Feminism

Eternal Sunshine:

Oh lordy, I didn't mean to start an argument. I just think that the human race has so many bigger problems than getting middle-class women a 2% pay raise. I think most women, in America at least, are respected for thier actions and morals, regardless of the fact that they have a vagina. If femenist are going to work towards something, it should be to gain that same respect for women in 3rd world countries--something that I don't see too many femenists trying to change these days. I think most people are too concerned with thier own issues to realize the one's that might be effecting others in a far more destructive manner. Sorry to cause any arguments/confusion.

I don't think you should be sorry; I mean, you're providing a debate in a discussion forum, so it's a good thing.

Feminism isn't just concerned with getting middle-class women a pay rise; of course, feminists are concerned about the degradation of women outside of the western world. That's why feminism is still relevant, there are still issues which need resolving. You're right in the sense that women's rights are fairly well-established in the US and we would be better served to try and improve those rights elsewhere, but, as we've seen from recent world events, it's not good to try to enforce a certain way of thought on countries before they are ready for it.

Eternal Sunshine:

Oh lordy, I didn't mean to start an argument. I just think that the human race has so many bigger problems than getting middle-class women a 2% pay raise. I think most women, in America at least, are respected for thier actions and morals, regardless of the fact that they have a vagina. If femenist are going to work towards something, it should be to gain that same respect for women in 3rd world countries--something that I don't see too many femenists trying to change these days. I think most people are too concerned with thier own issues to realize the one's that might be effecting others in a far more destructive manner. Sorry to cause any arguments/confusion.

I mostly agree with Bloodraine, but I've got a few things to add:

1. The gender gap is a lot bigger than 2% -- think US women working full-time earning about 75% of what their male counterparts earn, and less for women of color. It varies across countries -- in Sweden and Australia, it's 90%, in Russia it's 40%.

2. Really? US women are held to the same moral standards as US men? What about blaming rape victims, most of whom are women? How about slut-shaming? Fat-shaming? Assertive women being labeled bitches or shrews? Women are routinely looked down upon for things that should have no attached moral value to a much greater degree than their male counterparts.

3. US feminists are not always going to have the means to work for women's rights abroad, and even those who do are perfectly capable of also working against sexism at home. Yes, recognizing one's privilege is an important part of feminism, but expecting all feminists to abandon equality at home to help women who have it worse abroad is just as obviously privileged a view as US-centrism in US feminists.

vaginasaurus:

1. The gender gap is a lot bigger than 2% -- think US women working full-time earning about 75% of what their male counterparts earn, and less for women of color. It varies across countries -- in Sweden and Australia, it's 90%, in Russia it's 40%.

Women working full-time on the same positions as their male counterparts, or just women working full-time?

vaginasaurus:

3. US feminists are not always going to have the means to work for women's rights abroad, and even those who do are perfectly capable of also working against sexism at home. Yes, recognizing one's privilege is an important part of feminism, but expecting all feminists to abandon equality at home to help women who have it worse abroad is just as obviously privileged a view as US-centrism in US feminists.

I think people just expect feminists to take actions in the more severe cases first.

^ I'm pretty sure that figure is what you get after you control for occupation, industry, etc. Here is a 2003 study by the GAO. They came up with 80% after controlling for those factors among many others, so I was a bit off.

You would think so, but it doesn't always work out that way. Sometimes it's not really possible to effect change in another country. Sometimes resources are more effectively used fighting inequality closer to home. There are all sorts of reasons feminists aren't perfect as far as the ordering of to-do lists goes.

On the whole Western-feminists-doing-things-for-women-in-other-countries: sometimes it's not as easy as, "Oh, let's go fight for women's rights in, say, the Middle East, or Africa etc."
You have to take culture into consideration. There are different cultures who still, literally, violently oppress women and although Western feminists may see it as wrong, sexist and oppressing, it isn't easy to turn around a whole culture. Even if every Western feminist banded together to try and stop it, it wouldn't go away easily.

The first wave of feminism started with Western women, so they targeted issues that were important to them, and fought for rights that they wanted. I would suggest it's only been recently - within the history of feminism - that campaigning women's rights for other countries has become prominent. We can't expect feminists to fix every women's rights issue in the whole wide world at the same time.

vaginasaurus:

^ I'm pretty sure that figure is what you get after you control for occupation, industry, etc. Here is a 2003 study by the GAO. They came up with 80% after controlling for those factors among many others, so I was a bit off.

But the study names different work patterns as the main reason why women -on average- earn less money than men, not discrimination.

the Abyss:

You have to take culture into consideration. There are different cultures who still, literally, violently oppress women and although Western feminists may see it as wrong, sexist and oppressing, it isn't easy to turn around a whole culture. Even if every Western feminist banded together to try and stop it, it wouldn't go away easily.

So we should let women be beaten by their husbands because it's their "culture" and because it's too hard to do anything about it anyway?

^ Um, no. From the conclusion:

Quote

When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000.

