Feminism, Sexism and Other Misunderstood Things

[Sara NoH]

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?

[Übereil]

Define 'humanism'.

[Latch33570]

what misconceptions in particular are you talking about?

[Latch33570]

Okey dokey smokey. That makes sense to me yung-un.

[Tom Steinbrecher]

I disagree with feminism because it is connected to awful awful things and i don't feel that woman should attempt to reclaim that word ever. I think we should just burn that term with fire and come up with a new one.

Things like SCUM manifesto and Cosmo are feministic.  

SCUM is bad for obvious reasons, the woman was insane, the book is insane, and no one who shot andy worhol is good.

Cosmo is kinda a devil in disguise, if you don't read the content you won't understand why it's so bad. 

But it gives us quotes such as "Can i vagazzle and still be a feminist?" or "Put your hand in your pants, If you have a vagina, and want to empower it. Congrats your a Feminist"

It's patronizing to women and hateful to men and generally getting nothing done.

I'm for equality and I don't think I need a special word for every group i want to be equal. 

[Brianna Marie]

With the utmost respect and sensitivity, you have no idea what you're talking about.

The first wave of feminism brought about the 19th amendment and birth control. The second wave brought Title VII, Title IX, Equal Pay Act. The third wave is working on Queer Theory, Transgender politics, Intersectionality, and Masculinities. Feminism is not just about women. It's about learning about gender and sexuality. It's about fighting for a place in this patriarchy. It's about fighting hundreds of years of discrimination. It's not hateful to men. It's not patronizing to women. You are a white male, you're not oppressed, and you never have been, and you never will be, so why do you think you could not only understand, but then pass judgement?

Women in Utah are still paid 55 cents for every dollar men make. How is that equal? 

Women still don't have the right to their own bodies, their own sexualities, their own lives, and their own reproductive systems. 

Women are still getting raped and then being blamed and judged and looked down upon for allowing themselves to be a victim. She had it coming. She was being a tease. Did you see what she was wearing? She was asking for it. 

Are men able to crossdress yet? Women can crossdress. We do it every day. Why can't men?

Does everyone have the right to marriage? The right to love? Feminists help fight for marriage equality.

Is 50% of Congress female? Have we had a female president? Are 50% of CEO's women?

This is why we need feminism. We do need a special word. This is the only way we can bring attention. If we don't have a name, if we can't call it out, if we don't have an identity, then what are we? We'll fade into the background and be overtaken. The world loves labels. Humans can't escape them. 

The world still needs feminism. We're not a bunch of bra-burning hairy-legged manhaters, like the world likes to perceive us to be. 

You say you think we're getting nothing done. How hard have you looked?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Women in Utah are still paid 55 cents for every dollar men make. How is that equal?

I'm getting really fed up of having to explain time and time again why stats like this are complete and utter statistical rubbish. Let's make this very clear. These stats cannot be considered outright evidence of discrimination. How they are gathered is by taking a sample of X men and X women and totalising their earnings and comming up with a avaerage. While yes, its true that on average women earn less, the truth is that there are far far far too many intervening factors to say that this is entirely the result of the patriarchy. Some of this is the result of choices women make independently. Some of this is to do with the fact that women in some places do not make up a majority of the labour force etc. This may be in part the result of patriarchy, but not entirely. It's too simplistic to say "This vague statistic has only one cause!". Learn to accept that the world is complicated.

Women still don't have the right to their own bodies, their own sexualities, their own lives, and their own reproductive systems.

Last I checked, no one has been arrested simply for being a woman or possessing a vagina. If you want to make this kind of argument, stop using inflamatory vague language and come down with some specifics.

Women are still getting raped and then being blamed and judged and looked down upon for allowing themselves to be a victim

Lets be very clear about this. While there are some uninformed stupid people who say that women on a night out wearing provocative outfits were 'deserving' of getting raped, the statistics here arn't that helpful to your case. Most rape isn't backstreet attacks, or behind the bushes leapings. Most of them are by people the person knows. The reason that this kind of "victim blaming" often comes up is because so often rape is the result of a breakdown in respectful communication. The reason "no means no" isn't always clear is because sometimes, in a given relationship, there will be people who say no playfully etc. I'm not trying to justify rape, I'm saying that rape is complicated, and your attitude of simplistic rightious indingity doesn't really work with the complex and difficult scenerios presented to juries with regard to rape.

