Discussion UsefulNotes / Feminism

I addressed concerns about that section as well. I tried to edit it based on what little information I could find about it on Google.

Yeah, I did see that. Having followed the news cycle, the whole "rightly under fire" doesn't really sit right there with how there was a divide, and that the credibility of the accusation was found to be extremely lacking when research was done. It's a hot button issue, and the original edit was pretty clearly agenda driven judging by the original editor's other work.

Their comments on Jackson and the Heard/Depp situation were likewise....incredibly biased and ill-researched.

I'll leave it to your discretion, then. I am sadly under-informed when it comes to any of these topics.

Much appreciated. I'll give a bit longer to see if anyone else chimes in

Those additions were clearly done in bad faith.

Jackson is by no stretch of the imagination "completely proven innocent" and... well, given that this is an article on feminism, seems weirdly out of place to be mentioned at all.

The general accepted narrative between Heard and Depp is that they were mutually abusive. Like, courts have ruled that he is a wifebeater.

I'd also note citing Jackson is weird since he was accused of molesting underage boys.

Well, we should avoid knee-jerk edits based on current news.

In addition, Joss's feminist credentials may be questionable, but what the article mentions are men who "identify themselves as feminists or have expressed feminist ideas".

That's still true, even if Joss is a scumbag in other respects.

You're wrong, joss whedon is like god, and his works are great.

The second paragraph states that "there are some good points that feminism has raised", which (read within the context) implies that feminist anger has positive value, namely that it calls attention to necessary points.

However, I agree that there needs to be a stronger counterpoint to state that feminists are more than capable of happiness, humor and positive emotion, as evidenced by various memes, celebration when a cause has succeeded, and general promotion of self-love and positive body image (just to name a few examples).

Look at any of these Useful Notes pages, and you don't find a lot of hostile criticism. That said, some common criticisms are addressed.

I'm glad it helped. I'd actually love to find forums like that myself, so I tell you what...I'll take a look around and if I see something or some of my friends recommend something, I'll pass it along.

I'll also see if I can rewrite that section later. Right now, it's too late for my brain to work properly.

I half agree. Troping Brock Turner is flat out against the rules, but the article is about feminism as explained by feminists. The use of "Jerkass Has a Point" here is relevant to that, because it explains that while feminists typically come across as angry harpies, they come across that way because many of them focus on the message and not the delivery.

At most, though, we could maybe remove the pot holes but keep the rest of the wording relatively unchanged.

Point that they "has a point" really sounds closer to advocating than explaining. Out of note, the paragraph also includes a link to Crapsack World, other NRLEP trope.

Then we get rid of that pothole.

And really, if we're going to argue over whether or not the page is "advocating" instead of "explaining", then we should argue if the entire page needs rewriting. My understanding was that this was a page about feminism because in current political climate, it's one of the most misunderstood topics.

I can see where you're coming from with "has a point" leaning too much toward advocacy, but I'm also worried about general anti-feminist and MRA-style false equivalence being snuck into the article. The mods here have said, on numerous occasions, that they consider that line of argument to be hate speech, which is why I'm really concerned here.

EDIT: Oh. I see most of those edits were already made, with Nubian keeping the "has a point" wording. Like I said, I think we can get rid of that, too, but I'm fine with most of the current writing.

I think the "has a point" or "have a point" wording could stand to go (although it's not too big a deal for me). The Brock Turner case probably shouldn't be mentioned at all; if it absolutely has to be, accusing the judge of "explicitly wanting to avoid a harsh punishment" (implying he ruled the way he did for no reason other than For the Evulz) can't stay. I think it would be best if we simply say that feminists argue too many rapists get away with their crimes and sexual assault isn't taken seriously enough.

Uh, no...For the Evulz has nothing to do with it. The judge in the Brock Turner case specifically said that he gave him a short term because "a prison term would have a severe impact on him". Stating that the judge wanted to avoid giving him a harsh punishment is the kindness, most neutral terms I could think of.

My position is that the Brock Turner case should stay because it gives a concrete example of what feminists argue rather than "some feminists believe X".

