"Feminism" isn't a bad word, you know.

[Seshat]

(Australian history digression)

There's a historic reason that the Liberals (capital L) are named that, despite not currently being liberal (small l).

At the time they were founded, the conservative party was the agricultural party. Big money was in land-owning. Agriculture, mining, fishing. Cities were for artisans, artists, and administrators.

However, the mercantile and manufacturing types were developing money and power. They had new-fangled, radical, liberal ideas about how to make big changes - and so they named their political party Liberals.

Nowadays, of course, those ideas are solidly entrenched and conservative.

(end digression)

If you think about the words 'liberal' and 'conservative', those whose beliefs are towards either end of the liberal/conservative continuum are always going to think the other is crazy.

[DesignFox]

I believe in equality for the sexes. I want to be judged for a job promotion because of my work & my ability not because I'm a woman (and vice versa for men).

That pretty much somes up how I feel about things.

I tend to prefer the term "equalist." I think the word feminist suggests that women are being placed before men.

On a funny note, like some of you, my BF tells me all the time what a horrible "woman" I am. He can cook and bake and iron clothing. I'm not real motivated to do those things, and while I can follow recipes pretty well, I won't be the one baking pies. My SO can though!

It was a major breakthrough the first time I baked cookies from scratch. *giggle*

[Seshat]

It was a major breakthrough the first time I baked cookies from scratch. *giggle*

Cookies taste better with the sweet flavour of accomplishment baked in.

I'm both a 'girl' and a 'boy'. I can - and do - cook, sew and clean. I can even spin and weave and embroider. I can also sysadmin and program computers, build furniture, and (when my body used to let me) do both heavy and light gardening. Only light nowadays, alas.

[Lace Neil Singer]

This may be an unpopular view, but I believe that women and men can never be equal, not fully anyway. Not from society's viewpoint, but from a biological viewpoint; ie, women can never be equal to men in strength. That doesn't belittle women; men and women should celebrate their differences.

I'm not for one moment saying that women and men shouldn't be treated fairly, but that there are some jobs that men can't do and jobs women can't do cuz of this biological difference and it's actually hurting the cause to try and force both into either cuz of an employer not wanting to be accused of sexism. There are some employers who have to fill a quota; ie, hire equal amounts of men and women, rather than just hiring those who are right for the job.

As far as traditional roles go; I ride a motorbike which some would see as "manly". My boyf is obsessively tidy, which some would see as "womanly". XD

[Boozy]

This may be an unpopular view, but I believe that women and men can never be equal, not fully anyway. Not from society's viewpoint, but from a biological viewpoint; ie, women can never be equal to men in strength. That doesn't belittle women; men and women should celebrate their differences.

When feminists discuss equality, they don't mean "sameness". That's silly, especially considering the obvious fact that women bear children and men don't. That fact alone continually creates differences between men and women throughout their lives.

The average man is physically stronger than the average woman. Of course, with today's technology, that counts for less than it used to in the working world. Women are stronger than men in other areas. They tend to have better memories, better peripheral vision, and are better at multi-tasking.

But so what? For every rule there is an exception. The goal should be to judge each individual on their own merits and on what they are, not on what we think they should be.

[Lace Neil Singer]

There are feminists who do think that, which is probably why the word is reviled. A netfriend from another board always refers to these people as "feminazis" cuz they are closeminded and refuse to listen to reason. Such as in the "women on the front line" Army question; another netfriend says that women don't belong there; not out of sexism, but cuz they are better working behind the scenes cuz large groups of women don't get on with each other the way large groups of men do. She's in the army... and works behind the scenes. That is a biological answer, not a social answer; but some people would still burst a blood vessel at the suggestion.

[Seshat]

This may be an unpopular view, but I believe that women and men can never be equal, not fully anyway. Not from society's viewpoint, but from a biological viewpoint; ie, women can never be equal to men in strength.

That's another argument falsely attributed to (the majority of) feminism. Let's use 'moderate feminism' to distinguish most feminists from the extreme, and 'extremist feminism' for the extremists.

Moderate feminists know that the average woman has less upper-body strength than the average man, and therefore jobs which require upper body strength will, statistically, tend to be dominated by males. However, moderate feminists want women with upper body strength who happen to be interested in (and qualified for) those jobs to be able to get them.

Moderate feminists have managed to get height requirements lowered for some jobs, such as policing, where height is not actually a requirement. But for special forces police work, moderate feminists would actively lobby against any sort of relaxation of necessary requirements.

