started.

Do you want to fight those hard-won battles all over again? Yes, there is power in being a free woman and i applaud you for your support for less fortunate women. But equality is still not assured. History shows that it is always the first to be sacrificed and the last to be restored in times of crisis. My sincere concern, Myst, is that you are becoming the unwitting mouthpiece of those who would profit from inequality. Convincing people that they no longer need safeguards is a great way to pursuade people to surrender them. Do you really, really trust that the patriarchy is no more? bb talamh

Myst
November 22nd, 2001, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
And all those legal options and company equity policies and safe houses and self-esteem movements...... they came from the women's movement... from the hard work and blood and sweat and tears of...... radical feminists.


Yes they came from the women's movement which had it's place then - it wasn't radical then, but if those actions aren't necessary now then I consider it radical. I don't recall saying they didn't have their place then (in fact I think I said they did then), nor did I say "the fight is over". Am I wording things wrong or are you just reading things into my posts?

"My sincere concern, Myst, is that you are becoming the unwitting mouthpiece of those who would profit from inequality. Convincing people that they no longer need safeguards is a great way to pursuade people to surrender them. "

Oh wait, where's the line where I said that it is no longer needed for women to work towards equality? I must've missed it, and blanked when I wrote it. It is *my* sincere concern, talamh, that you aren't reading what I say because to you anything but touting people who scream that they "are oppressed by men" *must* be supporting patriarchy. To me, someone seeing my feeling that I disagree with radical actions and equating that to my "being a mouthpiece of those who would profit from inequality" *is* the essence of radical feminism.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

talamh
November 23rd, 2001, 08:06 AM
Myst wrote:

Yes they came from the women's movement which had it's place then - it wasn't radical then......

_________________________

Actually, Myst, it was. i was there. When i started to work in 1969 (i know, i know - i sound like little old granny in the rocking chair) there was a lower minimum wage for women then there was for men. Anyone who questioned that was labled radical. Business organizations moaned that having an equal minimum wage and giving women wage equity in general would ruin the economy, that business couldn't afford it, bla bla bla. But eventually it happened and the world didn't come to an end.

The idea of a safe house for abused women and their children was attacked as interfering with the matrimonial rights of "the husband". Anyone who advocated such was a home-wrecker and probably "sexually perverted" read lesbian.

The concept of company policies to eliminate sexual harassment on the job mostly came about after a few courageous women took sexual harassment in the work place to court and won and were awarded settlements by the courts. This motivated companies to take responsibility for establishing a policy and a proceedure to deal with sexual harassment to cover their own asses... so to speak. And believe me, women who didn't submit to sexual harassment frequently lost their jobs "way back then". It was one of the reasons no self-respecting man would "allow" his wife to work outside the home.

Believe me... so much of what women take for granted today didn't exist even thirty years ago and anyone who supported policies and laws that are taken for granted today were considered radical.

The fact is that there actually never was an origional bra-burning. It was something that was made up by one newspaper 's coverage of a demonstration and picked up and carried gleefully by all the other media until it became accepted as reality and some women, seeing the power of the image, actually decided it was at least one way to get media coverage.

So maybe i get a little huffy when people start dissing radical feminists. BTW - i personally never joined a single women's rights organization. As a member of the media, i had to at least appear to remain neutral. i wasn't allowed to cover abortion stories because i had, unthinkingly, contributed financially to a pro-choice group. i never signed up to be a feminist. It's just that i was the only woman in a newsroom of men, wroking harder and , in my opinion and that of many others, better and doing more (reporting and writing a weekly column) and getting paid less then men with less experience and ability. Simply by asking for pay equity i was labled a radical feminist. That's when i started checking out feminism.... and realized that i must be one simply because i wanted to be accepted and treated as an equal to men.... not the same as men..... but as equal to men.... the same equality of opportunity.

Maybe that makes me an old-fashioned radical feminist... but all i ever wanted to do was do my job and live my life. i didn't go looking for a fight. But i didn't back away when i realized it was the only way i was ever going to get equitable treatment... and pay. bb talamh

Valoe
November 23rd, 2001, 09:25 AM
though Ive been reading for a while, I just had to jump in on this one. There are lots of ways that women are still not given equal opportunities - although the prejudice and oppression is more subtle these days. If women were equal - womens shelters would not be needed. It is a matter of attitude and expectations which are, of course, the most difficult things to change. The attitude is evident in a lot of every day experiences; to give a simple example - when as a middle aged lone parent I was buying my flat - the estate agent assumed that I would want to let 'my husband' see it before I could sign anything. Societal expectations do oppress women: I work with young offenders and girls get consistently harder sentences than boys for the same crimes. Most researchers believe that this is because society still has an attitude of 'boys will be boys' while girls are supposed to be 'good'.

