Feminism | Page 12 | INFJ Forum

Feminism

I'm talking about historical gender roles though (I reacted to the fact that you wrote "women had" instead of "have" in the paragraph I quoted). Men and women had different expectations placed upon them, but I think it's more accurate to say that average people were being oppressed by feudal lords and religious institutions than to say women were being oppressed by men.
Well, even in history, the narrative we receive aren't exactly 'gender role-free'; as these two great writers aptly put:
http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/psa-your-default-narrative-settings-are-not-apolitical/
http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured...attle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/

A sample:
But what about historical women in positions of leadership — warriors, politicians, powerbrokers? Where do they fit in? The ancient world provides any number of well-known examples — Agrippina the Younger, Cleopatra, Boudica, Queen Bilquis of Sheba, Nefertiti — but they, too, are far from being unusual: alongside the myriad female soldiers throughout history who disguised themselves as men stand the Dahomey Amazons, the Soviet Night Witches, the female cowboys of the American west and the modern Asgarda of Ukraine; the Empress Dowager Cixi, Queen Elizabeth I and Ka’iulani all ruled despite opposition, while a wealth of African queens, female rulers and rebels have had their histories virtually expunged from common knowledge. At just twenty years old, Juana Galan successfully lead the women of her village against Napoleon’s troops, an action which ultimately caused the French to abandon her home province of La Mancha. Women played a major part in the Mexican revolution, too, much like modern women across Africa and the Middle East, while the Irish revolutionary, suffragette and politician Constance Markievicz, when asked to provide other women with fashion advice, famously replied that they should “Dress suitably in short skirts and strong boots, leave your jewels in the bank, and buy a revolver.” More recently still, in WWII, New Zealander Nancy Wake served as a leading French resistance fighter: known to the Gestapo as the White Mouse, she once killed an SS sentry with her bare hands and took command of a maquis unit when their male commander died in battle. Elsewhere during the same conflict, Irena Sendler survived both torture and a Nazi death sentence to smuggle some 2,500 Jewish children safely out of the Warsaw ghetto, for which she was nominated for a Nobel peace prize in 2007.

I could go on. As exhaustive as this information might seem, it barely scratches the surface. But as limited an overview as these paragraphs present, they should still be sufficient to make one very simple point: that even in highly prejudicial settings supposedly based on real human societies, trying to to argue that women, POC and/or LGBTQ persons can’t so much as wield even small amounts of power in the narrative, let alone exist as autonomous individuals without straining credulity to the breaking point, is the exact polar opposite of historically accurate writing.

And I don't know if comparing oppression done by social institutions with comparing oppression done by-- social groups that was supposed to be 'equal' is a prudent thing to do.
No matter how you choose to look at it, it's discrimination against men - just like the fact that black people receive longer sentences than white people is discrimination against the former.
I'm not challenging it. Again, your criticism here is fair-- there's a lot feminism (or, to be exact, white feminism) could do to be more inclusive.
Perhaps I wasn't being entirely clear. "Women are fragile and innocent little flowers in need of protection" was meant as a description of how women are seen by the "patriarchy" - not of how they're seen by feminists.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
When someone is truly oppressed, it's always possible to come up with clear and undeniable evidence that they are. Instead of simply telling me that my views are ignorant you ought to explain to me why it is you think women are being oppressed, and depending on what you come up with, I'll either counter your arguments or admit defeat and accept that you were right.

Um okay if we want to talk about the important things I can very much offer a lot of things based on one publication only (who is well known for their lack of inclusivity, for one thing, so I don't think they talk about ALL problems patriarchy gives to people across the world)

Or if you want to talk about less important and more subtle but nonetheless influential things like culture, sure?

On the (roughly) span of two months. :|

Also, this site.

And I haven't included men. /ugh One element of patriarchy and the current gender values now is that men is considered 'the default gender'; and thus the influence 'maleness' has to their situation ain't been seen a lot.

Does it say anything in particular? I have no idea. Surely the problems of the world are much more than this; more vicious, pointless, ruthless, cruel, prejudiced. Notice how a lot of these problems are set in the US.
But notice how much of these problems have a much more blatant gender component inside it. (Wage gap and workplace discrimination, for instance. They may be made by performance but how much of these are connected by the idea that 'girls cannot do science-y stuff).

Again, this is NOT a Misery Olympics, and I do agree with you that one side being oppressed or prejudiced does not mean the other isn't. Men suffers too-- but acknowledging the difference is important for solving both. I also personally believe that the answer is inclusivity-- to -include- men. not (as some people out there seems to imply) to -stop- women's work, under the assumption that 'feminism = men gets ignored waah waaah'; forget that women experienced more imbalance due to their gender.