Differences in work patterns only partially explain the gender gap. There's still a 20% earnings difference that remains unexplained, and the GAO is not equipped to determine whether the reason is discrimination or something else.

Re: women of other cultures: if you have any suggestions for ending the oppression of, say, Saudi Arabian girls who are essentially sold as brides to much older men, I'd love to hear them. Keep in mind that as far as many predominantly Muslim countries are concerned, Westerners are outsiders who know nothing about their country or culture, and therefore not worth listening to.

But seriously, I believe Iran, India and Pakistan have their own feminist movements, and it seems reasonable to assume that other Middle Eastern countries have them as well. I think it's at the very least problematic to assert that Middle Eastern women need Western women to come save them. If we can help by, say, donating time or money to a group that knows what it's doing, that's obviously a good thing, but barging in with no regard for their culture may well do more harm than good.

(Note: I seize on Saudi Arabia and Islam as examples here because I just recently read these posts. Islam is not unique here; patriarchal religion can be found just about anywhere.)

vaginasaurus:

^ Um, no. From the conclusion:

Quote

When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000.

Differences in work patterns only partially explain the gender gap. There's still a 20% earnings difference that remains unexplained, and the GAO is not equipped to determine whether the reason is discrimination or something else.

What do you mean that the 20% earning difference remains unexplained?
:shifty
Doesn't the study say that the difference is caused by work patterns and other key factors?

vaginasaurus:

Re: women of other cultures: if you have any suggestions for ending the oppression of, say, Saudi Arabian girls who are essentially sold as brides to much older men, I'd love to hear them. Keep in mind that as far as many predominantly Muslim countries are concerned, Westerners are outsiders who know nothing about their country or culture, and therefore not worth listening to.

But seriously, I believe Iran, India and Pakistan have their own feminist movements, and it seems reasonable to assume that other Middle Eastern countries have them as well. I think it's at the very least problematic to assert that Middle Eastern women need Western women to come save them. If we can help by, say, donating time or money to a group that knows what it's doing, that's obviously a good thing, but barging in with no regard for their culture may well do more harm than good.

(Note: I seize on Saudi Arabia and Islam as examples here because I just recently read these posts. Islam is not unique here; patriarchal religion can be found just about anywhere.)

So because we're westerners it's really none of our business, we should let them solve their problems on their own?

kafka.:

What do you mean that the 20% earning difference remains unexplained?
:shifty
Doesn't the study say that the difference is caused by work patterns and other key factors?

No, the study says that differences in work patterns only explain part of the pay gap. After you control for that and factors like industry, occupation, race, marital status, tenure, etc., you're left with a 20% pay gap that the GAO can't explain.

kafka.:

So because we're westerners it's really none of our business, we should let them solve their problems on their own?

More or less. I know it sounds harsh, but honestly, I think the best course of action is to offer our time and money wherever we can, but refrain from speaking for and/or acting on behalf of (e.g.) Middle Eastern women. We're not Lawrence of Arabia, here. Expecting cookies and/or being greeted as liberators for playing the bull in the china shop is just... well, it's got skanky racial and exceptionalist overtones, and again, has a pretty good chance of doing more harm than good.

Bloodraine:

The Doctor:

I like the sort of Marxist approach to feminism - i.e. it is part of the great Maxim: everyone should be equal.

Does one have to be Marxist to believe that, though?

Ultimately, aren't feminists and Marxists trying to achieve the same thing (in terms of gender) - total equality of the sexes?

Yep. It's one of the types of feminism. Radical, Socio-Marxist (or something, I can't quite recall) and err...the other one.

kafka.:

So we should let women be beaten by their husbands because it's their "culture" and because it's too hard to do anything about it anyway?

Nope, and that isn't what I was saying :shifty

Call me a pessimist, but I don't think eradicating extreme patriarchy in different pockets of the world is an overnight job. Overhauling whole cultures - including our own - that are structured by patriarchy, and which exploit and oppress women, is not an easy task. So yes, it is bloody hard. And yes, it is worth fighting for. But I also believe that you cannot just barge into someone else's culture and apply your own culture to it just like that. I don't know how else to explain what I mean...

It's hard to apply Western ideals to other cultures because they're so different.

The Doctor:

Yep. It's one of the types of feminism. Radical, Socio-Marxist (or something, I can't quite recall) and err...the other one.

...Liberal feminism, post-structural feminism, libertarian feminsim... take your pick.
I'm sure there are also other types too.

the Abyss:

Call me a pessimist, but I don't think eradicating extreme patriarchy in different pockets of the world is an overnight job. Overhauling whole cultures - including our own - that are structured by patriarchy, and which exploit and oppress women, is not an easy task. So yes, it is bloody hard. And yes, it is worth fighting for. But I also believe that you cannot just barge into someone else's culture and apply your own culture to it just like that. I don't know how else to explain what I mean...

It's hard to apply Western ideals to other cultures because they're so different.