Is 50% of Congress female? Have we had a female president? Are 50% of CEO's women?

 

Studies have found that, somewhat controversially, the fact that there hasn't been a female president, and that there arn't more women in congress is largely the fault of women themselves. Studies repeatedly show that women who stand for political office tend to get as many votes and as much campaign finance support as do men who stand for the same office. So yes, there is equallity in the process of getting to Congress. Now its up to women to use that equality.

You say you think we're getting nothing done. How hard have you looked?

 

Here is where many people get fustrated with feminism. It's the fact that despite all its acomplishments, despite all its achivements, the anger that fuels it hasn't changed. It's completely inapropriate to have the same kind of zeal to get the vote as to get 50% of women in your elected assemblies. It's just not the same. It's like a relationship where one party has made dinner, cleaned the house, walked the dogs etc, and yet the other party is still massively angry that they havn't set the video to record program X. The reason people get fustrated with feminism is that it never seems grateful, only angry. No matter how much it has achieved, it always wants more, and while I agree there is more to do, I think what people might apreciate is a little humility and thankfullness from the feminist lobby. If you persist with the same anger at issues that are smaller as you do with issues that are larger, people are going to get bored and ignore you, because as far as they can tell, you won't ever be satisfied.

[David N]

I agree with nearly everything you say except your second and last points.

On the second, you are radically over-simplifying and seemlingly dismissing a truly complex and pressing issue. Yes, the way it was phrased was a bit sensationalistic and rallying, but I think you know what she meant.

And your last point paints the entire movement with a broad brush, and personifies it to the degree I suspect you are truly projecting your own experience with one or more feminists upon the whole movement.

[Brianna Marie]

First of all, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Tom. I wasn't trying to give an entire overview and history on feminism and all its inner workings. I was simply trying to raise a few questions and ideas that perhaps he hadn't heard of before or hadn't thought about before. 

To your first point, I don't think you've actually done the research. Researchers have done experiments and controlled for everything you could control for: age, race, sex, education, major, job, number of hours, experience, part-time vs full-time, family status, and still there exists a gap between men and women. An unexplained gap. 

Also, another researcher did a different experiment where she sent out nearly identical resumes to employers--one for a single man, a single woman, a father, and a mother. (You can hint at family status on a resume by putting experience down such as president of the PTA and so on.) She sent out 3,200 resumes to real employers, and every time the single men got the most callbacks and the mothers got the least. 

Things such as the sticky floor, the glass ceiling, the glass elevator, and the glass cliff actually exist, and they are not just things us hairy-legged feminists like to perpetrate in pamphlets. 

There's also a Motherhood Wage Penalty, wherein mothers are docked 7% in pay for each child they bear. There have been studies on this. I've read them, and the others too, and others past that. 

And while women in the United States have not recently been arrested for trying to get an abortion or birth control or exercise their right to their own sexuality. But they have been in other parts of the world. But here in America, we have women banned from their own reproductive system choices, and we have mostly men trying to decide these choices for American women. Women don't have equal access to birth control. And in some places, if women ask for their work insurance to cover birth control, they can get fired from their job. 

If women don't have complete control over their bodies, they don't really have control over their lives, and thus they aren't really free. 

Next, it's not just uninformed stupid people saying that women deserve to be raped if they are acting slutty or dressing slutty or whatever excuse tickles your fancy. Well educated, influential people say it. Sometimes, they even say it in a court of law. So you can't just write that off. And I never said it was the movie back-alley way. I was actually thinking a party where alcohol is involved. A woman is there. She drinks a little. She hangs with her guy buds, the ones she's hung out with before at other parties. She joins the party with her group of girlfriends, but maybe they're drunk. Maybe they leave or get distracted. Either way, their not a closely knit group anymore. It's a guy she knows. He gets her away for a second. Maybe he follows her into a room while she's looking for a place to lie down. Or maybe its her ex boyfriend and he's angry. Rape is rarely about sex. It's usually about power. That is where, in my opinion, your argument against me, the argument I never asked for, is simplistic. 