If the rest of the article doesn't need specific examples, I don't see why this one section does. I also think the article will look dated a few years from now once Brock Turner no longer has the name recognition he used to, but that's not really a big deal.

Anyway, do what you think you should.

Nevermind. I'll stay out of it.

I'd tend to agree with Robotnik that citing a specific example is a bad idea; it invites niggling debates over the details of the example, and it doesn't fit stylistically with a page that otherwise sticks to broad generalities and a "less is more" philosophy.

I honestly think that's been a mistake, to be frank.

But, it seems I'm outnumbered.

I don't think so. Why? Who says that? Also, those are two different things.

That is what it says on the page. Intersectional feminism is made synonymous with anarchafeminism.

I see. Well, feel free to edit it.

Agreed, a better ending for the article and doesn't seem to be overtly pushing for one side of the issue.

So covertly pushing for one side is better?

The article as a whole is already quite booster-ish toward feminism. Some amount of bias is probably unavoidable, since those who are the most knowledgeable are also likely those who have some sort of strong personal opinion on the matter, but closing with (paraphrased) "To learn more about feminism and how you too can fight the good fight, check your local library!" is a bit beyond the pale.

I don't see why it needs to end with a call to action at all. It's "useful notes," not "persuasive essay."

The term "fight" seemed to refer to understanding the issue more thoroughly. And I don't see how heading to a library in order to do so is a bad thing (in fact, this and many other pages on the wiki could do with a "further reading" section at the end)

I admit that using the term "fight" to mean "understanding the word 'feminism'" is a weird usage and not a good idea. That should be rephrased.

This wiki is made of words with occasional pictures, so the words that we use, and the connotations they acquire, matter a great deal. In my time on this wiki (which is a lot of time) it seems to me that a lot of confusion and negativity lingers around areas of feminist discourse. For instance, somehow the trope Real Women Never Wear Dresses is both the idea that "an appealing woman is strong in a stereotypically masculine way," and a spirited reaction against that same idea. Reading through the entries is the intellectual equivalent of a ping-pong match. And for the readers of this page, I thought that a little note clarifying that feminism and gender roles are divisive topics, and hard to sort through, would be a good call — it would be "useful," so to speak.

Also, I really like the idea of a fleshed out "further reading" section, for this page and for others.

I understand the impulse to want to do that, and in a Useful Notes page about a more neutral topic it would probably be perfectly harmless and at least somewhat useful.

In such a politically-charged and divisive topic as feminism, though, I think you'd have a helluva rough time compiling a list of texts— or indeed, finding any single text— so universally accepted as both authoritative and unbiased that you could advocate it as recommended reading without pissing somebody off. And even if you could, compiling such a list is far beyond the scope of a pop culture wiki.

I really think this is one of those situations where less is more.

[Post deleted - I can't see this getting anywhere]

Isn't it sexist to not want feminism advocated?

Okay, thanks for coming, but real feminists disagree with you so enjoy your ban for your vandalism.

"Real feminists" do not necessarily disagree with Misandristextreme. Indeed, radical feminism argues precisely that men should not identify as feminists for the reasons now listed on the main feminism page. Hell, I'm one of those radical feminists. That said, I don't know how Misandristextreme supposedly "vandalized" the page, so it's entirely possible that what she wrote was completely disconnected from radical feminist theory and may have just been angry ranting. My point in leaving this comment is just to make clear that some feminists do believe that men should not identify as feminists.

not only "some feminists believe men should not identify as feminists" but also this is a fact, regardless of whether we're talking about liberal or radical feminists. feminism is a WOMEN'S movement and struggle, WE are its protagonists and cis men have nothing to do with it; men are not allowed to identify themselves as feminists because they will never live the reality of being a woman in a patriarchal society. and there is no such thing as "real feminist", especially coming from a male mouth/fingers. I'll be fixing this page, by the way.

That'll get you in trouble, mate. We don't like people going on crusades on this wiki and not every feminist thinks that men should be excluded. Feminism is not a monolithic opinion.

it's not a matter of "being excluded". men may identify themselves as PRO-feminists, should support our struggle and must combat sexism inside male-dominated spaces. what they can't is be regarded as feminists: feminism is about women and only women. it's a matter of knowing their place — ALLIES, not protagonists. we'd be happy to accept cis men into the movement under these terms. (and this isn't a crusade, I'm explaining to you how feminism works.)

