Feminism

lgt

Until there is a de facto equality between men and women I'm happy to take a stand out from the general support of humanistic rights and be labelled as a feminist.

And that it is, on a very practical level, until a woman in the workplace get the same economic treatment as a man for an equal position and merit, or the same career opportunities even if stopping for maternity leave, etc.

This is without even considering the abuses that happen around the world with forced female circumcision, etc.

VictoryGin

lgt wrote:

Until there is a de facto equality between men and women I'm happy to take a stand out from the general support of humanistic rights and be labelled as a feminist.

And that it is, on a very practical level, until a woman in the workplace get the same economic treatment as a man for an equal position and merit, or the same career opportunities even if stopping for maternity leave, etc.

This is without even considering the abuses that happen around the world with forced female circumcision, etc.

you said it.

decides2dream

angelica wrote:

Definitely. And yet, people do associate actions with the group or person acting them out, or with the philosophy they stem from. Whether it's priests acting questionably; feminists; horse-trainers...or what-have-you.

Such associations cannot minimize the valid purposes of the philosophy, but they do associate a bad name with the mindset.

yes.
my point was tho, women behving in such a fashion may or may not be 'feminists' at all....and just behaving that way, period, b/c it is their personal mindset. the fact that they are women doing so should not necessarily or automatically be labelled 'feminist' nor looked upon as a reflection on feminism.




lgt - excellent points!
you got there far better. haha. i DO believe one can be a feminist ANd a humanitarian, and one identifying themselves as a feminist in no way diminishes the other. there are plenty of people walking this earth who most certainly are NOT humanitarians, so i certainly elieve it's well within rights to differentiate the two, and identify with the two, if one so chooses. i am a strong supporter of BOTH....but i DO think it is necessary to focus on women's issues all on their own oftentimes.

lgt

VictoryGin wrote:

you said it.

I think there is definitely a power structure and socio-economic level to consider as well in the whole men/women equal rights dynamic.

It's not just a question of an individual woman rights and her ability to be treated with respect and equally.

It's more than that, if you see what I mean.

But I guess, that might be too reminiscent of the 60s and collective rights!

lgt

decides2dream wrote:

yes.
my point was tho, women behving in such a fashion may or may not be 'feminists' at all....and just behaving that way, period, b/c it is their personal mindset. the fact that they are women doing so should not necessarily or automatically be labelled 'feminist' nor looked upon as a reflection on feminism.




lgt - excellent points!
you got there far better. haha. i DO believe one can be a feminist ANd a humanitarian, and one identifying themselves as a feminist in no way diminishes the other. there are plenty of people walking this earth who most certainly are NOT humanitarians, so i certainly elieve it's well within rights to differentiate the two, and identify with the two, if one so chooses. i am a strong supporter of BOTH....but i DO think it is necessary to focus on women's issues all on their own oftentimes.

Indeed!

And I guess, the more the term is discredited the more it becomes appealing to me in light of the history of the women's movement and the struggles they've overcome and still are to overcome - nothwithstanding certain excesses: it's not a dichotomy between men or women on who's best - to trivialise it somewhat - just equal rights and treatment across the board.

And as you point out, support of women rights does not contradict or diminish - indeed, I would even suggest enhances - support of the humanitarian rights.

angelica

lgt wrote:

I think there is definitely a power structure and socio-economic level to consider as well in the whole men/women equal rights dynamic.

It's not just a question of an individual woman rights and her ability to be treated with respect and equally.

I personally agree.

This is certainly not outside the bounds of humanitarian.

lgt

angelica wrote:

I personally agree.

This is certainly not outside the bounds of humanitarian.

Exactly, just another aspect of the same, if you will.

But until there is an effective equal treatment - in facts, not just principles and laws - I believe it does still make sense to argue for specific women rights.

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

yes.
my point was tho, women behving in such a fashion may or may not be 'feminists' at all....and just behaving that way, period, b/c it is their personal mindset. the fact that they are women doing so should not necessarily or automatically be labelled 'feminist' nor looked upon as a reflection on feminism.

I'm referring to women who are identifying as feminist, and discussing feminist issues.