Where I live, wages are determined by negotiations between unions representing employers and employees of specific industries, and there is full transparency. There simply is no pay gap. Sexual harrassment exists (towards both men and women, I should add), but it's a problem that's being dealt with. Filing a complaint is easy and straightforward, and if you do, it'll always be taken seriously.
That is wonderful! Where do you live, if I may ask? Is GLBTQ rights upheld there? *sparkly eyes*

Unfortunately the case is not universal >,<; AFAIK the US has one, Japan has one, China has one, my country never seemed to do a research on wage... :|
But I can see your point, especially in relation to suicide rates.
I know that feminism as an ideology is actively opposing the cultural norms that prevent men from seeking help when they need it, but what's needed is not a lecture on patriarchy - it's helplines, shelters, and crisis centers. Unfortunately, the attempts to establish those have not exactly received a warm welcome by any feminist media outlets I know of.Many non-feminist publications have indeed touched upon the subject of male suicide, but any serious attempt at tackling the problem has been thwarted by the feminist movement.
Yes and no-- I think?
As far as incentives for helplines and shelters and crisis centers-- that's important indeed. But why limit it for men, when women and GLBTQ peers are also at risk for that?
(we need to tackle at first the cultural norms and stigma against men to be emotional, or the idea that 'men are never abused / raped')

The less than warm reception is, I believe, related to the very simple idea of economy; "look, you have limited means, and you choose to support men !?!?!?!?" And it depends on many things; are gender relations much better in one country, for instance (For a country like the US to create shelters for male domestic violence shelter would be very, very different compared to, say, Finland).
And to some extent as much as your criticism is fair, the feminists also has a grain of truth; The way I see it the current politics is mostly between people trying to force their interest under a limited amount of resources, and generally speaking in geographical terms, women so far had it rougher than men, in terms of financial and security and sometimes even emotional and social aspects..
 
eh? :D mind explaining more?

Man gets mentally ill. Man looks for support. Man finds no support because a serious amount of funding and consideration has been spent on female orientated mental health charities. Man, as such, is rejected because he was not born female. Man dies. Why did he die? They all say it was his behavior based on patriarchy. He took the 'stiff upper lip'. An unavoidable tragedy. Isn't patriarchy selfish for a man to die and leave behind a wife and child? Solution? Money pours into charities concentrating on womens grief.

Eating disorders. Postnatal depression. Breast cancer. Rape. etc.etc.etc.
These happen to men.
These happen to people.
And yes, perhaps the numbers vary, perhaps in some areas they are less... but when you make these things a gender concern then you block out a lot of needy people. This shouldn't ordinarily be an issue, but when Governments sway to one focus without looking at the picture as a whole, the effects can be dangerous. If it's all in the best interest of women, who will fight for the interests of men without being deemed a scandalous patriarch? Who will? I feel if male and female feminists did this, to avoid bad seeds growing, then a very fair balance would be met. Mens issues and rights effect womens issues and rights, vice versa. Instead I have the impression many feminists enjoy watching such groups fail instead of stepping in, almost to prove a point. Sadly this is a problem in some areas of the Western World; the scales are tipping dangerously and people are falling through the cracks. Suicide is the most tragic and unnecessary example.
 
Man finds no support because a serious amount of funding and consideration has been spent on female orientated mental health charities.
Any examples? As far as mental health issues go, so far the attention I see paid attention for both genders.
Man, as such, is rejected because he was not born female.
Really? Really? o_O;
So it's not about the inability to seek help,
or a culture that stigmatizes men for asking for help,
or say, an insurance system that does not recognize mental health issues,
or a flawed mental healthcare,
but he is not born female?

Really? That's the conclusion you're drawing? That women received more help because they are women?

Man dies. Why did he die? They all say it was his behavior based on patriarchy. He took the 'stiff upper lip'. An unavoidable tragedy. Isn't patriarchy selfish for a man to die and leave behind a wife and child?
Wait, who said it was unavoidable? o_O;
Patriarchy can be to blame-- but who ever said it was unavoidable?
Who blames patriarchy for a man's suicide-- instead of whatever issues and hardships they had had in their lives?
Again, got any proofs or sources? Because I find it very close to strawman, at this point.

Solution? Money pours into charities concentrating on womens grief.
Source or any proofs backing this up, if I may?
Because from what I read it's more typical for grieving ones to be left ignored and unhelped.
Eating disorders. Postnatal depression. Breast cancer. Rape. etc.etc.etc.
These happen to men.
These happen to people.
And yes, perhaps the numbers vary, perhaps in some areas they are less... but when you make these things a gender concern then you block out a lot of needy people.
True, I agreed. And who said it wasn't a problem?
The ugly thing about it is, the issues weren't surfacing on a national issues; we still have a lot of anorexic men, abused men, men who suffered domestic violence, we still have them all silencing, unwilling to talk about it.
And because of what, again?