No, you're explaining how your particular brand of feminism works. Which is fine, but not all self-identified feminists agree with you about these things. Therefore it's fine to ensure that the article is clear that many feminists feel the way that you do, but it's wrong to reword it so as to imply that anyone who disagrees with you isn't a "real" feminist.

I don't tend to see very much proof that Feminists aren't like those crazy man haters. The only schools I've seen that make any sense and aren't like that are Choice Feminists and Freedom Feminists. And I know a very SMALL handful. In my personal experience there seems to be far more radical Feminists in almost all the schools in their own right, than the so called real Feminists going around and bitching out the Feminists screaming about MRA's who call themselves MRA's because of what they fight for. So until I see a rally of "real Feminists" going crazy and demanding reproductive rights, the right to justice and payment for when a woman ruins his career and social image with a 7 day later false rape claim, for men and women in the same speech, and condemning all the Feminists who go and complain about men like this, I'm in no place to believe that there is such a thing as real Feminists, or that the good are the majority and will make any difference in societies treatment of men and women. And women in the first world are actually being lied to about the so called oppression. 77 cents to every mans dollar is a lie. Only in high paying jobs requiring mostly skill does that happen, and it happens to all genders. And in regular minimum wage jobs, HOURS matter. So it's no one elses fault or patriarchy that you aren't making as much as a man who worked two times as many hours as you did. Patriarchy is seeming to be nothing more than a myth day in and day out. Why can't it just be that people shut up and stop trying to decide who's oppressed? It's because of that mentality that accusations of oppression even happen today when we are far from oppressing women. Only specific individuals do. And it's not patriarchy. Speaking of it like some movement by a collective of men is not only worthless, but just disgusting. It's these kinds of societal treatment of men, and expectations towards men and women (Like making men feel ashamed for having standards or women for not having standards).

Much of men's treatment can be boiled down to https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MortonsFork and any double standard involving men and women. Much involving one where men are being berated without warning or action being taken for such beratement, and being berated regardless of how they act.

It's like we, even the majority of American men, expect men to be two opposites at the same time. Like asking a the negative on a magnet to suddenly become a positive and vice versa constantly going back and forth making them change on and off again. To be a worker, and some person who can never be too tired to deal with drama. You can't bake a cake in an oven unless it has electric juice flowing through it.

And regardless of how women are not "allowed" to be in wars like men, even though they more than likely are in the West, just not demanded like men, or expected and held accountable when they don't take the same jobs men do for money like coal mining, what matters is what the people making these laws are looking out for. They are not looking out for men. They are looking out for the feelings of women by not holding them responsible for these kinds of things. Women are not held accountable like men are for the same offenses, if you can even call some of it an offense.

I also quite remember there being a choice Feminism tab in the school section. So there seems to be a bias towards specific schools of Feminism. Censorship much? Why would anyone remove that unless they were attempting to remove something they felt a bias against plain and simple? That alone should be bannable to remove a school of Feminism from a page about Feminism.

Most of our contributors (and much of feminism) come from English-speaking countries. That's why.

There may be cases where whether it's objectifying may be ambiguous. In those cases it likely depends on personal interpretation whether it is or isn't.

In an example such as the one you've mentioned, it depends on the context. Is there a reason for the character to be sexy? Can you elaborate or provide an example? There's a big difference between a character being sexy because there's a justification for it and a character being sexy in a way that makes no sense beyond appealing to audiences. Compare a character who may wear a sexy outfit because she's going clubbing and it's the sort of outfit she'd like based on the personality that has been previously established for her, and a character who is an action hero but is wearing an outfit that is sexy without making any sense in a combat setting. Compare, too, something like a character being established as attractive and a character who is supposed to be average-looking or ugly bing played by a conventionally attractive actress.

Overall, fanservice that ends up emphasising a character's sexuality to appeal to audiences, instead of the character being sexy due to a reason that makes sense within the plot, can lead to objectification and be very obviously intended to cater to the Male Gaze.