Moderate feminists do not want:
- silly job requirements, like firefighters who are physically incapable of fighting fires.
- silly 'required ratios'. We call it 'tokenism', and being the 'token female' brought in simply to fill ratios is an insult and a really, really awful place to be.
- silly 'politically correct language'. Yes, we prefer firefighter to fireman, because at that level, language has an unconscious impact. But let's be reasonable about it!
- lots of other silly stuff.


I can illustrate what moderate feminists DO want by pointing to history. So to overgeneralise somewhat:

In the late 1800s, when the Women's Suffrage movement was active, women could not vote, could not own property, could not hold bank accounts. Women were essentially the property of their husbands or fathers. Women could work, but only in certain fields, and their pay was considerably less than a man's.
In the worst cases, women watched helplessly while their daughters were married off to abusive men, to be raped and beaten and potentially even killed. And the rapist would never face charges, because 'you can't rape your wife'. Nor would anyone admit to the beatings. It was 'a strict family'.
(Yes, there were also women who abused and beat their husbands. This was also a shameful secret, but at least the husband had access to the bank account and legal ownership of the property. He could also get work if he fled, whereas women who fled faced absolute poverty.)
The academic history of women is another fascinating topic - worth looking into at some point.

In the first half of the 1900s, women could vote, could own some sorts of property, could hold bank accounts. Gradually, the topics of rape in marriage and domestic violence began to creep into public discussion.

During both World Wars, the Allies had such manpower problems that women were brought in to the workplace. Factories, fields, offices - women were everywhere, doing the jobs 'of men', and doing them well.
However, after both World Wars, women were then kicked out of the workplace. Sorry ladies, the men need work. You don't need 'pin money', so back to the home for you. Lots of war widows lost their sole means of support that way.

The 1960s and 1970s feminists were the children of the women who were kicked out of the workforce after World War II, along with people who'd been through one or both of the World Wars. They'd seen for themselves that women could do the jobs just as well as the men, and seen the injustice of "jobs for the boys" banning women from the workforce. They also became even more active than previous generations regarding divorce, arranged marriage, and domestic violence.

Those of us born in the 60s and 70s are probably the first generation of women who actually had a childhood where we could assume we'd be able to do any type of work we wanted, and with any real feeling of security regarding domestic violence. And even then, we were raised with Fred "No wife of mine will ever have to work!" Flintstone and other such 'role models'.

We're still in our thirties, forties and fifties! The fact that our children - especially our daughters - tend to think of feminism as passe is both a thing of pride, and a thing of concern. We hope it is - we worry that it isn't. We're especially worried when we look at mid and upper level management, government, domestic violence and health.

Personally, I'm hoping that either Obama or Clinton gets in. If a black man or a woman can get the US presidency, it'll make a big impact for every type of 'minority' in every area of world power.

[Amethyst Hunter]

There are feminists who do think that, which is probably why the word is reviled. A netfriend from another board always refers to these people as "feminazis" cuz they are closeminded and refuse to listen to reason.

Those aren't feminists, they're extremists (and, it should be noted, far and few between). On a similar tangent, this is why I refuse to use the phrases "pro-life" and "conservative" to describe anti-choice and right-wing nutjobs - because the ones so often waving these banners almost always exhibit actions that are anything BUT their stated labels. Using "feminazi" is an insult to both real feminists and those who actually suffered under the Nazi regime.

Such as in the "women on the front line" Army question; another netfriend says that women don't belong there; not out of sexism, but cuz they are better working behind the scenes cuz large groups of women don't get on with each other the way large groups of men do. She's in the army... and works behind the scenes.

I'd like to see stats on that one, because it sounds more based on personal experience. I know of at least one female Army veteran who has seen frontline combat and who would probably disagree on that.

And for all that guys do seem to get on well in large bunches, it's because of that pack mentality - and the moment someone steps out of line the pack turns savage, so it's still not a good place to be. Pack mentality is why, given the subject of gang rape, if there's a lone dissenter who isn't keen on going along with the others, he'll do it anyway because the other men will goad him into it or attack him too.

Seshat put it aptly: feminists want equality, not in the sense of filling any particular quotas but in the sense of ensuring that those who have the skills can get the opportunities they want.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I'm not arguing about that; most of what Seshat said was preaching to the choir. I'm just pointing out why feminist is such a bad word to a lot of people.