This shouldn't ordinarily be an issue, but when Governments sway to one focus without looking at the picture as a whole, the effects can be dangerous. If it's all in the best interest of women, who will fight for the interests of men without being deemed a scandalous patriarch? Who will?
So you are claiming... special rights? Men being ignored?
I feel if male and female feminists did this, to avoid bad seeds growing, then a very fair balance would be met. Mens issues and rights effect womens issues and rights, vice versa. Instead I have the impression many feminists enjoy watching such groups fail instead of stepping in, almost to prove a point.
Again, proofs and sources, if I may.

Not to be pedantic, but you are making a lot of statements accusing feminists, their attitudes, and their reasonings. I would really appreciate it if you can give an example for your beliefs, because as far as mental health issues are concerned, the feminists I see are very supportive and aiming for a better mental health care-- for everyone. Or at the very least, I never see them actively pushing men and their issues down "almost to prove a point".

Re: Men's rights, a lot of the reasoning men's rights movements are faced with hostility is not due to their points but because most often they come with the intention of shutting feminism down-- "forget about your women's issue-- WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZZZ". Which makes any goodwill brought quickly tainted, personally speaking.
 
Um okay if we want to talk about the important things I can very much offer a lot of things based on one publication only (who is well known for their lack of inclusivity, for one thing, so I don't think they talk about ALL problems patriarchy gives to people across the world)

Or if you want to talk about less important and more subtle but nonetheless influential things like culture, sure?

On the (roughly) span of two months. :|

Also, this site.

And I haven't included men. /ugh One element of patriarchy and the current gender values now is that men is considered 'the default gender'; and thus the influence 'maleness' has to their situation ain't been seen a lot.

Does it say anything in particular? I have no idea. Surely the problems of the world are much more than this; more vicious, pointless, ruthless, cruel, prejudiced. Notice how a lot of these problems are set in the US.
But notice how much of these problems have a much more blatant gender component inside it. (Wage gap and workplace discrimination, for instance. They may be made by performance but how much of these are connected by the idea that 'girls cannot do science-y stuff).

Again, this is NOT a Misery Olympics, and I do agree with you that one side being oppressed or prejudiced does not mean the other isn't. Men suffers too-- but acknowledging the difference is important for solving both. I also personally believe that the answer is inclusivity-- to -include- men. not (as some people out there seems to imply) to -stop- women's work, under the assumption that 'feminism = men gets ignored waah waaah'; forget that women experienced more imbalance due to their gender.

I never said women do not suffer abuse, but I don't think said abuse qualifies as oppression. Men are also victims - in fact it's much more likely for a man to fall victim to violent crime than it is for a woman. Perhaps I should have worded it differently, but when both sides suffer, I don't think one side is being oppressed.

I believe the only way you can acheive true gender equality is by working together. "Patriarchy" isn't a term I'm fond of because it implies that the status quo is being upheld exclusively by men, but I do agree that gender inequalities are, more often than not, caused by social and cultural norms. Women are traditionally considered quasi-children in need of protection, which is why they receive shorter prison sentences. However, it also makes it more difficult for them to be taken seriously in a professional environment. Men are supposed to be capable providers, which makes certain aspects of life easier for them, but it also makes it much more shameful for a man to have to rely on others.

That is wonderful! Where do you live, if I may ask? Is GLBTQ rights upheld there? *sparkly eyes*

Unfortunately the case is not universal >,<; AFAIK the US has one, Japan has one, China has one, my country never seemed to do a research on wage... :|
But I can see your point, especially in relation to suicide rates.

I've lived in several countries in Northern Europe, and they all have the same union-based system. I'm not sure what you mean by GLBTQ rights, but everyone enjoys the same legal protection against abuse and discrimination. Being gay is socially acceptable whereas being anti-gay isn't. That doesn't mean everything is perfect, but it's going the right way at least.

Yes and no-- I think?
As far as incentives for helplines and shelters and crisis centers-- that's important indeed. But why limit it for men, when women and GLBTQ peers are also at risk for that?
(we need to tackle at first the cultural norms and stigma against men to be emotional, or the idea that 'men are never abused / raped')

The less than warm reception is, I believe, related to the very simple idea of economy; "look, you have limited means, and you choose to support men !?!?!?!?" And it depends on many things; are gender relations much better in one country, for instance (For a country like the US to create shelters for male domestic violence shelter would be very, very different compared to, say, Finland).
And to some extent as much as your criticism is fair, the feminists also has a grain of truth; The way I see it the current politics is mostly between people trying to force their interest under a limited amount of resources, and generally speaking in geographical terms, women so far had it rougher than men, in terms of financial and security and sometimes even emotional and social aspects..

