I need feminism because...

GalwayGuy2

Also the presence of more women in politics might have the effect of reforming it to be more women (and people) friendly in general. Politics is not conducive to rearing a family right now for example and while there's such a majority of men in it, it is not likely to be addressed by men even if it should be an issue for them too.

Why?

Links234

upandcumming wrote: »

So you're saying the current representatives are not doing their job?

I think that would be an overly charitable thing to say about the current representatives.

fits

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Why?

Because they should have an equal (as possible) role in raising the children instead of working for 20 hours a day and expecting their partners to do it all!

And female partners are more likely to put up with this because of historic gender roles, male partners... less likely. Plus female parents who are away for 20 hours a day are likely to be labelled as negligent!

B0jangles

For those who reject the idea that women are unfairly judged against men for some jobs just because they are women - do a little research on how the numbers of women who were hired by orchestras, for example jumped once blind auditions were introduced.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/A94/90/73G00/

There was a 50% increase in the number of women hired in U.S. and European orchestras once the candidates did their auditions behind a screen, with no names given to the judging panel.

If you were one of the men who would previously have profited from the status quo, you could claim that this change made it harder for you to get a job, but could you really, seriously claim that the change was unfair?

I think sometimes men who claim things have gone too far in womens favour are simply unhappy that the status quo is changing and that they have to compete in a level playing field instead of having a slope in their favour.

Also have a look at the articles written by Ben Barres - a neuroscientist who was born Barbara Barres. He has written several articles about how he is perceived by his colleagues on the quality of his work compared to that of his "sister" Barbara (they are the same person).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060714174545.htm

B0jangles

The Corinthian wrote: »

To begin with, that's not actually true. Positive discrimination inevitably means that another group loses out. Now this may be fair, in that this other group had an unfair advantage, but it still loses out./QUOTE]
Dp, not edit, d'oh.

B0jangles

The Corinthian wrote: »

To begin with, that's not actually true. Positive discrimination inevitably means that another group loses out. Now this may be fair, in that this other group had an unfair advantage, but it still loses out./QUOTE]

Are you arguing that this is a bad thing -that a group that previously had an unfair advantage is now deprived of it and is forced to compete on a level playing field? If not, I am having difficulty seeing your point.

Also feminism can absolutely represent the interests of men. Feminism was born when a sufficient number of women did not want to adhere to the roles their society said were allowed for them. As a result, in western society, it is deemed socially acceptable for women to have full-time careers or aternatively, to stay at home and raise their children. It is still not easy to do so, but its not extremely actively resisted by mainstream society.

The same cannot be said for men. A man who chooses to become a fulltime stay-at-home parent is still derided by society because he is seem as taking on shameful, weak, female characteristics.

Men should be able to freely and proudly reject the standard expectations of their gender -they should be able to cry without fear of seeming weak , care for children without anxiety and care for for quality of life over income without being shamed for being lazy and weak, and god forbid, seeming female.

Feminism is your friend - all it will do is free you from corset-tight expectations of what you ought to be doing just because you are a guy.

clairefontaine

B0jangles wrote: »

The Corinthian wrote: »

To begin with, that's not actually true. Positive discrimination inevitably means that another group loses out. Now this may be fair, in that this other group had an unfair advantage, but it still loses out./QUOTE]

Are you arguing that this is a bad thing -that a group that previously had an unfair advantage is now deprived of it and is forced to compete on a level playing field? If not, I am having difficulty seeing your point.

Also feminism can absolutely represent the interests of men. Feminism was born when a sufficient number of women did not want to adhere to the roles their society said were allowed for them. As a result, in western society, it is deemed socially acceptable for women to have full-time careers or aternatively, to stay at home and raise their children. It is still not easy to do so, but its not extremely actively resisted by mainstream society.

The same cannot be said for men. A man who chooses to become a fulltime stay-at-home parent is still derided by society because he is seem as taking on shameful, weak, female characteristics.

Men should be able to freely and proudly reject the standard expectations of their gender -they should be able to cry without fear of seeming weak , care for children without anxiety and care for for quality of life over income without being shamed for being lazy and weak, and god forbid, seeming female.

Feminism is your friend - all it will do is free you from corset-tight expectations of what you ought to be doing just because you are a guy.

