Nerdfighters

I am a feminist.
I am heterosexual.
I occasionally wear dresses.
I usually shave my legs and underarms, unless I'm in a hurry.
I believe in equality for all.
I believe every person has basic rights.
I don't believe a fetus is a person. I believe it's a potential person which should be more valued than say, a dog; but less valued than an existing person.
I don't believe anyone is superior to anyone else.
I don't believe all____ are inherently_____. People are different, there are usually exceptions.

At it's core, I think feminism is about equality. It's not about superiority, it's not about man-hating. What do you think feminism is about? What do you think makes a feminist? Why are you or aren't you a feminist?

Tags: abortion, chauvinism, equality, feminism, misandry, misogyny, rights, sexism

Views: 3740

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Agreed, the word for what she is describing is egalitarianism. It already has a word. What if a feminist happens to be hate homosexuality and wishes to ban it? Do they no longer support equality for women? Apparently they can't be a feminist since feminism is egalitarianism.

There are many different facets of feminism, just like everything. You can never say 'this group of people believe this' because we are all individuals operating inside of a larger organism. But third wave feminism is about egalitarianism (as far as I understand it to be, as far as my professor taught me about it).

Yeah, I'm sure but when a smaller movement becomes all encompassing in such a manner its a bit nonsensical and mildly arrogant. For example, socialism can have many implications and it can be carried out in many different ways but it has a clear definition. Feminism becoming egalitarianism is like socialism becoming a synonym for the economy or word that can be used to refer to any economic system. At that point when people say they're a socialist you have no idea what they're really saying. At least if socialism continues to just mean socialism you have a basic idea of what they support. Labels are important in that they simplify the world. Labels will evolve over time and come to mean different things but at a certain point labels can change so much that they forfeit the reason for their existence and become meaningless. Thats what feminism is doing by becoming a synonym for egalitarianism especially since there's no reason for it to do so other than feminists wanting to apply their label to everything.

Try to imagine Feminists complexly. These are women, and men, actual human beings, seeing a problem and trying to make a difference in the world. There is a problem here (in the world, and in the United States). Do not kid yourself about that. One of the main problems feminists have is that people do not think there is a problem, people don't actually know what feminism is, they think we are bra-burners and men-haters. The problem that feminism initially addressed has not been completely solved. You can still see remnants of 19th century oppression in today's culture, and we're still having to fight the old problems while seeing new problems arise and wanting to help out there also. 

The problem that feminism initially addressed has not been completely solved.

It hasn't?  Please point out to me one legal privilege/benefit men receive but women don't in America.

Equal pay for equal work, howabout. Have we had a female president? Do we have 30% of the top jobs/leaders/politicians women? Is the Senate and House of Representatives 50% women?

But I'm not just talking about policies. I'm talking about a biased view towards white heterosexual patriarchy that underlies the mindsets of our people and our culture. 

Equal pay for equal work,


Women do receive equal pay, the claim that they do not is a fabrication.

Have we had a female president? Do we have 30% of the top jobs/leaders/politicians women? Is the Senate and House of Representatives 50% women?

Women have the ability to seek out all these positions.

Come on, show me one *legal* privilege that I have thanks to my penis.  Oh, you can't?  Then feminists should stop trying to influence politics.

Kenny, do you even have any idea what you are talking about? In three separate classes, Women gender studies, and sociology, I have seen that women DO NOT have equal pay for equal money, equal rights, equal benefits. The job market is NOT a level playing field for women, and I have the books, the articles, the graphs, the studies to prove it. Women do have the opportunities to go for the jobs, but not to be hired. Women are getting the short end of the stick. These are cold, hard numbers. The fact that you can blow me off so easily, that you won't even consider you're wrong, that you won't for a moment open your mind and consider this possibility, is truly frustrating. And sometimes it makes me think I would have a more productive time smashing a plastic spoon up against a brick wall than trying to have a productive conversation with you.

It is the undercurrent, the mind set, the underlying patriarchal belief system we run on that is undermining women and preventing them from accelerating to the same stature of a man in today's society. The fact that you can't see it is playing right into the system. 

