I need feminism because...

Makes me fcuking sick.

Morag

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/19/gangs-rape-lists-sex-assault

Because it's harder to be done for rape or sexual assault and when you do it's a shorter sentence,
so gangs are making up lists of women and girls who are related to rival gang members to attack.

YumCha

Because someone somewhere will be all "rape culture doesn't exist", and it seems like almost every day there's a case like this one:

(Super trigger warnings obvs)

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/7/18/on-rape-high-schoolsareworsethancolleges.html

IvyTheTerrible

This:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/isis-women-girls-fgm-mosul-un?CMP=fb_gu

eviltwin

It's very minor but today out in the playground with my son I've heard two mothers talk to their daughters in a sexist manner. One telling her daughter not to climb on a climbing frame because she is not a boy and another telling her son who was playing football that he can get a goal past his sister because she is just a girl. Can these people even hear themselves?

Lyaiera

eviltwin wrote: »

It's very minor but today out in the playground with my son I've heard two mothers talk to their daughters in a sexist manner. One telling her daughter not to climb on a climbing frame because she is not a boy and another telling her son who was playing football that he can get a goal past his sister because she is just a girl. Can these people even hear themselves?

On that note, I was just walking up to my apartment and I saw an adorable little girl with bright blue framed glasses, baseball cap and backpack coming against me. I "D'aaawed" and it took me a few seconds to think why I was so happy seeing it. Bright blue framed glasses? Eff you gender roles! **** yeah!

And it made me think. We've had talk about adorable little people (toddlers and young kids) with glasses in the forum the past few days... Is the adorable bespectacled child look a typically male thing? I know I've certainly heard parents lamenting their little girl having to get glasses because it would upset her cuteness, but little boys with glasses are generally seen as adorable or cute. Or is this just me?

Lyaiera

Lyaiera wrote: »

but little boys with glasses are generally seen as adorable or cute.

And weak. Just saying.

meeeeh

I never found glasses adorable or cute or the opposite. They are just glasses. Some suit you and some don't. For me it wouldn't be about cutness. You are never happy as parent thst your child needs some sort of an aid. And with mine I would actually worry how to keep glasses on their noses. And I really can't see any difference in what gender is the child or adult. Frankly if I would hear parent fretting that their child will be less cute with glasses I would think to myself what an idiot. Maybe I am a bit clueless but I really didn't think that was a gender issue.

eviltwin

Because cooing over a newborn baby does not automatically make me "broody" :mad:

Delirium

eviltwin wrote: »

It's very minor but today out in the playground with my son I've heard two mothers talk to their daughters in a sexist manner. One telling her daughter not to climb on a climbing frame because she is not a boy and another telling her son who was playing football that he can get a goal past his sister because she is just a girl. Can these people even hear themselves?

Verizon made an ad that kind of touches on that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP3cyRRAfX0

ivytwine

Wanted to post a little good news story in this thread On the way home I saw a dad teaching his little girl cricket while her brother played with a space hopper.

We need more daddies like him!

Eeden

Confused Cats Against Feminism

A new Tumblr blog called "Confused Cats Against Feminism" is making the viral rounds this week as thousands continue to rile against a growing contingent of vocal anti-feminists online.

"Hey, cats need a place where they can post pictures of themselves holding signs denouncing feminism for assorted weird reasons that don't seem to have anything to do with what feminism is actually about," reads the site's about section, taking a not-so-subtle shot at the "Women Against Feminism" movement.

Shakespeare's Sister

Oh yeh, "Women against feminism" - comprising no doubt the type of women who say stuff like "I only hang around with guys, women are so bitchy", despite being... women.

Bafucin

I need feminism because I have just become an Uncle to my baby niece!:)

Da Shins Kelly

From what I can see most of the "Women Against Feminism" are young affluent white girls who say things like "I don't need feminism because, like, all the bad things that happen to women happen in other countries so, like, who cares, right?"

They don't seem to realize just how lucky they are to live in a world where they actually can go online and make videos and start movements without being shut down or imprisoned or worse. I mean, it was only a couple of years ago that Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head for simply going to school, and the schoolgirls in Nigeria are still missing and being subjected to God knows what, and there are many more just like them. Not to mention the myriad of ways that women continue to be treated differently in our oh-so-enlightened western world. I find it a little insulting to the struggles that many women face both close to home and further afield to then turn around and say that feminism isn't important.

The whole thing fcuking reeks of western white privilege, honestly.

kylith

I think a lot of the negative feelings toward feminism are coming about because a small proportion of women have forgotten that Feminism is about equality and choice and have taken it to extremes of man-hating such as claiming that all penetrative sex is rape, or attacking women who choose to be stay-at-home parents.