You think rape is just a breakdown of communication? She says no playfully, so obviously it doesn't mean no? Rape is usually vicious. 

Alright, now onto the Congress thing. Wow. This is even more simplistic then the last. You're actually blaming the women this time. Nice. Classy. Eloquent. 

No. It's the double sword. Women are unsexed by success. All the characteristics that one needs to succeed in a male-dominated workplace (and even if the workplace is not male-dominated, the workplace is taking place in a larger male-centric society), such as ambition and aggressiveness, are unfeminine. Women who possess these traits are considered unfeminine. 

Women who are nice and friendly are likable, but they are seen as not competent enough to wield power. Women who are strong enough to wield power are not likable. Hilary Clinton was repeatedly called cold, a bitch. People would talk about her hair and her dress and her makeup instead of her politics. I watched it happen on the news. Sarah Bachman was called crazy. I don't remember any male politician being called crazy, but maybe I'm remembering wrong. People are talking about Marissa Meyer's motherhood ability instead of her great success at turning the failing Yahoo company around so well so far. 

And lastly, feminism is not driven by anger. I'm not angry right now. (It is my own personal feelings that those are your feelings projecting onto me. Perhaps that is the bra-burning remnants of extremist feminists all those years ago echoing through your fingers across the interwebs and attaching onto me.) I wasn't last time either. Not even close. I just want understanding. I think that's what everybody wants. But, just to clarify, women still have every right to be outraged.

On December 6, 1989, an armed gunman named Marc Lepine entered an engineering classroom at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, Quebec. He demanded all 48 men in the class leave the room, lined up all 9 women against a wall, and, shouting “You are all a bunch of [expletive] feminists!”, proceeded to shoot them. He went into the hall and shot 18 more people, mostly at random. He finally shot himself.
He had killed 14 women all together, and injured 9 more women and 4 men.

Are we not still supposed to be outraged just because it was a while ago? Are we supposed to forget about these people who died, about the wrong that was committed, about the people who were hurt. Are we still not supposed to care? Just because it was a while ago, just because something has floated around for a while in the ethos, doesn't make it any less potent. As the saying goes: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them." Margaret Atwood

And we are grateful. (I feel like that was really close to you projecting your own feelings onto half the population.) We're just not satisfied. You're right about that. We want it all. We want full rights. Full equality. We don't want to be afraid to walk home at night. We don't want to wonder why we didn't get the promotion at work. We don't want to be afraid to tell the guy we like that we're a feminist. Unapologetically feminist. 

And maybe we will never be satisfied, just like those people wishing for World Peace will never be satisfied, but that does not mean that the fight isn't worth it. 

And we are not fighting for the same things over and over again. Like I said to Tom, the Third Wave feminism is focusing on Intersectionality, Queer theory, Transgender politics, and Masculinities, which are all new ideas born from critiques of the Second Wave. We are always changing and adapting and growing and seeking out new ideas in this ever-changing world of heat and chaos. 

[Abreo]

Sarah Bachman was called crazy. I don't remember any male politician being called crazy, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.

Not a major retort or anything, just an unimportant side: but you're definitely wrong here. Different news stations handle political coverage differently, so I'm not speaking about any specific station or show right now, but in general I see male politicians get called crazy all the time.

I more or less agree with everything else you said.

[Brianna Marie]

Alright, thank you. That was just my own personal experience of what I saw. And I did say that when I brought up that point, that perhaps I could be wrong. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Things such as the sticky floor, the glass ceiling, the glass elevator, and the glass cliff actually exist, and they are not just things us hairy-legged feminists like to perpetrate in pamphlets.