Here is an example. Orchestras used to be entirely male, just like basically everything else. Then more women started graduating from music school, more women than men in fact, but still the orchestras were male. Then they started doing blind auditions so being hired was based solely how well someone played. Guess what happened? Immediately women were getting into orchestras. The judge's biased opinion on what an orchestra should be was subconsciously affecting their decisions on who to hire. They weren't purposefully discriminating against women, but they were discriminating against women simply for the reason of gender. 

Brianna, I'm sorry, but I'm with Kenny on this. The government has done all it can. It is now the law that women be paid the same money for the same work. That's the matter done, case closed. It would be unreasonable for the government to force companies to hire a 50% female, 50% male workforce. More qualified men/women would be pushed out. The fact that the percentage of women in the workforce is increasing, and the fact that more women go to university than men, and the fact that women are doing better in education than men, tells me that all of the things you are talking about ARE improving. They are not going to improve immediately, but they are getting better. Expecting it all to magically get fixed is immature and unreasonable.

Yeah I see your point about inequality with women. Its hard to how bad it is exactly but I'm women are still unequal in the eyes of the people.

And I'm happy that feminists want to help out with egalitarianism but that doesn't mean feminism = egalitarianism. People can be a part of two movements, or they can be egalitarians with a focus on feminism or whatever but that doesn't mean the definition for feminism should change. You can try to use it to communicate the idea that you support egalitarianism but people aren't going to hear that and the point of these labels is to try to communicate your position in a simple manner so you don't have to explain that you think women should be equal in order to say that. To change the definition for no real reason is just to fuck with people and make it harder to communicate your real ideas.

@Kenny

It hasn't?  Please point out to me one legal privilege/benefit men receive but women don't in America.

Kenny, it runs deeper than that. Women in the military and seeing combat, as well as reproductive rights are hotly debated topics right now. Women have equal opportunity in the workplace, but are still being paid less. Why is this? I, and plenty of other people, want answers. There may be a fundamental reason for this, but what is it? Is it correctable, and should it be corrected? Feminism is not that simple, and can be about seeking answers to fundamental or specific questions. And remember, Feminism extends beyond the Americas, to countries like Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh.

I think you gentlemen are caught up on the de jure versus de facto aspect. Just because the law claims it's illegal for women to get less pay, for example, doesn't mean they don't. Just as how the law says it's illegal to make housing decisions based on race, it still happens. The fact that it was made illegal for there to be unequal pay in 1963 and there still is means there obviously is something wrong with society. Whether that means the law needs to be strengthened, or there needs to be better education and programs to promote the development of women's status in society, I'm not sure. But I do know it's uneven based on the actual distribution of a lot of positions, powers, and structures, even if the law says on paper that it can't be overtly on purpose.

And there are economic, philosophical, and ethical reasons for why services for the disadvantaged are necessary. The basic principle is people deserve to be on an equal playing field within the market; but if a particular group starts out at a disadvantaged position, they cannot fairly compete. I don't have the exact quote, but Amartya Sen (Nobel Prize winning economist) recognizes how de facto discrimination due to life circumstance, societal position, etc., can lead to situations out of which a person cannot get themselves because of the forces keeping them there outside their control. 


I'm not about to go citing a bunch of crap (I find those shouting CITATION CITATION are the hardest to deal with and the least likely to have actual sources that are peer-reviewed and not either a blog or coming from a think tank), but this is from the OECD's website, comparing different developed countries. It's a legitimate, academic source. And look at all the gaps there are between women and men in all of these countries. It's not because there are laws making it okay, it's because the societies presented here still have barriers to women that aren't having anything to do with what's on the books. 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/52/37962502.pdf

I could go section by section there to tell you how those differences are not good, but that would be pointless. You wouldn't listen, anyway, or argue for why I'm wrong and tell me I'm misunderstanding and blah blah blah.


Bottom line is, the mansplaining is proof that at least part of society is still unable to acknowledge how women are not treated equally; and it doesn't take a genius to see actual data as opposed to laws and recognize that difference. 

RSS

Youtube Links!

Here are some YT links to channels related to Nerdfighteria and educational content!

*Can you think of any more? Pass along any suggestions to an Admin who will then add it to this list should it fit!

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service