If it were so socially acceptable to either stay at home with the kids or have a career you wouldn't have these argumentative, disrespectful bloodbaths of arguments on Internet forums like this one between sahms and working mothers.

Secondly, if you really want a career you better choose a very supportive husband. This dependency can only change with affordable childcare.

Sure, men should be able to be sensitive souls who can cry and whine like we do, but the reality is women dont like that, even progressive feminists, so men and boys are caught in a ferocious double bind. Does feminism care? No. Should it? Of course it should. Why should it? Because the outputs of these double binds lead to all sorts of trouble for everyone.

The problem with aligning yourself with any ideology or group is that inevitably others are excluded and by nature turn into abstractions. They stop being real and then it's too easy not to empathise. That goes for any group, not just feminism.

fits

clairefontaine wrote: »

Secondly, if you really want a career you better choose a very supportive husband. This dependency can only change with affordable childcare.

Don't you think this is something feminists can campaign for?

fits

clairefontaine wrote: »

[
Sure, men should be able to be sensitive souls who can cry and whine like we do, but the reality is women dont like that, even progressive feminists, so men and boys are caught in a ferocious double bind. Does feminism care? No. Should it? Of course it should. Why should it? Because the outputs of these double binds lead to all sorts of trouble for everyone.

.

I actually have no idea what you are talking about here.

The Corinthian

B0jangles wrote: »

For those who reject the idea that women are unfairly judged against men for some jobs just because they are women - do a little research on how the numbers of women who were hired by orchestras, for example jumped once blind auditions were introduced.

You've just cited discrimination that occurred forty years ago, and how it changed twenty years ago, as example of current discrimination against women. Any chance you might use actual current examples in the West? Genuine question.

B0jangles wrote: »

Are you arguing that this is a bad thing -that a group that previously had an unfair advantage is now deprived of it and is forced to compete on a level playing field? If not, I am having difficulty seeing your point.

No, don't be daft; I'm simply pointing out that your claim that "equality is not a zero-sum game" is fundamentally incorrect. Realign rights, so that you eliminate an unfair advantage against one group in favour of equality and you that group will naturally be losing a right - it's all about balance, and that is a zero-sum game, I'm afraid.

Applied to an area such as parental rights, giving men equal rights to their children would inevitably mean that women would no longer enjoy automatic unilateral rights over the child and they would not be all but guaranteed custody, but would have to demonstrate they are the better parent to have custody.

Women would lose 'unfair' rights, just as men have elsewhere - which is why feminism has been very silent on this area of gender inequality. I can't actually think of a single example, at least in the last 40 years, of anything actively campaigned for by feminism that put the interests of equality over the interests of women.

Also feminism can absolutely represent the interests of men. Feminism was born when a sufficient number of women did not want to adhere to the roles their society said were allowed for them. As a result, in western society, it is deemed socially acceptable for women to have full-time careers or aternatively, to stay at home and raise their children. It is still not easy to do so, but its not extremely actively resisted by mainstream society.

The same cannot be said for men. A man who chooses to become a fulltime stay-at-home parent is still derided by society because he is seem as taking on shameful, weak, female characteristics.

Men should be able to freely and proudly reject the standard expectations of their gender -they should be able to cry without fear of seeming weak , care for children without anxiety and care for for quality of life over income without being shamed for being lazy and weak, and god forbid, seeming female.

Feminism is your friend - all it will do is free you from corset-tight expectations of what you ought to be doing just because you are a guy.

With respects, that's just waffle. You essentially cite an issue and that men should just 'trust' feminism.

So how is feminism men's friend? How has feminism sought to change attitudes twoards stay-at-home-fathers, or for that matter 'househusbands'? What effort has feminism, in it's apparent pursuit of equality, made towards reforming those laws that recognise men as little more than financial resources to their children and that give full control and custody to women by default? Absolutely nothing.

To date feminism has done absolutely nothing for such men. Some lip-service, maybe suggestions that men should be freed up to assist women in the care of the child (as long as the status quo is maintained), but that's about it.

So please do explain, without waffle this time, how "feminism can absolutely represent the interests of men" - when it does not and never has, and how in light of this - that feminism only represent one gender - it can honestly see itself as a force for equality?

As I've repeatedly said; if feminism is ultimately only looking after the interests of women, then fair enough; but if so don't claim that feminism is looking out for equality then, because that would be a lie.

B0jangles

Actually, you know what?

No.