By the way, if you're genuinely interested in feminism, a good way to start would be by not making broad generalizations about feminism or treating it like a monolith and try to look at the reasoning behind something instead of taking it at face value.

A woman in lingerie during a sexy evening with her partner? Not a problem.

A lingering cleavage shot in a Carl's Jr. commercial? Problem.

It's like the difference between Watsonian and Doylian explanation.

However, you're somewhat correct, Rahkshi, in that some branches of feminism, notably radical feminism and separatist feminism, object wholly to sexy ladies, arguing that they are necessarily in support oppression and patriarchy. However, radical and separatist feminism began in the second wave, more than thirty years ago. Since then, feminism has moved on to the third wave and sex-positive feminism, although the other branches still exist, of course. So some feminists are utterly opposed to fanservice, while others recognize that it is sometimes appropriate and acceptable.

Ahem, that post is several months old.

Anyhow, discussions on feminism have this forum topic - the discussion tab isn't really the place.

@ Bored And Bored and Surgoshan

I've seen this kind of argument many times before, and I still don't agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that's used above, many would like to argue that it's "putting sexuality where it doesn't belong" except the problem with this argument is that it fundamentally ignores the fact that human sexuality has evolved a lot beyond things like procreation, and has already been found and projected sexual attraction in areas that wouldn't normally be sexual. All of these paraphilias and fetishes didn't appear out of thin air from a different dimension and invaded the minds of humans; they came from within us as we evolved as a species. I'm not arguing that it's fine to always have it be used in everything, whether it makes sense or not, but at the same time, I don't agree with it being restricted to one place and one place only either. The sexy outfit in adventuring/fighting is one such paraphilia(one that I admit to having), and I can offer and give in-universe reasons and justifications why such things are in it, but again, out of universe is always the big thing that comes into question; the truth is that no fictional character ever truly owns anything, because everything they had has been placed into them by the creator, and feminists have done the same thing regardless of reasons. These things always exist for the audience in someway, and when it comes to sexuality, however feminists and non-feminists use it, it still at the end used for audience appeal.

The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual clothing without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don't see why it can't be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it's turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don't agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.

@ Bored And Bored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn't stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It's even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I'm interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don't know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I'm trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn't mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn't mean that I can't still find things problematic in what they say too.

@Septimus Heap

My apologies for bringing this into the discussion, though I thought that such things were allowed, because the place is called the Discussion Thread. Anywho, as I've said before, my own issues with Feminism only seems to boil down to the parts of sex and sexuality, but other than that, I would find myself agreeing with them. However, because I don't have an issue with feminism as a whole, I won't bring it into the other forum, though if anyone still wishes to speak to me, I would much prefer it in personal messaging.

Actually no, Andrea Dworkin never said that, and neither did her friend Catherine MacKinnon, whom it's also been attributed to: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp. However Dworkin did say "Penetrative sex is by definition violent" as mentioned in the snopes article.

It's also important to analyze what Dworkin meant when she said that "penetrative sex is by definition violent." Dworkin and many radical feminists believe that so long as sexism and misogyny exist, intimate relationships between men and women can never truly be equal. In calling penetrative sex violent, Dworkin means to highlight the misogyny and sexism inherent in the very way that we talk about heterosexual sex. Heterosexual sex is commonly defined as the penis penetrating the vagina. The concept of penetration is incredibly phallocentric and erases women's agency. This becomes obvious when you deconstruct the sentence "the penis penetrates the vagina," as penis is the subject acting upon the vagina, the object. If we imagine in any given heterosexual encounter that it is the man who makes the initial move towards penetration, then indeed we can accurately describe the act as penetration. But what if the woman makes the first move towards what we traditionally think of as penetration? If she is the forward actor, is it not more accurate to say that the vagina envelops the penis? This turns the vagina from object to subject. Thus acknowledging that heterosexual sex can also be described as "the vagina enveloping the penis" puts both participants on a more level playing field and can lead to alleviate some of the sexism inherent in all heterosexual relationships in a patriarchal society.