SueBoom

It's only a minor thing and I'm sure I'm in the minority of people who were unaware this was happening but the fact that it's not uncommon for companies to have a rule that women must at all times where high heels. I see in hindsight it was naive of me to think times were well past this kind of bullshiit. It baffles me though, both that companies have the balls to enforce this as a RULE and that many women willingly participate. I don't think I'd be so willing if put in that position.

kylith

SueBoom wrote: »

It's only a minor thing and I'm sure I'm in the minority of people who were unaware this was happening but the fact that it's not uncommon for companies to have a rule that women must at all times where high heels. I see in hindsight it was naive of me to think times were well past this kind of bullshiit. It baffles me though, both that companies have the balls to enforce this as a RULE and that many women willingly participate. I don't think I'd be so willing if put in that position.

TBH I'd be straight on to my doctor to give me a note excusing me from wearing heels. See how they react to that.

meeeeh

I also know of the bank that requested from female employees to wear skirt among other things. I don't find particularly offensive or unreasonable. In comparison to men women actually have way more freedom when dressing professionally.

fits

meeeeh wrote: »

I also know of the bank that requested from female employees to wear skirt among other things. I don't find particularly offensive or unreasonable. In comparison to men women actually have way more freedom when dressing professionally.

I think its completely unreasonable, as long as you are clean and tidy and well presented you shouldnt have to wear a skirt or make up or heels or anything else.

fits

SueBoom wrote: »

It's only a minor thing and I'm sure I'm in the minority of people who were unaware this was happening but the fact that it's not uncommon for companies to have a rule that women must at all times where high heels. I see in hindsight it was naive of me to think times were well past this kind of bullshiit. It baffles me though, both that companies have the balls to enforce this as a RULE and that many women willingly participate. I don't think I'd be so willing if put in that position.

What companies??? I would hit the roof!

rainbow kirby

I've never seen the requirement - but as a software developer I'm not customer facing, and generally end up looking more dressy than men I work with by wearing a well-fitting t-shirt, jeans and Converse! :pac:

I couldn't do it. I don't find heels comfortable at all and it would just be a distraction to me all day.

meeeeh

fits wrote: »

I think its completely unreasonable, as long as you are clean and tidy and well presented you shouldnt have to wear a skirt or make up or heels or anything else.

Or tie or a suit or an uniform??? Maybe then you are not so suited to the company you are working for and it might be time to look for a different job. I wouldn't want to be represented by a solicitor wearing jeans no mater how tidy and well presented they would be.

Neyite

fits wrote: »

What companies??? I would hit the roof!

I'm guessing, but the likes of banking or air hostess would come to mind.

kylith

meeeeh wrote: »

Or tie or a suit or an uniform??? Maybe then you are not so suited to the company you are working for and it might be time to look for a different job. I wouldn't want to be represented by a solicitor wearing jeans no mater how tidy and well presented they would be.

But would you have a problem with a female solicitor wearing a smart shirt, slacks, no make-up, and flat shoes?

LenaClaire

SueBoom wrote: »

It's only a minor thing and I'm sure I'm in the minority of people who were unaware this was happening but the fact that it's not uncommon for companies to have a rule that women must at all times where high heels. I see in hindsight it was naive of me to think times were well past this kind of bullshiit. It baffles me though, both that companies have the balls to enforce this as a RULE and that many women willingly participate. I don't think I'd be so willing if put in that position.

It really depends on the company and the industry. When I worked in hospitality, anyone in sales or front of house (concierge, front desk,bellmen etc) had a certain dress code that was much more formal than back of house people like housekeeping, maintenance, cooks, etc. I think it was some point in the 90s when they changed the code so the women could wear pantsuits, but you needed at least a one inch heel on your shoes.

Only rings allowed were wedding/engagement rings, only one set of ear rings, if it was a hoop it could not be larger than a 1 euro coin, no other piercings or tatoos. Nails had to either polish free or a "classic" pink or red. Suits had to be matching, bottom and coat same color, same fabric. If wearing a skirt, nylons were mandatory. No open toes or slingback heels.

I actually got in trouble with the General Manager one day and had to go buy new shoes since I had on wedges (really nice ones) instead of a classic heel. Luckily one of the managers took pity on me (since only option nearby was Bloomingdales, very expensive) and she paid for the new shoes.