This is the "I need feminism because..." thread in TLL,

not the

"Waste boundless time and effort defending/explaining the very concept of Feminism to The Corinthian for the umpteenth time while being fully aware that he'll accept nothing that contradicts his own preconceptions on the subject" thread

mariaalice

I am a feminist in the sense of human rights ( not just womans rights ).

There are a lot of contradictions in feminism that are often ignored, but that true of all" isms"

The Corinthian

B0jangles wrote: »

"Waste boundless time and effort defending/explaining the very concept of Feminism to The Corinthian for the umpteenth time while being fully aware that he'll accept nothing that contradicts his own preconceptions on the subject" thread

I'll happily accept a coherent and logical answer to the question, but so far all I've seen is various deflections, with no one actually addressing it.

If you just want to refuse to do so, then fine, but then it does put in question the credibility of the claim that feminism seeks equality if not only no one has managed to defend it, but are now even attempting to censor any attempt to question it.

And ironically that would not point to me accepting nothing that contradicts my own preconceptions on the subject, but you.

pharmaton

B0jangles wrote: »

Actually, you know what?

No.

This is the "I need feminism because..." thread in TLL,

not the

"Waste boundless time and effort defending/explaining the very concept of Feminism to The Corinthian for the umpteenth time while being fully aware that he'll accept nothing that contradicts his own preconceptions on the subject" thread

Very much so. I haven't participated in this thread or followed very closely but for me at least, feminism is a movement, a rallying cry by women for women which seeks for nothing more than for them to knowledge, value and respect themselves as equals in human worth.

It appears to be difficult for some people to accept still.

The Corinthian

mariaalice wrote: »

I am a feminist in the sense of human rights ( not just woman rights ).

There are a lot of contradictions in feminism that are often ignored, but that true of all" isms"

Should such contradictions not cause one to question the apparent fundamentals of feminism though? As per B0jangles's response here, there appears to be little appetite to do so; it's almost as it it's taboo.

I just get the impression that some self-identifying feminists want feminism to be about human rights, but when faced with these 'contradictions' circle the wagons and go into denial over it.

The Corinthian

pharmaton wrote: »

Very much so. I haven't participated in this thread or followed very closely but for me at least, feminism is a movement, a rallying cry by women for women which seeks for nothing more than for them to knowledge, value and respect themselves as equals in human worth.

Then address the question I've posed. If you truly believe what you're saying, you should be able to explain this apparent contradiction, rather than make some dismissive comment about how some people are 'unenlightened'.

pharmaton

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then address the question I've posed. If you truly believe what you're saying, you should be able to explain this apparent contradiction, rather than make some dismissive comment about how some people are 'unenlightened'.

you can spend the day projecting all these imagined slights against you if wish. The fact is recognising my own sense of worth has never impinged on anyone elses. There is no contradiction.

The Corinthian

pharmaton wrote: »

you can spend the day projecting all these imagined slights against you if wish. The fact is recognising my own sense of worth has never impinged on anyone elses. There is no contradiction.

What imagined sights? Are you suggesting that men suffer no discrimination? Or that a movement that claims to represent equality, but doesn't in reality do so, somehow magically does?

Your sense of worth has nothing to do with the question I posed, I never asked about it. Why is it so difficult to address that question?

If you and another party go into mediation, the mediator will seek compromise and give-and-take on both sides, to arrive at an equitable solution. If they only seek one side to compromise, ignoring where the other side should also do so, they're not going to arrive at an equitable solution - it contradicts that aim. It's literally impossible.

To reiterate; I am not saying that feminism should also represent men's rights, beyond lip-service and even if it means impinging negatively on women's rights if they are unjust, but if not it cannot claim to seek equality.

So can anyone explain this contradiction rationally, or admit that feminism isn't really about equality, rather than continue with these increasingly desperate attempts to avoid the question?

mariaalice

We do not live in an ideal world, any "ism" such as socialism, or libertarianism or humanism or Catholicism, all have contradictions, that does not mean they are "wrong" as such nor does it mean that they do not have something to contribute to human society.

pharmaton

To reiterate; I am not saying that feminism should also represent men's rights

your right, it shouldn't.

beyond lip-service and even if it means impinging negatively on women's rights if they are unjust, but if not it cannot claim to seek equality.

for men.