Whether their poor behaviours "should" or "should not" be associated with the ideals of feminism, they are associated with feminism. One's poor behaviours cannot cloud the ideals of feminism. And yet the poor behaviours of those acting in a capacity of feminism, as feminists do taint the movement of feminism as it exists in practical terms.

decides2dream

lgt wrote:

Indeed!

And I guess, the more the term is discredited the more it becomes appealing to me in light of the history of the women's movement and the struggles they've overcome and still are to overcome - nothwithstanding certain excesses: it's not a dichotomy between men or women on who's best - to trivialise it somewhat - just equal rights and treatment across the board.

And as you point out, support of women rights does not contradict or diminish - indeed, I would even suggest enhances - support of the humanitarian rights.

exactly!


i think the term, and the movement HAS been discredited in some ways using such tactics...which is a shame, but it really in no way diminishes it's true and worthy purpose. also not to say there haven't been thoe who perhaps were overzealous in their personal support of the cause, but should be seen as the individual, and not discredit the enitre group or cause.....and that holds true for ANY cause. i personally see feminism as a positive and reaffirming notion, and hopefully one day there will be no purpose for it's existance, it will just be.

angelica

lgt wrote:

Exactly, just another aspect of the same, if you will.

But until there is an effective equal treatment - in facts, not just principles and laws - I believe it does still make sense to argue for specific women rights.

I am always for women's rights. Always. Equal. 100%.

lgt

angelica wrote:

I am always for women's rights. Always. Equal. 100%.

Oh yes, I got that I was referring more in general terms.

I think what fascinates me is the fact that feminism got a bad name progressively as women's rights were recognised in law [just talking in the Western world, at the moment] when in fact there is still a way to go for a true equality even in the workplace.

I was reading an interesting article the other day whereby in Wall Street at times of recession single female workers at the first to go, not to mention the issue of promotion to the very top level.

VictoryGin

lgt wrote:

Oh yes, I got that I was referring more in general terms.

I think what fascinates me is the fact that feminism got a bad name progressively as women's rights were recognised in law [just talking in the Western world, at the moment] when in fact there is still a way to go for a true equality even in the workplace.

maybe like how abortion became illegal around when women started organizing (in the 1840s and 1850s---seneca falls, holla!). you can see the pattern of backlash or restrictions when women made gains of any sort.

lgt wrote:

I was reading an interesting article the other day whereby in Wall Street at times of recession single female workers at the first to go, not to mention the issue of promotion to the very top level.

so sad. they were the first to go when the men came back from WWII as well.

decides2dream

angelica wrote:

I'm referring to women who are identifying as feminist, and discussing feminist issues.

Whether their poor behaviours "should" or "should not" be associated with the ideals of feminism, they are associated with feminism. One's poor behaviours cannot cloud the ideals of feminism. And yet the poor behaviours of those acting in a capacity of feminism, as feminists do taint the movement of feminism as it exists in practical terms.

gotcha.
thought you were referring to women in general.
none the less.....that happens with every group, feminists are no different there. the group judged, fairly or unfairly, by the actions/words of one, or a few, individuals. that will always occur in society.

angelica

lgt wrote:

Oh yes, I got that I was referring more in general terms.

I think what fascinates me is the fact that feminism got a bad name progressively as women's rights were recognised in law [just talking in the Western world, at the moment] when in fact there is still a way to go for a true equality even in the workplace.

I was reading an interesting article the other day whereby in Wall Street at times of recession single female workers at the first to go, not to mention the issue of promotion to the very top level.

What I see is that as women got more rights, they had more choice and with that, rather than being bound, they had the freedom to develop their own egos, unto themselves. With this authentic power comes causes and effects, as men have known through the ages! The more far-reaching our choice is, the higher and farther we "climb", the farther there is to fall. Like those of other sexes, some women have big, horrible egos! Also, the road to empowerment and human awakening is reliant on developing the ego. And therefore the costs become bigger as we go. Ultimately, this is the same reason the "higher" we climb, or the bigger our egos get, the healthier they can also get...we start to recognize the big causes and big effects of our actions and naturally temper our own behaviour. Power entails responsibility. Power without responsibility is not authentic power...it is inauthentic power.

