Women's Issues

"Social justice warrior" is a very flimsy and disposable term that has very little weight behind it. I understand it's supposed to be something along the lines of being overzealous or overly concerned with social issues ^note  a lot of Tumblr users are guilty of this , but the problem with that term is that the "too much" aspect is so variable and easy to abuse that it often says less about the person it is directed toward and more about the person using it. Theoretically, SJW is a catch-all term for feminists and other types who go too far in their criticism, but in popular debate it has come to mean "someone who is saying things I don't like."

Ditto for "white knight", which is ironic because the term was originally used to describe closeted misogynists who feel they should be rewarded for treating women like royalty (i.e. "Nice guys").

False equivalence. Controlling language, and by extension, indoctrination, is not inherently bad. We control and manage language and thoughts all the time. There's a right way and a wrong way to do this. Public schools for children are a form of thought control just as cults and supremacist groups are. In the time I've studied language and gender issues, I've noticed that social justice groups with progressive objectives tend to emphasize language that is more inclusive in nature ("women and men should be allowed to work as stay-at-home parents and general caretakers alike) whereas groups advocating bigotry and justifying inequality tend to use language that is indicative of exclusivity ("a woman's place is in the home" or "grown men shouldn't cry"). Of course, any ideology is going to be making certain ontological assumptions. You can't avoid that.

edited 21st Dec '14 5:29:43 PM by Aprilla

So?

Might I remind that feminism isn't a word coined by "feminists" themselves. It was retroactively applied to the suffragettes and other advocations for overcoming feminine inequality. While yes, the movement adopted the term, the idea that it inherently was meant to apply solely to women is a half truth at best.

That aside, there being a lot of different ideologies attached to a wide movement is inevitable. For example, the Civil Rights movement consisted of an equally varied philosophy. Black Power, Black Militarism, Black Islam, Non-Violent Civil Disobedience, Back-to-Africanism, etc, etc.

No movement has a complete uniformity. It's up to allies and equally-progressive-minded individuals to find which groups they most closely align with and help them. Third wave feminism is specifically designed around the We ARE Struggling Together doctrine, and doesn't condone exclusion based on gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc.

Sorry. This argument just irks me, because it rationalizes a lot of innocent bigotry against feminism and women in general. The part Aprilla quoted alone makes me want to facepalm.

edited 21st Dec '14 5:32:58 PM by KingZeal

Ok, that sentence was formulated poorly, and I'll own up my badly formed point of view about language. BUT, don't deny the first (and slightly unrelated) part of that sentence about some feminists being transphobic.

That is good and I agree with it. Yeah, shouldn't have done the false equivalence thing.

I know. That's why I tend to not join or support ideologies. You have to deal with all those groups, and I don't have the argumentative strength nor the intelectuality to deal with all groups.

Then, why do they some feminists claim the word for themselves, if they didn't coin the word? And who coined the word? Men? Women who are ok with patriarchy? The media?

Again, I apologize, but I get tired when some people wanna tell me "how to talk", "what words you can and cannot say". Maybe my sentence quoted above was more of an emotional reaction.

I could try to argue with you that I'm not a bigot and defend myself, but I feel that I should go back to lurking. I've partially dug myself, and I'll reformulate some of my arguments. Later.

Charles Fourier, a Utopian Socialist and French philosopher, is credited with having coined the word "feminism" in 1837.

edited 21st Dec '14 6:04:54 PM by Sixthhokage1

The problem is that you've already involved yourself, and not just by opinions you've shared in this thread. As I said, the stuff you said are things often repeated by anti-feminists and misogynists to hamstring feminism. I realize that you are likely innocent of any malicious intent, but I doubt you formed that opinion completely on your own in a vaccum any more than the rest of us have. Thus, you've been a player on in the game without even knowing you'd stepped onto the field.

Besides that I'll just say that it's, realistically-speaking, not possible for any person to NOT have a horse in this race. Even choosing to ignore it and focus on other matters requires a privilege that not everyone can afford.

As for the term "feminist" itself, the Wikipedia article is a good place to start for info.

Most activists try to bring on equality and progressiveness based on their own backgrounds.

I am an ally to the minority rights groups, political reform, and other progressive movements but fundamentally I am a feminist first and foremost because I am a woman.

I fight for women's rights first because this is the one demographic I have first hand experience with therefore I can be of most use there. I live that. I breathe that. I am that.

It is more genuine and sincere for me to take that as my main route of reform while being an ally to adjoining causes then to try and tackle reform from a position outside of my demographic.

Huh, so Charlie Fourier was responsible for the feminist label.

You should read about that guy if you get a chance. Guy had some delightfully outlandish ideas.

As someone from a country that's been plagued with sexism on all counts, I say feminist ideas are very much needed here. My knowledge of English language(and subsequent exposure to English-speaking areas of the internet) opened me up to a lot of progressive ideas. So I'm very grateful to your internet for letting me discover and adopt them.

But the thing you'd see me advocating with the most energy and devotion is sex rights. Because prudery did untold damage to myself and my relationship as we both are trying to recover from it. We don't have a term for "slut shaming" here, but the act itself is widespread to the point that even though I'm a man, I suffered from it as well. I was relieved to see it isn't like that in other places. So at that point I was willing to accept feminism with open arms.