So can anyone explain this contradictory rationally, or admit that feminism isn't really about equality, rather than continue with these increasingly desperate attempts to avoid the question?

This thread is not about mens rights, if you want to discuss that I suggest you start a new thread.

you may not agree with it but it really is that simple.

The Corinthian

mariaalice wrote: »

We do not live in an ideal world, any "ism" such as socialism, or libertarianism or humanism or Catholicism, all have contradictions, that does not mean they are "wrong" as such nor does it mean that they do not have something to contribute to human society.

That's fair enough, and I don't disagree. And while you've come closest to responding to the question of anyone (if only because you've not tried to dismiss it), it still doesn't answer it, as it's a pretty fundamental contradiction and just because other 'isms' have them, doesn't justify it.

Do you not recognise the hostility by many here to even admit there might be a contradiction, let alone do anything about it? Or, for that matter, that others - who've not drunk the cool-aid - may also see this contradiction and this may just be behind much of the hostility against feminism you'll find, and not because they're unenlightened or just footsoldiers of the Patriarchy, but because they have a valid point?

pharmaton wrote: »

This thread is not about mens rights, if you want to discuss that I suggest you start a new thread.

Well, that's an answer, I suppose. As equality includes both men's and women's rights by definition and this thread, about feminism, is not about men's rights, then I can only conclude that feminism cannot represent equality, by definition.

pharmaton

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, that's an answer, I suppose. As equality includes both men's and women's rights by definition and this thread, about feminism, is not about men's rights, then I can only conclude that feminism cannot represent equality, by definition.

I suppose you can go away now then.

Feathers

fits wrote: »

So, I'm not saying its perfect, but can you come up with a better solution or are you happy with things as they are?

Don't want to turn the thread into one on political quotas, so I'll leave it here in the topic after this.

My opinion would be that they need to go after the causes keeping women out of politics - these were identified in research done before as 4 Cs - cash, confidence, childcare and culture.

Until these are fixed, the same barriers to entry apply to women that previously existed (and they apply to other men too). Quotas do nothing for these women who currently feel unable to
enter the process, they merely benefit the women already in the process.

Yes, its possible that when more women are in the Dáil that these root causes are addressed, but there's nothing that will be in their benefit to do so: all members elected will be people to whom these barriers don't apply, so by voting for change they're opening up more competition in their job market. It's equally possible for current TDs to make these changes (they have reports on what the issues are, they don't particularly need a female voice to instigate the change required), but they're equally unlikely to do so for the same reasons.

So I can see why the TDs in the Dáil want to keep what is essentially the status quo (again, apart from having to put Mick's daughter on the ballot rather than his son), with a bit of lip service to equality. I don't see how most people seem to think putting another dyed in the wool Fine Gael TD in office, but who is a woman, is any more likely to rock the boat, speak out on issues that aren't the party line or ignore the whip, etc.

Real change will come when people from non-traditional backgrounds enter the Dáil in real numbers & their voices are heard - single parents, unemployed people, naturalised citizens, etc. The barriers to entry apply equally to men in these categories (the 4 Cs above), and IMO, their likelihood to push for change in women's issues in general is higher than another ABC1 woman from a political family.

[/rant]

Happy to discuss it further though if you want to start a new thread, but otherwise I'll leave it.there.

pharmaton

Feathers wrote: »

Don't want to turn the thread into one on political quotas, so I'll leave it here in the topic after this.

My opinion would be that they need to go after the causes keeping women out of politics - these were identified in research done before as 4 Cs - cash, confidence, childcare and culture.

Until these are fixed, the same barriers to entry apply to women that previously existed (and they apply to other men too). Quotas do nothing for these women who currently feel unable to
enter the process, they merely benefit the women already in the process.

Yes, its possible that when more women are in the Dáil that these root causes are addressed, but there's nothing that will be in their benefit to do so: all members elected will be people to whom these barriers don't apply, so by voting for change they're opening up more competition in their job market. It's equally possible for current TDs to make these changes (they have reports on what the issues are, they don't particularly need a female voice to instigate the change required), but they're equally unlikely to do so for the same reasons.

So I can see why the TDs in the Dáil want to keep what is essentially the status quo (again, apart from having to put Mick's daughter on the ballot rather than his son), with a bit of lip service to equality. I don't see how most people seem to think putting another dyed in the wool Fine Gael TD in office, but who is a woman, is any more likely to rock the boat, speak out on issues that aren't the party line or ignore the whip, etc.