Myst
November 23rd, 2001, 01:19 PM
Valoe :

First, there are men's shelters as well as women's. Second, women's shelters exist not just because "women are unequal" - they exist for women who get in financial problems, for women who are kicked out of their parents' homes, for women who have a run of bad luck, for women who got out of an abusive home, etc. The estate agent probably assumed you were married because you had a child and if you were probably imagined you'd want your husband to see it - if they were really prejudiced because you were a woman they probably wouldn't have let you signed the agreement. It was probably more a case of a dumb assumption rather then prejudice based on gender. Mind you, as you've said, inequality does exist, so it could've well been that. There you go, you've given me the third story I've heard in my life of a woman being prejudiced against.

talamh :

Let me rephrase this for you - "Yes they came from the women's movement which had it's place then - IN MY OPINION it wasn't radical then", because as always when I respond in a thread I'm sharing *my opinion*.

Everytime this subject comes up I have to repeat the same things.
I talk about the present and the future and how I think feminism needs to be approached in a new way, and *someone* has to come along and talk about the past and history. Someone has to assume my looking to the future and approaching inequality in a new way is my being too young or too ignorant of the past. Someone has to assume that my saying most people don't feel women are unequal anymore as my encouraging patriarchy. I have never said inequality doesn't exist; I have never said you should ignore it, I *have* said that to me it is appropriate to approach the situation carefully and case by case with present thinking. Of course, as always, that's just my opinion.

Valoe
November 23rd, 2001, 03:48 PM
By womens shelters - I was referring to shelters for women escaping abuse. As far as I know, here (in the UK) there is one mans shelter in the country and a womens shelter in every major town. I believe that if women were truly equal, they wouldn't be victimised so easily. As I've said - it is to do with attitudes and expectations. Blatant discrimination is unlawful - the womens movement have achieved much; but the insidious discriminatory attitudes are, in some ways, harder to fight and they are certainly impossible to legislate against (and who would want the thought police anyway!).

Sure - the example I gave of the estate agent was pretty harmless and probably was a dumb assumption. But assumptions are not always harmless; how about those who assume that a young woman will be having children so deny her promotion? (unlawful and unadmitted - but it happens). How about those who assume that if a woman goes into a pub alone, she must be looking to be picked up and so is fair game for harrassment?
I could give lots of other examples but don't think it is neccessary.
Oh - and in your total of discrimination stories, why not include the female young offenders? - they could provide a lot more stories. I can probably find links to research on that if you need them

Myst
November 23rd, 2001, 04:07 PM
Being as I've never stated that women never face discrimination, you're right, it is unnecessary. :)

I can't tell you how many shelters there are here - but then a quick search on Yahoo! might give you an idea

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=men%27s+shelters

SpikesPet5150
November 23rd, 2001, 04:18 PM
I'm not sure if I understand this whole womens shelter thing. What does that have to do with unequality? There are lots of men who beat their wives/girlfriends.... but there are alot of women who beat their husbands/boyfriends. Shelters are needed for the safety of everyone, including children. It's because of the womens movement that we have shelters to begin with. If women weren't equal, they would prosecute the women who beat their husbands, and not the men who beat their wives. As it is, men who get beaten are often laughed at, not taken seriously.

I am equal to everyone. I don't care what sex, race, religion, sexual preference, whatever... I am equal. People have tried to make me feel like I'm not, but they don't bother me. I don't allow them to bother me, because it's a select few who don't think I am, and hey, I don't need them in my life anyways. :)
~Bree

Myst
November 23rd, 2001, 04:41 PM
See that's how I think Bree. I *am* equal - so if someone doesn't think I am then I get away from that situation. I file a complaint, I take it to court, I tell them off, I just stay away from them, I get legal help, whatever. As a result I've never been prejudiced against, and if I were I'd get out of the situation.

No it isn't that easy for every woman and I'm not saying it is. But it works for me *shrugs*

SpikesPet5150
November 23rd, 2001, 04:56 PM
Yup.. works for me, too. :)
~Bree

talamh
November 25th, 2001, 06:17 PM
Yes, but what about those who just don't have the confidence or knowledge to know how to stand up to sexual harassment and blatant discrimination? "Privleged" doesn't necesserily mean everything was handed to you on a silver platter. It means that somehow one has acquired the skills to be able to take control of your own destiny. Thus i think anyone in today's world who has gone to university or had some form of post-secondary education is privleged... even if you had to scrub floors to do it. What about someone who was sexually abused as a child who never got counselling, wasn't encouraged or supported or shown that it is possible to protect yourself? Isn't it understandable how someone like that could need some extra help? bb talamh

Myst
November 25th, 2001, 07:09 PM
Well being as you don't learn self respect, self esteem, or how to take control of your life at college nor university I fail to see the connection at all. I can think of several people from college and university who have none of those things, and people who have all and have never had post secondary education, so I don't see a correlation at all.