But then something else happened. The abuse of the word "objectification", using it against every single expression of sexuality ever no matter how untrue it was. Excluding and ostracizing other women for engaging in such expression as "self-degrading". Advocating and demanding the same kind of censorship America had back in the, what, 50s? What's next, feminists against abortion? How did it end up like this? How did the conservative moralists manage to make feminists, who are supposed to oppose them, fight for the exact same thing?

I'm speaking from personal experience alone, as aside from brief chats here and just reading about the ideas, this is the only feminism I've encountered personally. I'm torn, I want to believe that this is not the face of it, that it's not what it's supposed to be about, but I still see the ugly head of this pop up in my life often enough to be reminded of it. No True Scotsman can only apply for so long.

Objectification, in its primary form, is not actual sexual expression. Objectification is the reduction of a person, with all of our human imperfections, complexities, contradictions, and likewise, into a more artificial and simplified form for maximum sexual desirability by other people. It can happen in blatant or subtle ways, and shouldn't be confused for an inherently "bad" thing. A porn actress is a sexual object, and so is a girlfriend on a night she decides to roleplay and dress up to make her boyfriend happy. Neither of these things are bad on their own, but it is necessary to acknowledge that they are still "shaving off" portions of what makes them who they are to please someone else.

Some women (and men) can find this empowering (myself being one such person), but too often people want to think that this empowerment means that objectification is now either "balanced out" or that it never happened because no person (in their mind) can be an "object" willingly. But as I said, this is ignoring what it is for the sake of not tarnishing the positive aspects of it.

To give a comparison, think of something like child abuse. Imagine that a parent is emotionally or even physically abusive to their child, but in rapid fashion that abuse "sticks" and the child now acts and behaves exactly like the parent wishes, and goes on to have a successful life. Hindsight bias, as well as positivity bias, would argue that this therefore wasn't abuse at all, because it turned out for the best and the child doesn't see a problem with it. But once again, this ignores the uncomfortable facts to avoid tarnishing the positive aspects.

In regards to what sexism in our culture I would remove... it would probably be the stereotype that women Drive Like Crazy.

Seriously, I don't care who is making that joke, whether it is Desciclopedia, strangers in other cars, or my mother, it's not funny.

Court sides with mother who was on methadone during her pregnancy! She keeps her baby!

Ah good news for a change.

This story is fall from over, though, so I'm still hoping it'll have an overall happy ending.

Seriously, she was on methadone because of her doctor's orders. It wasn't like she was trying to go out and hurt her kid.

Looks like an open and shut case then.

In relation to the "what Feminist thing would you like in your life?" question, I agree with Quag:

• Women getting the same sentence as men for comparable crimes (assuming women actually get shorter sentences. I feel it may be something made up by MRA's)
• F on M rape being classed as rape in the UK, therefore carrying the same sentence
• Greater acceptance that women can be monsters and men victims. Kinda personal to me.
• Certain police forces in the US and other countries need to stop assuming the man is always guilty when called out to a domestic
• Equal pay between dudes and dames
• More options/support for working mums and househusbands.

I know we were only meant to really say one, but...yeah :P.

All of those but pay could be solved with.

"Remove cultural opinion that men are always stronger then women"

Or something like it, I am not the best with english.

Let's not start that again, please.

Sisters join suicide pact instead of becoming ISIS sex slaves.

More accurate, and effective fix would be:

• Stopping overly-harsh sentencing of men. Considering that this is a greater widespread problem, while I agree that in some specific circumstances women are under-sentenced, I hesitate to assume that increasing sentences for anyone, men, women or otherwise, is beneficial as a whole.

edited 23rd Dec '14 12:11:57 PM by KingZeal

If I'd change anything about equality where I live it would probably be about giving both genders and equal chance and attention in school, for what they actually do. Properly acknowledging their accomplishments, and properly addressing their problems. Not giving less attention to girls, not letting "boys be boys", and various other details. Sometimes that may take a more positive discrimination slant (like giving more focus on the gender with lower grades or more encouragement for the lesser gender in courses where they're underrepresented), but it should never be any significant slant that excludes the other gender, and actual concerns should always go ahead of gender, and the goal should always be to not need any special attention to gender at all (sex ed aside, partially).

Other than that, I actually agree with Zeal. Women Are Delicate needs to die. Messily. As does Men Are Tough.

If I could change anything it would be the media. Make the media truly inclusive, varied, and intelligent, and overall, feminist. In my opinion if we do that, most of the other social parts of feminism will trickle down, as a generation of kids will be raised with more even handed beliefs.

The problem is when you use the term 'feminist' people take that as 'anti-men' and that wouldn't get a hell of a lot of support even from quite a few women.

edited 23rd Dec '14 5:56:14 PM by Memers

Then the solution is to reclaim proper use and understanding of the term.

Or, barring that, demonstrate the ideas without attaching it to the movement.

When it comes to feminist invoking the imagery of anti-men, in my experience, it often results in goal post moving. You could soften your image, only do the tamest and most basic and fluffiest of feminist messages, completely stripped of the term, and people will STILL claim the same thing.