Real change will come when people from non-traditional backgrounds enter the Dáil in real numbers & their voices are heard - single parents, unemployed people, naturalised citizens, etc. The barriers to entry apply equally to men in these categories (the 4 Cs above), and IMO, their likelihood to push for change in women's issues in general is higher than another ABC1 woman from a political family.

[/rant]

Happy to discuss it further though if you want to start a new thread, but otherwise I'll leave it.there.

this is probably closer to reality than some visceral agenda with no distinguishing elective.

It starts on the ground with people who strive to achieve through their own sense of esteem and hopefully push the doors open for others to follow along with them, breaking down barriers one at a time. When a woman does this she is considered a feminist, she has fought for her right to be considered an equal. This is why I need feminism.

Playboy

pharmaton wrote: »

this is probably closer to reality than some visceral agenda with no distinguishing elective.

It starts on the ground with people who strive to achieve through their own sense of esteem and hopefully push the doors open for others to follow along with them, breaking down barriers one at a time. When a woman does this she is considered a feminist, she has fought for her right to be considered an equal. This is why I need feminism.

Was Thatcher a feminist then?

jaja321

Playboy wrote: »

Was Thatcher a feminist then?

Thatcher didn't help any women along the way. She pulled the ladder up after herself. She said she hated feminism.

pharmaton

Its true, she wouldn't have considered herself a feminist but she most absolutely was. But then that just goes to show, the idea of feminism has been contorted to suit different definitions, mostly by those wishing to believe it is just a guise for hating men.

fits

Feathers wrote: »

Don't want to turn the thread into one on political quotas, so I'll leave it here in the topic after this.

[/rant]

Happy to discuss it further though if you want to start a new thread, but otherwise I'll leave it.there.

.

I'm on phone now so limited in how I can reply. You make some very good points. Essentially we are talking about top down and bottom up approaches to the same problem. Probably a mixture of both is required.

Playboy

pharmaton wrote: »

Its true, she wouldn't have considered herself a feminist but she most absolutely was. But then that just goes to show, the idea of feminism has been contorted to suit different definitions, mostly by those wishing to believe it is just a guise for hating men.

So you can be an 'ism' even if you don't recognise or identify yourself as one and don't like the ideology? That's strange when we are talking about an intelligent and sane woman.

eviltwin

When this turn into a debate about political quotas?

There is still a need for feminism in Ireland if only for the fact that we have a large influx of women who are living in an equal society but within their own lives have no equality.

I'm talking about women from migrant communities, traveller women who should simply by living here have all access to the rights the rest of us have but because of the nature of their communities don't or can't take advantage of the opportunities the rest of us can.

pharmaton

Playboy wrote: »

So you can be an 'ism' even if you don't recognise or identify yourself as one and don't like the ideology? That's strange when we are talking about an intelligent and sane woman.

you may be conferred a saint several hundred years after your death if the church thinks you qualify.

ism', as you put it is a prefix derived from ancient greek and refers to an ideology of some kind.
Thatcher, as unwittingly as it may have been most absolutely represents the fruition of a feminism as an ideology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9979076/Margaret-Thatcher-ultimate-feminist-icon-whether-she-liked-it-or-not.html

The Corinthian

pharmaton wrote: »

you may be conferred a saint several hundred years after your death if the church thinks you qualify.

The Mormons can baptise you into their church, and call you one of their own, long after you're dead too. Labelling Thatcher as a feminist sounds a bit like that practice.

ism', as you put it is a prefix derived from ancient greek and refers to an ideology of some kind.

Suffix, not prefix. And I suspect that if she adhered to any ideology it might have been Thatcherism, oddly enough.

Thatcher, as unwittingly as it may have been most absolutely represents the fruition of a feminism as an ideology.

Thatcher benefited from social changes brought about by feminism. However, she also benefited from social changes brought about by socialism too - a century earlier, becoming British prime minister, without being a member of the nobility was tough enough, let alone the child of a grocer.

But this hardly made her a socialist, any more than benefiting from feminism made her a feminist.

pharmaton

you're just here to argue for the sake of argument aren't you.
Feminism isn't about mens rights, that should be clear.

The Corinthian

pharmaton wrote: »

you're just here to argue for the sake of argument aren't you.