[lordlundar]

ie, women can never be equal to men in strength.

I can think of a few women rugby players that would disagree with you, and would break every bone in my body if I thought otherwise.

My issue isn't with feminism itself, as it was done up to fight the sexism that exits in the world. My issue is that the ones who are screaming they are a feminist don't see destroying sexism as a goal, they see total women dominance as a goal. They don't want to live in a world where they are looked at as a person instead of as a woman, they want to live in a world where they are seen as in charge and men being subjugated for simply being men.

These are the people who cheer when a mother who is destroying her family through drug use or other problems wins a divorce case against a responsible father who was a stable force in her life. Even worse when they cheer after the decision comes down, the child is turned over to the mother with no visitation rights, because you know that assuming the child survives to be an adult, she will be as messed up as her mother. And those radicals will cheer for this. This is the world those radicals fight for. Sexism that favors them, anything else is a crime against nature.

They don't want to fight to have the pendulum neutral, they want the pendulum swung so far in their favor that it breaks.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Men are stronger. Cuz they have more testosterone, and greater muscle mass. True, there are women rugby players who are stronger than male couch potatoes, but you're kidding yourself if you think that the majority of women could fight off the majority of men. Put it this way; pit one of those female rugby players against a male rugby player, and the man is going to come up top every time. It's a fact of life, so there's no point in arguing against it; men and women are different, end of story. However, that doesn't mean that they can't have equal opportunities in jobs that don't require excessive physical strength. Someone earlier mentioned firefighting; that would be one.

[Zyanya]

These are the people who cheer when a mother who is destroying her family through drug use or other problems wins a divorce case against a responsible father who was a stable force in her life. Even worse when they cheer after the decision comes down, the child is turned over to the mother with no visitation rights, because you know that assuming the child survives to be an adult, she will be as messed up as her mother. And those radicals will cheer for this. This is the world those radicals fight for. Sexism that favors them, anything else is a crime against nature.

You know, I hear about these people all the time. But in 27 years, through 5 states, countless message boards, multiple philosophy debate courses at multiple colleges, membership in several activist groups, and a few to many drunken rant sessions at bars, I have never met a single one of them.

They must be hanging out with the women who have three abortions a year, the gay men who want to convert all men to the homosexual path, and the dungeons and dragons players that have the real power.

[Boozy]

You know, I hear about these people all the time....I have never met a single one of them.

I've been involved in women's causes for 15 years now, and I've never met one of these crazy people either.

They make handy strawmen, though.

[Zyanya]

I've been involved in women's causes for 15 years now, and I've never met one of these crazy people either.

They make handy strawmen, though.

I'm sure if I searched long enough, I could find one or two like that. With the same amount of effort, I'm sure I could also find a man that suffers from hypertrichosis that has beaten someone to death. Doesn't mean I'm going to cite the existence of such a man as 'proof' hairy men are bestial savages.

[The Shadow]

Just like liberalism is the radical notion that having a level playing field and not being a selfish douchebag is a nifty idea.

I always wonder just why would someone be so against the concept of basic fairness that they would turn descriptors like that into curse words.

I think it might have something to do with the fact that a lot of the ideas concepts advanced under the banner "liberal" or "feminist" or what have you can be pretty objectionable. Now I'm much closer to liberal than conservative myself, but I think conservatives have a valid point when they say there's a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, which a lot of liberals/feminists really want. That is coercion and that is not fair. Affirmative action is a good example of this. Defenders of affirmative action like to claim it's a myth that people who benefit from AA policies in employment and education get hired or promoted simply because of their gender/race -- that they have to be qualified. This is a half-truth. For example, two people considered being hired for a teaching position at a local university; one is a white male, the other a female. Both may meet certain minimum standards for qualification, but the male applicant may have more experience that would make him the more desirable candidate. But any university that practices affirmative action (which most North American campuses now do) will always hire the woman over the man. So in a sense, she *is* being hired simply because of her gender. I think these policies are unfair and ought to be done away with. I can't see how they're going to bring about equality and all it seems they're good for is bringing about mediocracy by not hiring the best person and resentment on the part of those who get passed over for jobs/promotions because of this.

I'm all in favour of bringing about equality, but not special privileges and entitlements which a lot (but certainly not all) feminists/liberals seem to want.

Frankly, I fail to see how being against this sort of thing equates to being against basic fairness in the eyes of some people.