I'm personally not willing to go into systems and use the government and law to take away the rights of others in order to give women more rights. To me, the issue of rights if far more fundamental to that. I have the right to work within natural laws to create what I want, as long as I don't infringe on anyone. And I can not deny that right to a man or one who owns a business.

To me, it becomes convoluted and redundant to get a job, essentially agreeing to the terms with the employer, to at some point bring in a third party of inauthentic power, to muscle my employer (infringement) into forcibly having to pay me more.

To me, the flawed contradictory principles therein indicate to me that there is fallout for doing so.

To me, I believe in creating empowerment in individuals and in power structures all over the world, in full force, meaning without using self-undermining negative actions. Therefore I focus on the empowerment I create and freely create. I am able to do so, because I am not caught up in power struggles, and the negative consequences of my own making.

Peace.

lgt

VictoryGin wrote:

maybe like how abortion became illegal around when women started organizing (in the 1840s and 1850s---seneca falls, holla!). you can see the pattern of backlash or restrictions when women made gains of any sort.


so sad. they were the first to go when the men came back from WWII as well.

And that's why I feel there is still a long way to go before it can be claimed there is true equality.

I also come from a country which traditionally reflects a more macho culture than the anglo-saxon world.

Just to give you a very recent example.

The criticism levelled at the opposition during the last political elections was to claim that all women on the centre-left coalition are ugly and thus unelectable; while the women then appointed in posts as junior ministers happened to be former starlet of the Prime Ministers TV channels!! or indeed, used as pawns in order to have the previous government fall during a decisive vote in the Senate by literally pimping them out to a particular Senator so that he could vote against it.

And thanks I did not know about Seneca Falls until I read your post.

Collin

I'm not a feminist. I'm a person who wants equal rights for all.


I received this in an e-mail from a (feminist) friend:

250 million women in the EU. Not a single one good enough?

During the coming 12 months, four politicians will be appointed as leaders of the European Union. For fifty years now, the picture of European political leadership has remained the same. It is time for a change. International top posts should always go to the most competent candidate. There are 250 million women in Europe; it should not be too hard to find qualified candidates among all these.

If you wish to see at least one female appointed as leader of the European Union, sign here.

http://www.femalesinfront.eu/default.asp?view=front&lang=gb

I have mixed feelings about this. They contradict themselves here. They say they want the most competent candidate to get the post, yet they want at least one female candidate. By that they're saying they want the positions to go to the four most competent candidates unless the four most qualified candidates are male.

decides2dream

Collin wrote:

I'm not a feminist. I'm a person who wants equal rights for all.


I received this in an e-mail from a (feminist) friend:


http://www.femalesinfront.eu/default.asp?view=front&lang=gb

I have mixed feelings about this. They contradict themselves here. They say they want the most competent candidate to get the post, yet they want at least one female candidate. By that they're saying they want the positions to go to the four most competent candidates unless the four most qualified candidates are male.

didn't read your link, just your post...and i get your point, and i get theirs too. i don't think - from what you posted anyway -they are saying they wouldn't want the most qualified candidates if they were all male, just more like....do you really think it WOULD be all male? is there not the possibility that there could be a female up to the task? and maybe that female candidates are not be equally screened/considered? that's all. i would NOT want a candidate based simply on gender....race...religion...etc. however, they doesn't mean i wouldn't really want a female president for example. hillary wasn't the right woman in my mind, but i am happy she did run...and hopefully in the future we WILL have a female presidnet, b/c she happens to be the right candidate at the time. i'd love to be alive to see it, and if not...just hope it happens in the future.

Collin

decides2dream wrote:

didn't read your link, just your post...and i get your point, and i get theirs too. i don't think - from what you posted anyway -they are saying they wouldn't want the most qualified candidates if they were all male, just more like....do you really think it WOULD be all male? is there not the possibility that there could be a female up to the task? and maybe that female candidates are not be equally screened/considered? that's all. i would NOT want a candidate based simply on gender....race...religion...etc. however, they doesn't mean i wouldn't really want a female president for example. hillary wasn't the right woman in my mind, but i am happy she did run...and hopefully in the future we WILL have a female presidnet, b/c she happens to be the right candidate at the time. i'd love to be alive to see it, and if not...just hope it happens in the future.