Sorry, isn't there enough room on the soapbox?

Feminism isn't about mens rights, that should be clear.

What's that got to do with my last post?

Playboy

pharmaton wrote: »

you may be conferred a saint several hundred years after your death if the church thinks you qualify.

ism', as you put it is a prefix derived from ancient greek and refers to an ideology of some kind.
Thatcher, as unwittingly as it may have been most absolutely represents the fruition of a feminism as an ideology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9979076/Margaret-Thatcher-ultimate-feminist-icon-whether-she-liked-it-or-not.html

I don't think any saints rejected Christianity so that's not really a suitable analogy I'm afraid. I suppose what I'm really trying to get at is "What is feminism". It's something that you define in a particular way that allows you to label a person who claimed she wasn't a feminist, a feminist. It seems to mean so many different things not only to women but also to men that I think in fact it has lost all meaning and relevance in developed western countries. It has become increasingly intellectualised and with that increasingly divisive. I dont think the majority of women in Ireland need feminism anymore but the strange thing is that even if they say they don't they have a whole host of people telling them they do but that they just don't know it. In a similar way to my Thatcher analogy, feminism seems to want to impose itself on people who don't want it. Any good a woman does seems to be down to feminism, what about women who achieved great things before feminism came about? Are they feminists too? Was feminism always there but we just didn't know it?

I dont think it's possible to debate something unless we have a clear and consensual definition that matched peoples experience of it in the real world. It's fine to come up with some vague and all encompassing definition but does that really reflect what it means to people and how it is perceived by others?

pharmaton

Playboy wrote: »

I don't think any saints rejected Christianity so that's not really a suitable analogy I'm afraid. I suppose what I'm really trying to get at is "What is feminism". It's something that you define in a particular way that allows you to label a person who claimed she wasn't a feminist, a feminist. It seems to mean so many different things not only to women but also to men that I think in fact it has lost all meaning and relevance in developed western countries. It has become increasingly intellectualised and with that increasingly divisive. I dont think the majority of women in Ireland need feminism anymore but the strange thing is that even if they say they don't they have a whole host of people telling them they do but that they just don't know it. In a similar way to my Thatcher analogy, feminism seems to want to impose itself on people who don't want it. Any good a woman does seems to be down to feminism, what about women who achieved great things before feminism came about? Are they feminists too? Was feminism always there but we just didn't know it?

I dont think it's possible to debate something unless we have a clear and consensual definition that matched peoples experience of it in the real world. It's fine to come up with some vague and all encompassing definition but does that really reflect what it means to people and how it is perceived by others?

I'll use the link in the reference above to quote what feminism is as my own understanding is similar enough in response to your question, "what is feminism?" and it's relationship with Thatchers achievements.

For me, feminism is a simple concept: it is about women achieving full equality to men. It isn’t about hating men. It’s about breaking down the idea of genders leading to a natural set of roles...
..And nobody more than Lady Thatcher managed to do just that, before or since, in the British political arena....
...The Iron Lady may not have called herself a feminist, but her success, in the particular way she achieved it...

...As the Suffragette’s motto put it: “Deeds not words”.

pharmaton

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, isn't there enough room on the soapbox?

What's that got to do with my last post?

This thread is about "why I need feminism". You haven't come here to tell us why you need feminism but rather tell us why you feel feminism is irrelevant unless it has value to you.

The Corinthian

Playboy wrote: »

I don't think any saints rejected Christianity so that's not really a suitable analogy I'm afraid.

AFAIK, one has to be a baptised member of the church in question to be a saint in that church, as the theological argument (in both Catholic and Orthodox churches) is that saints are the ones who get to go to heaven directly without spending time in Purgatory.

The first and outermost circle of Dante's Hell was supposedly Limbo. He populated it with virtuous pagans, who would otherwise be in Heaven, except that they'd never been baptised. That's where he meets Virgil, who acts as his guide for much of the rest of his journey.

Anyhow, OT and yes; bad analogy.

Playboy

pharmaton wrote: »

I'll use the link as a reference above to quote of feminism as my own understanding is similar enough in response to your question, "what is feminism?"

For me, feminism is a simple concept: it is about women achieving full equality to men. It isn’t about hating men. It’s about breaking down the idea of genders leading to a natural set of roles...
..And nobody more than Lady Thatcher managed to do just that, before or since, in the British political arena....
...The Iron Lady may not have called herself a feminist, but her success, in the particular way she achieved it...