However, this was known during interview and hiring. It was a 5 star hotel with rooms costing over 500/night. It was part of the image of the hotel, so I knew full well what I was getting into. I don't think it is per say a feminism issue, unless the men can wear whatever they want. In our hotel, the men's standards of grooming were just as strict in regards to fit of pants, grooming, etc.

meeeeh

kylith wrote: »

But would you have a problem with a female solicitor wearing a smart shirt, slacks, no make-up, and flat shoes?

Depends on the type of the shoe, I don't mind trousers if they are appropriate and I don't give a damn weather they wear make up or not. But I'm not a particular employer, if they have certain dress code then I would stick to it. Only thing I do dislike is the idea that women are required to wear make up. I think it should be a personal choice weather you put something on your skin.

SueBoom

fits wrote: »

What companies??? I would hit the roof!

One I know for certain is Grant Thornton, a financial/accountant firm. From what I've been told this particular policy is not uncommon in the financial industry.

meeeeh

Btw I would be way more insulted if I would be required to wear black poliester work trouser that seem to be the norm in so many shops.

I've arthritis in my big toes and a dodgy previously broken toe, heels every day would be agony

Would be against it on principle anyway

fits

meeeeh wrote: »

Or tie or a suit or an uniform??? Maybe then you are not so suited to the company you are working for and it might be time to look for a different job. I wouldn't want to be represented by a solicitor wearing jeans no mater how tidy and well presented they would be.

I think professionals know to dress appropriately without needing to be instructed to wear heels and makeup which should be discretionary in any job anyway. (I can't wear heels either)

and how on earth did you come to conclusion about where I work? we can wear anything we want!

meeeeh

fits wrote: »

I think professionals know to dress appropriately without needing to be instructed to wear heels and makeup which should be discretionary in any job anyway. (I can't wear heels either)

and how on earth did you come to conclusion about where I work? we can wear anything we want!

I didn't come to any conclusion. I was speaking in general but my lack of English knowledge let me down.

As for professionals, good education does not necessary mean ability to dress appropriately. Some companies have certain corporate image and are perfectly entitled to ask employees to comply with it. They are usually very well paid for it too.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

From what I can see most of the "Women Against Feminism" are young affluent white girls who say things like "I don't need feminism because, like, all the bad things that happen to women happen in other countries so, like, who cares, right?"

They don't seem to realize just how lucky they are to live in a world where they actually can go online and make videos and start movements without being shut down or imprisoned or worse. I mean, it was only a couple of years ago that Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head for simply going to school, and the schoolgirls in Nigeria are still missing and being subjected to God knows what, and there are many more just like them. Not to mention the myriad of ways that women continue to be treated differently in our oh-so-enlightened western world. I find it a little insulting to the struggles that many women face both close to home and further afield to then turn around and say that feminism isn't important.

The whole thing fcuking reeks of western white privilege, honestly.

I agree with all that but the last bit could just as easily be applied to certain kinds of (mostly internet) feminism, which is the type that a lot of people are reacting against - though unfortunately they don't always distinguish between the nutters and the rest of it. Tumblr and Buzzfeed in particular can be ridiculous. One article on the latter titled "Safety tips for women having sex with women" which presumably was tactfully avoiding the word "lesbian" had the top comment of "I can't BELIEVE I even still have to explain this, but NOT ALL WOMEN HAVE VAGINAS". I can see how if you were basing your idea of modern feminism on what you see online, you'd be turned off it pretty quickly, because unfortunately the craziest people make the most noise

Morag

Well bisexual women have sex with women, it's not just lesbians.

I think a lot of what is seen on tubmlr and the like are people's learning curves and the learning curve and growth of a new way of feminism. There is no bible, there is no program of indoctrination people have to learn for themselves.

Da Shins Kelly

Journey Melodic Raspberry wrote: »

I agree with all that but the last bit could just as easily be applied to certain kinds of (mostly internet) feminism, which is the type that a lot of people are reacting against - though unfortunately they don't always distinguish between the nutters and the rest of it. Tumblr and Buzzfeed in particular can be ridiculous. One article on the latter titled "Safety tips for women having sex with women" which presumably was tactfully avoiding the word "lesbian" had the top comment of "I can't BELIEVE I even still have to explain this, but NOT ALL WOMEN HAVE VAGINAS". I can see how if you were basing your idea of modern feminism on what you see online, you'd be turned off it pretty quickly, because unfortunately the craziest people make the most noise

The internet is home to all manner of subversive and extreme opinions. Nothing new there. Very few of these people really operate in the real world. I have yet to meet any of these so-called "feminazis" in real life. I've met plenty of people who think feminism has no place in society any more though.