Please re-read my post. I did not say sexism did not exist. What I said was that the gender pay gap is caused by too many things to be able to attribute it to sexism alone. The problem is you're citing a statistic like it somehow definitively shows everything that's wrong, when the reality is there are a large number of intervening factors.

There's also a Motherhood Wage Penalty, wherein mothers are docked 7% in pay for each child they bear. There have been studies on this. I've read them, and the others too, and others past that.

And have these been demonstrated to be caused by the perceptions of the employers? I'm sorry, but there are too many interfering factors for you to claim that it's entirely the patriarchy at work.

But here in America, we have women banned from their own reproductive system choices, and we have mostly men trying to decide these choices for American women. Women don't have equal access to birth control. And in some places, if women ask for their work insurance to cover birth control, they can get fired from their job.

I agree, that's a situation that needs solving, but its more to do with your outdated healthcare system than to do with the sexism of your employers.

Next, it's not just uninformed stupid people saying that women deserve to be raped if they are acting slutty or dressing slutty or whatever excuse tickles your fancy. Well educated, influential people say it. Sometimes, they even say it in a court of law. So you can't just write that off.

Can you provide specific examples?

That is where, in my opinion, your argument against me, the argument I never asked for, is simplistic.

The point I'm making is that rape is complicated, and the vast majority of them are nothing to do with either getting drunk at a party or snatch and grab in alleys etc.

You think rape is just a breakdown of communication? She says no playfully, so obviously it doesn't mean no? Rape is usually vicious.

No. That's how the media plays it. But often it's a lot more subtle and complex than that. It's just because these subtle and complex cases don't make for good drama, the media doesn't pick up on them. Too many rape cases are decided by the woman to be rape long after the fact, because she felt "emotionally manipulated" etc.

Alright, now onto the Congress thing. Wow. This is even more simplistic then the last. You're actually blaming the women this time. Nice. Classy. Eloquent.

The facts are the facts. When women run for congress or any other electoral body, the studies show they raise as much money and get as many votes as do their male counterparts. The fact that you are so adverse to women ever taking the responsability for any facet of their condition is very telling. It reveals that you believe women are eternally the victim and take no power in their existance. How monumentally patronising.

No. It's the double sword. Women are unsexed by success. All the characteristics that one needs to succeed in a male-dominated workplace (and even if the workplace is not male-dominated, the workplace is taking place in a larger male-centric society), such as ambition and aggressiveness, are unfeminine. Women who possess these traits are considered unfeminine.

That's a public perception perhaps, but it's certainly one that's changing, and it's not reflected in the votes and the campaign finance they receive. So while the perception may exist, even if it is changing, since women still get equivilent votes and money to men while running for congress, it isn't really the massive kind of problem you might think it is.

Women who are nice and friendly are likable, but they are seen as not competent enough to wield power. Women who are strong enough to wield power are not likable. Hilary Clinton was repeatedly called cold, a bitch. People would talk about her hair and her dress and her makeup instead of her politics. I watched it happen on the news. Sarah Bachman was called crazy. I don't remember any male politician being called crazy, but maybe I'm remembering wrong. People are talking about Marissa Meyer's motherhood ability instead of her great success at turning the failing Yahoo company around so well so far.

Okay, let's get a few things straight. First, plenty of male politicians have been called crazy. GWB, Todd Akin etc. Plenty of them. Second, Hillary Clinton was called a bitch because she was too overtly power hungry, and was not affected enough by her emotions. That wasn't by female standards, that was by standards in general. Chances are she would have been helped massively if she had divorced Bill Clinton and shown some spine and indignity. The fact that she was willing to stay with him rather than stand up for herself in having been wronged made a lot of people think she was just (rather cravenly) attempting to maintain a position in the political establishment so as to attempt to run for president in the future. It's not an unreasonable analysis. Plenty of other female politicans have behaved more clearly and in a manner that is powerful and yet not been noted as bitchy. The fact is, there are people, both men and women alike, who grubbily grab at power and are very bad at doing it in such a way as for it to be acceptable.