...As the Suffragette’s motto put it: “Deeds not words”.

And therein lies the problem I think.

The Corinthian

pharmaton wrote: »

This thread is about "why I need feminism". You haven't come here to tell us why you need feminism but rather tell us why you feel feminism is irrelevant unless it has value to you.

Firstly that is not why I first entered this thread; I saw someone make a claim about feminism and questioned this. If this is not permitted and we should accept such claims as articles of faith, then that's another matter.

Secondly, my response to you just now had absolutely nothing to do with men's rights or anything like that, so I don't know why you're accusing me of that at this stage.

pharmaton

Playboy wrote: »

And therein lies the problem I think.

I'm a woman, feminism has personal meaning to me and I've shared that with you as that what was set out in the question posed at the start of this thread! I still haven't heard why you need or don't need feminism.

Playboy

Playboy wrote: »

And therein lies the problem I think.

What, not reading the OP? Yes, that is a problem.

So why do you need feminism?

Try again

jaja321

Playboy wrote: »

And therein lies the problem I think.

Why is her personal perspective a problem??

pharmaton

The Corinthian wrote: »

Firstly that is not why I first entered this thread; I saw someone make a claim about feminism and questioned this. If this is not permitted and we should accept such claims as articles of faith, then that's another matter.

Secondly, my response to you just now had absolutely nothing to do with men's rights or anything like that, so I don't know why you're accusing me of that at this stage.

you got your answer and you didn't like it. I sincerely am concerned that you feel that feminism should represent you.

Let's be clear about this, being a feminist doesn't negate my ability to fight for human rights on a broad scale but feminism concerns itself with female issues of equality. If I wanted to discuss mens rights it would be more affable to have a better understanding of mens issues and go from there, but that's not what this issue is about.

The Corinthian

pharmaton wrote: »

you got your answer and you didn't like it. I sincerely am concerned that you feel that feminism should represent you.

I don't. I never said that. Also I neither liked nor disliked the answer; it was expected.

Let's be clear about this, being a feminist doesn't negate my ability to fight for human rights on a broad scale but feminism concerns itself with female issues of equality.

And if that's what you believe, that's fine. I said so - repeatedly. I don't object to that at all, but I do object to is when I'm told that feminism is about equality overall which is, if you look at my first post in this thread, is what I was questioning.

Still don't know what this had to do with my response to you on Thatcher though.

Playboy

pharmaton wrote: »

I'm a woman, feminism has personal meaning to me and I've shared that with you as that what was set out in the question posed at the start of this thread! I still haven't heard why you need or don't need feminism.

bluewolf wrote: »

What, not reading the OP? Yes, that is a problem.

So why do you need feminism?

Try again

jaja321 wrote: »

Why is her personal perspective a problem??

Well if you read my previous post then you would have some context. How can we have a discussion on "why I need feminism" when it means something different to everybody? Why not have a discussion on why we need post modernism... I'm sure that will be an equally futile and pointless exercise.

pharmaton

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't. I never said that. Also I neither liked nor disliked the answer; it was expected.

And if that's what you believe, that's fine. I said so - repeatedly. I don't object to that at all, but I do object to is when I'm told that feminism is about equality overall which is, if you look at my first post in this thread, is what I was questioning.

Still don't know what this had to do with my response to you on Thatcher though.

I believe in equality for all and feminism does not conflict with egalitarian principles but concerns itself with female issues of equality specifically. Therein lies the difference.

pharmaton

Playboy wrote: »

Well if you read my previous post then you would have some context. How can we have a discussion on "why I need feminism" when it means something different to everybody? Why not have a discussion on why we need post modernism... I'm sure that will be an equally futile and pointless exercise.

if it means something different to you then feel free to discuss it

The Corinthian

pharmaton wrote: »

I believe in equality for all and feminism does not conflict with egalitarian principles but concerns itself with female issues of equality specifically. Therein lies the difference.

That's fair enough. The only problem with this, I believe, is then that both genders would require representation in the interests of overall equality and this regrettably leads to an adversarial system.

pharmaton

Playboy wrote: »

Well you just proved his point then.. feminism isn't about equality, it's about one gender furthering it's own cause even if it's at the expense of the other sex.

ah I see.