I see people rolling out Tumblr a lot nowadays as a stick to beat feminism with, as if all feminists are now operating out of Tumblr or as if that it's the standard for modern feminism now. Most of the people using Tumblr are teenagers who I would assume are yet to do much, if any, real reading on feminism and its developments over the years. Black Feminism in the 70s/80s brought a whole new perspective to feminism that encompassed women outside of the white middle class and actually turned the lens of feminism onto cultures that were perhaps ignored early on. Feminism certainly isn't exclusively a white woman's movement any more and hasn't been for some time.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Lads, I'm not saying I AT ALL agree with that "I don't need feminism" stuff, I'm saying I can understand where people would get very misrepresentative ideas of what constitutes feminism IF they're getting their ideas of it from unmediated, often immature, often quite aggressive online content like Tumblr and Buzzfeed.

There's also probably a massive confirmation bias going on too, I'd imagine there's more than a few sites that collate the stupider stuff, present it to a audience already predisposed against feminism and say "look, this is feminism, it's stupid".

And the western white privilege thing that Shins pointed out in the "women against feminism" does apply to the particular and not representative form of internet feminism that I'm (perhaps naively) assuming is what people are reacting against.

meeeeh

Proper feminism is often very intellectual and confined to university debates which leaves the nut jobs or that topless Ukrainian group to get the attention on social media and more often also in traditional media (especially the Ukrainian group is photo friendly).

Das Kitty

Journey Melodic Raspberry wrote: »

I agree with all that but the last bit could just as easily be applied to certain kinds of (mostly internet) feminism, which is the type that a lot of people are reacting against - though unfortunately they don't always distinguish between the nutters and the rest of it. Tumblr and Buzzfeed in particular can be ridiculous. One article on the latter titled "Safety tips for women having sex with women" which presumably was tactfully avoiding the word "lesbian" had the top comment of "I can't BELIEVE I even still have to explain this, but NOT ALL WOMEN HAVE VAGINAS". I can see how if you were basing your idea of modern feminism on what you see online, you'd be turned off it pretty quickly, because unfortunately the craziest people make the most noise

It's true not all women have vaginas though.

The branch of feminism you need to worry about us the one that virulently fight against anyone who says that. The likes of those who go out of their way to "out" trans women and girls to people who will hurt and kill them.

The tumblr type feminist are generally young people who are learning about inclusion and get a biteen OTT with ramming it down other people's throats. Also tumblr is somewhere people are judged forever over the tiniest mistake. It all reflects the young age profile of the users.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Das Kitty wrote: »

It's true not all women have vaginas though.

The branch of feminism you need to worry about us the one that virulently fight against anyone who says that. The likes of those who go out of their way to "out" trans women and girls to people who will hurt and kill them.

The tumblr type feminist are generally young people who are learning about inclusion and get a biteen OTT with ramming it down other people's throats. Also tumblr is somewhere people are judged forever over the tiniest mistake. It all reflects the young age profile of the users.

Aye I know, my point is that it does suggest a bit of immaturity and lack of perspective to react to the lack of penises in an article about lesbian sex with "I can't believe I still have to explain this". There's privilege and entitlement at work there, which reflects the backgrounds (and yes, of course the ages) of the people coming out with it.

It's not the content of the discussions and debates that are happening among (some) young online feminists that's jumping out at me as peculiar, it's the lack of variation in tone: consistently outraged, aggressive and to my eyes, geared more towards preaching towards the choir and seeking validation rather than listening to other viewpoints or seeking to change people's minds. Not to keep harping on about the penises (it was just the example that sprung to mind), but that was clearly a well-meaning person who made a mistake, and the reaction was inappropriate. Sites like Jezebel (though I think that's maybe got its groove back recently) got almost unreadable because of the same kind of stuff.

Morag

Many women younger then I am are pissed off that all this 'stuff' hasn't been sorted.
They grew up thinking they were equal and now know they are not, Girl power from the time of the Spice girls never translated into feminism for most. And when you have to repeatedly explain and defend, people get annoyed.

Women esp young women have to deal with a lot of Tone Policing, in person and online.
Anger is an engry, and there are many things I think we should be angry about.
Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism I think is something worth being pissed about, and so is Bisexual erasure,
if a person can't write and express themselves on their own blog/thumblr what ever, in the way they want then what is the point of having such an outlet?

If you don't like how they are saying what they are saying, then read something else, it's not like they are writing for a paper of record.