And lastly, feminism is not driven by anger. I'm not angry right now.

Indignity might be a better word then.

Are we not still supposed to be outraged just because it was a while ago? Are we supposed to forget about these people who died, about the wrong that was committed, about the people who were hurt. Are we still not supposed to care? Just because it was a while ago, just because something has floated around for a while in the ethos, doesn't make it any less potent. As the saying goes: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them." Margaret Atwood

No, but conversely, you're not supposed to base a significant portion of your movement on the actions of a lone gunman. Judging all men on that basis is no different than an uneducated employer believing that women with children will never be at work on time.

And we are grateful. (I feel like that was really close to you projecting your own feelings onto half the population.) We're just not satisfied. You're right about that. We want it all. We want full rights. Full equality. We don't want to be afraid to walk home at night. We don't want to wonder why we didn't get the promotion at work. We don't want to be afraid to tell the guy we like that we're a feminist. Unapologetically feminist.

Here's my issue though. It isn't wrong to want it all. What's wrong is to treat it as though the problems that exist today are the same as the problems we experianced over 100 years ago. This is the issue that a lot of society sees. You're fighting over the gender pay gap as if it's the same thing as the observable gender pay gap. That one, where women were paid differently for the same job, was an objective outrage. But now, the pay gap is different. Now it's in some part, to do with women's choices. This is what makes people fustrated with feminism. It perpetually regards women as the victim of men. It never considers that maybe, in some capacities, women are responsible for parts of their own situation. You got indignant with me when I suggested it was women's fault there arn't more of them in congress. But the fact is that the studies show that women make as much in campaign finance as men, and women get as many votes as men, when they stand. So then, in some part, the problem of the lack of women in congress does lie with women.

The fact is, if feminism continues to be as indignant over small outrages as it does with big ones, people will dismiss it. People will ignore it because it behaves like a monolith, and doesn't accept the reality of things.

And we are not fighting for the same things over and over again. Like I said to Tom, the Third Wave feminism is focusing on Intersectionality, Queer theory, Transgender politics, and Masculinities, which are all new ideas born from critiques of the Second Wave. We are always changing and adapting and growing and seeking out new ideas in this ever-changing world of heat and chaos.

You might be fighting over different things, but your indignity doesn't reflect that. Fighting every battle with the same level of outrage will only make people dismiss things.

[Brianna Marie]

Ugghhh. I wasn't talking to you, but now you've sucked me into something I never wanted to start.

The fact is you are painting a whole lot of people with a whole lot of opinions which you don't even know if that's right. As people in educational circles call it, that's making shit up. You don't know how I am treating anything. You don't know how all the millions of feminists around the world are treating the problems. You are taking a group of people that vary considerably and trying to shove them all into one box and then label it. You treat this like... You treat that like... They treat this like.... No. 

I don't want this conversation. Do you hear me? Because I said it last time, but you glossed over it. I am SO not interested in this conversation. There's my honest brutal truth. I am a Women Gender scholar, and while its nice to hear criticism to try and find the weaknesses and then fortify the structure to try and build a better system, that's not what you're doing. You just want to argue over feminism as a whole. And you're not listening. I want a conversation, not a useless internet argument with some nameless faceless entity. I would like to discuss things without you tearing me down point by point with your gnashing teeth. You just want to argue. You only take the parts of my conversation that are useful to you and ignore the rest. This is not helpful to anyone. I just feel like I'm feeding a troll, and I am not saying that you are a troll, that is just how I feel. And I don't want to feel that way, but I don't see how it's going to change. 

The more I read your response, the more I realize that you don't actually know what you're talking about. I've taken class after class, and you just don't get it. It's ridiculous. I am not going to reread your post, I am not going to provide you with specific examples, and I don't want to talk to you about this anymore because I've already had this conversation with you. I have. A long time ago. And it never goes differently. Nothing I will ever say or do will be enough for you, and you are just going to keep doing the same thing that you have been doing for months. This is exhausting. 

Thank you for your time and attention,

Best Wishes,

Brianna