Also, I don't recall ever saying you shouldn't help a woman who needs help learning her own worth and ability to control her life or overcome prejudice - in fact I think I indicated that I would do all of that in that situation.

mol
December 4th, 2001, 10:38 AM
SITE GOD MODE

This is a warning. Keep your comments civil. If you want to discuss this issue then do it with an open mind. And that is referring to both sides of the debate.

Danustouch
December 4th, 2001, 11:46 AM
Okay...my definition of "Radical" feminism...is the same as my definition for radical anythings. A radical, in my opinion, based on MY observations, and experiences, is a person who will stop at nothing to see their cause acheived. There is a need for radicals...at times. I guess our forefathers here in the US would have been considered.."Radical" freedom fighters ;) However, in General, I don't agree with many radical movements.

I don't like radical right to lifers, because when you hear that term, you think of the radical right to lifers who picket, or in some way harm abortion clinics, and those who visit them. I don't like Radical Environmentalists, Who would cause harm to individuals who did not operate within their ideals. I don't like "Radical Fundamentalist" religious groups, such as the bilblical reconstructionists, or the Al Quada terrorist network. And I personally do not like Radical Feminism. Why? Because often in their pursuit of equality, they wind up harming innocent peoples feelings. For instance..Not every man oppresses women. Nor every company owned by men...etc. Yet..often..Men are lumped together in one group, about these topics, by Radical Feminists. At least, the ones that I have known.

To me, the goal of feminism, should be equality, and unity. Not superiority, or seperateness.

I have nothing against Feminism. I am very happy that the suffreggetes of earlier decades, and the modern womens rights groups, have done, and are doing, what they are doing.

But I dislike generalizations, and seperations placed upon people because of their Gender. Many men, are VERY sensitive to womens issues, and rights. So..in my opinion, every door that is open to women, should also be open to them. If a cheuvenistic male, on the other hand, wanted to oppress a woman based on her gender...he should be drawn and quartered (just kidding)..he should be punished, exposed, and dealt with.

So...I have nothing against feminism. I do not like "Radical" feminism, because the examples of radical feminism that I have seen, have been extremely hateful, and biased towards men..as a whole. And have used "oppression of women", far too much, when the events surrounding the issue, might have had nothing to do with oppression of women, in the first place.

In general..I promote tolerance. I don't like "Radical Groups"..because sometimes I see them as infringing on the "freedom of thought" and "Freedom of beliefs" that we all must allow for others.

Now..these are simply MY experiences with Radical Feminism. And my opinions, about it. I've tried to be as respectful as possible in describing them:)

BrightStar
December 6th, 2001, 04:14 PM
Hi all!
In the early '80s,when I was active in trying to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed,I was told by many people that I was a "radical feminist".(I'm male btw)Heck,President Ray Gun had said so!People said the next thing you know,women will want to serve in the military as combatants!They'll want to be cops or carpenters!
So,I think that the definition of what is radical seems to change.
I'm definitely a feminist,whether I'm radical depends on one's point of view.
Peace and Love
BrightStar

Dusk
September 25th, 2004, 11:23 PM
The idea that a woman should be able to vote was once a radical idea.

mcc
September 25th, 2004, 11:52 PM
First off, it seems like we could generalize this discussion to normal vs radical anything, not just feminists.

Second off I'm not really sure the term "radical" really has any use whatsoever. Not only is it loaded, it lacks a clear definition. I would personally make a distinction between feminists, progressive feminists, and extremist feminists; and eschew use of the "radical feminists" label altogether.

Although what I would call "progressive feminists" is probably what the left wing is usually trying to express to when they say "radical feminists" and what I would call "extremist feminists" is probably what the right wing is usually trying to express when they say "radical feminists". Stupid semantics...

kalis enigma
September 26th, 2004, 11:42 AM
Here is my opinion:

A feminist is a woman who decides for herself what her gender role will be. I was a stay at home Mom for 16 years, there was a 'feminist' who told me I was perpetuating a negative stereotype and harming the feminist movement.

PERSONAL OPINION: I do not believe that special exceptions should be made in certain jobs for women. If a woman cannot pass a strict physical test designed to weed out those who cannot physically handle a job- they should not be let in under a less stringent test.

The physical standards used were designed to ensure that the person applying was physically capable of handling the job safely. (IE: the NY City firefighters test).