Tone Policing is just another way to supress people and how they feel about something, which limits how they process and learn.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Morag wrote: »

Many women younger then I am are pissed off that all this 'stuff' hasn't been sorted.
They grew up thinking they were equal and now know they are not, Girl power from the time of the Spice girls never translated into feminism for most. And when you have to repeatedly explain and defend, people get annoyed.

Women esp young women have to deal with a lot of Tone Policing, in person and online.
Anger is an engry, and there are many things I think we should be angry about.
Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism I think is something worth being pissed about, and so is Bisexual erasure,
if a person can't write and express themselves on their own blog/thumblr what ever, in the way they want then what is the point of having such an outlet?

If you don't like how they are saying what they are saying, then read something else, it's not like they are writing for a paper of record.

Tone Policing is just another way to supress people and how they feel about something, which limits how they process and learn.

I'm not doing the least thing to police their tone, in a personal capacity I'm just always not a big fan of some of it. I'm interested in feminism and I read a wide variety of blogs/books/whatevers on the subject because I like to keep in the know about it. It doesn't mean I can't have a critical perspective. Exclusively reading things I fully agree with isn't something I'm interested in, in fact it seems like something that would massively limit how I process and learn. People are of course free to express themselves on their blogs or whatever, if I somehow implied that I was saying it wasn't, I'm sorry, but expressing opinions is a privilege I had assumed also applied to me.

ETA: Not really sure how relevant it is but you keep bringing the word up, I'm bisexual myself. Very well aware of bisexual erasure.

Links234

Journey Melodic Raspberry wrote: »

Aye I know, my point is that it does suggest a bit of immaturity and lack of perspective to react to the lack of penises in an article about lesbian sex with "I can't believe I still have to explain this". There's privilege and entitlement at work there, which reflects the backgrounds (and yes, of course the ages) of the people coming out with it.

Does it suggest immaturity and lack of perspective though? I mean, think of it like when sex education doesn't include any information about same sex intercourse, it's leaving those who are LGBT without information, and who else is going to teach people about safe sex? So it can't be shrugged off as someone else's problem, and even if it's only a small percentage, they should still be entitled to education on their sexuality. Likewise, if there's going to be an article about safe sex for women having sex with women, you're going to have a small percentage of those the article is aimed at who are either lesbians/bisexuals having sex with trans women or trans women themselves, and a smaller percentage yet again with how many of those trans women are pre-op/non-op and comfortable enough to have sex, which a great many aren't I might add. But it comes down to whether they deserve to be educated or not, and if it's not whatever safe sex article, then who will give them information and educate them? To me that shows quite a bit of perspective.

I won't even try to disgree that a lot of people can be extremely obnoxious, rude and confrontational in these matters, especially when it comes to internet comments, it's part of discourse on the internet and it leaves us lacking an actual conversation about exactly why something like the above matters.

My €0.02 on the matter anywho

meeeeh

But what is the point of Internet if you can't call people idiots.

I haven't got much sympathy for arguments against Internet policing. The loolas against vacation are getting traction, anti global warming are still spluttering nonsense (btw BBC finally decided that they don't need to give them 50% of the time because their drivel can't be considered equal to scientific research). You have chauvinist websites that people often complain against. The thing is if you consider every opinion of equal merit, you soon find out that thise who shout the loudest get the most attention. The hate speech especially should be policed (don't tell me to just ignore it), other stuff can be left but don't expect me to respect every nonsense opinion that is out there.

Shakespeare's Sister

I don't mind a company concerned with image having a dress code of non flat shoes, but not high heels. Some people (myself included) literally cannot wear them. More elevated than flat, or a medium-height heel though, fair enough IMO. It looks smart, in the same way as a shirt and tie looks smart on a man.

rainbow kirby

...because apparently women don't have the right to informed consent when in labour any more.

rainbow kirby

rainbow kirby wrote: »

...because apparently women don't have the right to informed consent when in labour any more.

what the fcuk

B0jangles

That is terrifying .

Links234

What the ****!? :eek:

Dolbert

rainbow kirby wrote: »

...because apparently women don't have the right to informed consent when in labour any more.

Posted that in the pregnancy forum and got a 'sure they had their reasons' response

So many women have experienced similar in Irish maternity hospitals. As someone who will be giving birth in one in a few months, I've always taken comfort in the fact that I can say no to the interventions that I don't want, within reason. This ruling flies in the face of informed consent and throws us back a couple of decades to where we are told to shut up and do as we're told.

eviltwin

rainbow kirby wrote: »

...because apparently women don't have the right to informed consent when in labour any more.

I don't really understand the article what does it mean in practice? Can't a woman just refuse a midwife if she suggests something the woman isn't happy about? They can't force her.