How do you manage to say what I mean so much better than I can every time? I am reduced to flailing about going "YES. WHAT SHE SAID." :XD

^It's funny you say that, because I virtually think the same thing after I see one of *your* comments :tehe:

I really don't like it when feminists are told what they should and shouldn't be fighting for. If a feminist doesn't want to get involved in feminist movements in other countries, why should they be made to feel bad about that? Feminists can fight for whatever issue they want, whether it be eradicating the cruel practice of female circumcision, or equal pay, or even equality within their own home. Feminists shouldn't have to always prioritise every single cause.

/rant :XD

^ Mutual admiration society! :mrgreen:

Me neither. It's not our job to prioritize according to whose oppression is most egregious and flock to their cause accordingly -- for one, that'd be pretty much impossible for practical purposes -- and being told to go worry about other, more obvious oppressions instead of whatever I'm talking about kind of reads like "shut up and go away, uppity woman" to me. Yes, it'd be nice if Saudi Arabian men stopped buying preteen/teenage "brides" to use as sex slaves. No, that doesn't mean I can do anything about it, nor does it mean the issue I'm actually discussing is unimportant.

And when it comes from other feminists it just irks me. I've always felt that one of the basic ideals of feminism is that women should be able to choose how to live their lives without fear of reprisal, at least to the same degree men are able to do so. If I do or say something not in accordance with my professed ideals, by all means, call me out on it -- but don't tell me what issues to focus on, or what to do with my uterus, or how to dress, or to what extent I should groom myself. These are matters of personal choice.

Okay, deep breaths. Rant over.

(Vaginasaurus: living up to her name since 2009. *lumbers off to chomp on unsuspecting herbivores*)

the Abyss:

The Doctor:

Yep. It's one of the types of feminism. Radical, Socio-Marxist (or something, I can't quite recall) and err...the other one.

...Liberal feminism, post-structural feminism, libertarian feminsim... take your pick.
I'm sure there are also other types too.

I haven't came across the last term. Hmm...

I'm all up for feminism. What people don't understand, is that feminism isn't about making women higher than men, it's about making them equal.

faerie.:

I'm all up for feminism. What people don't understand, is that feminism isn't about making women higher than men, it's about making them equal.

Thank you. A lot of people I know don't understand that at all.

I've been keeping up with various feminist blogs lately, notably Womanist Musings (relevant post here), and I've seen some ugliness from self-identified radical feminists -- specifically transphobia and the contention that female subs can never be good feminists, i.e. that their sexual inclinations mean they're inevitably submitting to patriarchy. Obviously, transphobia is just unacceptable, and the BDSM thing strikes me as the other side of the same oppressive coin. Sure, there are antifeminist and misogynist practitioners of BDSM, but the practice isn't any more inherently antifeminist than vanilla sex. (Which is to say, not at all.)

Radical feminism has contributed a couple of useful things to feminism as a whole, historically, and if this stuff isn't ingrained in radical feminist ideology I'd very much like to know. Does anybody know if trans-allied, BDSM-positive radical feminists exist? Or radical feminists who draw on the idea of intersectionality? (Maybe that's unique to the third wave on, but a girl can dream.) Bonus points if they're on the web.

^That is one of the sole reasons why I generally distance myself from radical feminists. I identify myself as a sub as well as a feminist, and it shits me off that some feminists see BDSM as an anti-feminist/misogynistic activity. I can understand why they would think that, but I see being involved in BDSM as being part of one's sexuality, and I don't understand fully how that alone can make BDSM anti-feminist. Is it the faux-violence they hate? Can they not stand to comprehend women in role-playing sexual activities where she submits to a man, or men (or another woman)?

I've never come across pro-BDSM rad fems, but then again I've never really looked for any because I don't really like to keep up with what rad fems are banging on about these days. (Having said that, I have come across - quite a while ago - Gorgon Poisons, who is an Australian black radical feminist lesbian (and as self-righteous as they come).
She writes some things I kind of agree with, but in general I find her too aggressive. I can tell she hates men, and hates women who like men. She also does that annoying thing where she will sometimes refer to 'women' as 'womyn' or 'wimmin'. And that's just plain annoying. Anyway, she's anti-BDSM I think... which is why she also annoys me) [/tangent]

It makes me wonder what anti-BDSM feminists think of Dominant females in the BDSM community. Or switches, even. Do they have a problem with that? Or do they just have a problem with poor little female subs like me? :file:

I could go on all day about how much I try to disassociate myself with anti-BDSM feminists, but I'd probably just end up repeating myself. Usually these same feminists are anti-pornography as well - which generally doesn't piss me off as much though.

I think intersectionality is a relatively 'new' theory, despite the fact that it was coined in, what - the 1970s? 80s? I can't remember exactly, but I know we touched on it when I studied women's studies a few years ago. I must say I don't know an awful lot about it, but I came across A Few Thoughts on Feminism and Intersectionality over at feministing.com. The piece mainly talks about feminism and white women, and it touches on how 'women of colour' feminist voices are usually secondary.