It doesn't matter if I think the most qualified candidates would be all male. Their petition says: "If you wish to see at least one female appointed as leader of the European Union, sign here." No, I don't want at least one female appointed as leader, I want the most qualified, whether they are all women or all men or any combination, I don't care. The most qualified is the most qualified.

But I do get their point, I don't agree with their method.

lgt

angelica wrote:

What I see is that as women got more rights, they had more choice and with that, rather than being bound, they had the freedom to develop their own egos, unto themselves. With this authentic power comes causes and effects, as men have known through the ages! The more far-reaching our choice is, the higher and farther we "climb", the farther there is to fall. Like those of other sexes, some women have big, horrible egos! Also, the road to empowerment and human awakening is reliant on developing the ego. And therefore the costs become bigger as we go. Ultimately, this is the same reason the "higher" we climb, or the bigger our egos get, the healthier they can also get...we start to recognize the big causes and big effects of our actions and naturally temper our own behaviour. Power entails responsibility. Power without responsibility is not authentic power...it is inauthentic power.

I'm personally not willing to go into systems and use the government and law to take away the rights of others in order to give women more rights. To me, the issue of rights if far more fundamental to that. I have the right to work within natural laws to create what I want, as long as I don't infringe on anyone. And I can not deny that right to a man or one who owns a business.

To me, it becomes convoluted and redundant to get a job, essentially agreeing to the terms with the employer, to at some point bring in a third party of inauthentic power, to muscle my employer (infringement) into forcibly having to pay me more.

To me, the flawed contradictory principles therein indicate to me that there is fallout for doing so.

To me, I believe in creating empowerment in individuals and in power structures all over the world, in full force, meaning without using self-undermining negative actions. Therefore I focus on the empowerment I create and freely create. I am able to do so, because I am not caught up in power struggles, and the negative consequences of my own making.

Peace.

I agree that as women got more rights they got more choices as they were no more confined to the private family world as it were, but could become financially independent on their own.

And I agree you cannot paint all women with the same brush; same as men, of course.

But that's why one must have equal rights for all.

Man is a social animal so one needs rules and laws agreed by all.

If I understand your point correctly about enpowerment, responsibility and consciousness awareness this is on a more individual and personal level. And I agree with that.

However, for me that is not the whole picture, because of the inherent diversity in human beings - not all men/women are the same or have the same abilities intellectually, emotionally, physically, etc.

And that's precisely why we need external rules to ensure a level playing field for all. This of course would extend to rights for all groups that have been subjected to abuses, constraints, etc.

In this sense I disagree with your assertion that the law and government are used to take away rights to give them to women - if that's what you mean - because it's not a question of taking away rights but extending rights to those who have been excluded before.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by natural law. In philosophical terms, it was used in contradiction to the laws of society in the sense that man in the state of nature behaved in a certain manner [and according to your philosophical viewpoint could be good, in harmony with each other, or bad as in struggle with each other]

Cheers

decides2dream

Collin wrote:

It doesn't matter if I think the most qualified candidates would be all male. Their petition says: "If you wish to see at least one female appointed as leader of the European Union, sign here." No, I don't want at least one female appointed as leader, I want the most qualified, whether they are all women or all men or something in between, I don't care. The most qualified is the most qualified.

But I do get their point, I don't agree with their method.

i agree with that.

i guess while i could view it as completely black and white and that they ARE saying you just want a woman as leader of the EU sign here...i personally see it in shades of grey, simply illustrating the point that many would like to see a female - also the most qualified candidate - as a possibility. i also realize the petition is not worded that way, simply my inference.

i also completely agree in supporting the most qualified candidate. yet, i also see pushing for more qualified female candidates to be considered, etc. a part of the feminist agenda IS to push forward females in power, this simply plays into that. i'll agree the method may not be the right course, but i do agree with the ideas behind it.