There are plenty of women's shelters where I live, and from what I know, the situation is the same in the US. The western world is already spending a ton of money on helping women. I do not object to that; all I ask is for some money to be spent on men as well. According to this article on domestic violence, the victims are, more often than not, men. When is the last time you've seen a domestic violence campaign targetting female perpetrators? Where I live, each municipality is required by law to fund a women's shelter, but there are no requirements to fund men's shelters. While women's shelters employ professional social workers and psychiatrists, men's shelters have to rely on volunteer work. I volunteer at a homeless shelter which also functions as a crisis center, and I have to spend all the money I earn from my second job on food so we can actually feed people properly. Had those people been women, they could've gone to a women's shelter where there's a surplus of food.
 
Trifolium- that is a most knit pickety dissection of a post. I kinda feel like I made dinner and you just mashed up the meat loaf. lol :tongue1:

My post is my opinion and experience and the 'elaboration' asked of me. I used a fictional example to raise a point, it was not meant to be taken literally. I don't want to give a real one because it's too personal for me, I've loved ones who have been effected. My belief of what is happening is in my last post. I am finger directing at something I think exists, and I think GKTR was right to raise it. I am merely bravoing the handywork of something that can apparently do no evil.

You've kinda assumed I'm not a feminist. Why? You think feminists can't be disenchanted with some of the attitudes displayed by other feminists in the name of womankind? Feminism is not static and deserves to be poked and prodded occasionally because it is most certainly not perfect.
 
Hi [MENTION=528]slant[/MENTION]. This post is the attention you are seeking. Enjoy! :D
 
Whoa. That's.....a strawman perspective, sir.
And you dodged a question. :mcunni:
 
Feminisim can never promote real progress as long as it promotes the notion that one's achievements must be compared to that of others.
Men, for the most part do not compare themselves to women.


How can anyone feel valued, respected, appreciated, or even simply IMPORTANT, if one's achievements are always being compared to that of someone else. Such an approach is disastrous among siblings, workmates, spouses, friends, and in every other area.

Does a particular model of feminism make you feel more assuredly good about yourself - as you are? If not, I suggest it is not worth pursuing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
Man, I really hate the black-power movement because it didn't look out for my needs as a white person. They probably should have focused on my problems as a WASP. Only then could they claim what they were doing as "civil-rights."

/sarcasm
 
[MENTION=1009]bamf[/MENTION]
If you ever find yourself unemployed, perhaps you could begin to offer courses on how to form moronic and asinine strawman arguments. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
@bamf
If you ever find yourself unemployed, perhaps you could begin to offer courses on how to form moronic and asinine strawman arguments. :)

I would, but I'm not very good at misrepresenting others' arguments.
 
I would, but I'm not very good at misrepresenting others' arguments.

I have to admit that you are probably right; you're not doing a very good job of misrepresenting other peoples' arguments, and you're doing an even worse job of constructing an argument of your own. Next time, instead of posting something utterly useless, you should try to explain to the rest of us what your opinion is and why you have it.

Not a single person in this thread has argued that the Black Power movement should have been inclusive of white people. The Black Power movement existed at a time where black people were undoubtedly oppressed, and where white people were legally entitled to privileges black people did not have. Did white people receive sentences that were 63 percent longer than those black people received for the exact same crime? Did white people fall victim to the same crime as black people just as often only to find that their suffering was neglected and that the effort spent on tackling the problem was directed almost exclusively at black people? I don't think so.

Women aren't forced to give up their seat to men when riding the bus, and they're not banned from public libraries and theatres. Hell, they aren't even forced to eat their lunch in a seperate room at their workplace. Comparing feminism to the Black Power movement is like comparing apples to something that isn't even a fruit. Perhaps the main difference between the Black Power movement and the feminist movement is that the former never pretended to be campaigning for the rights of white people (not that there was any need to, of course), whereas the latter often presents itself as an all-inclusive civil rights movement genuinely interested in advancing the interests of men as well as women. If you think for a moment, I'm sure you'll be able to understand why what you presented was a strawman argument and not a clever parody of what has been said in this thread thus far.
 
Men and Women are People.

*Fixed

I have to say I find it highly amusing that regardless of how much this forum changes, whether thats members or policy, it always very much the same when I come back for a visit.
 
I have to admit that you are probably right; you're not doing a very good job of misrepresenting other peoples' arguments, and you're doing an even worse job of constructing an argument of your own. Next time, instead of posting something utterly useless, you should try to explain to the rest of us what your opinion is and why you have it.

Not a single person in this thread has argued that the Black Power movement should have been inclusive of white people. The Black Power movement existed at a time where black people were undoubtedly oppressed, and where white people were legally entitled to privileges black people did not have. Did white people receive sentences that were 63 percent longer than those black people received for the exact same crime? Did white people fall victim to the same crime as black people just as often only to find that their suffering was neglected and that the effort spent on tackling the problem was directed almost exclusively at black people? I don't think so.

Women aren't forced to give up their seat to men when riding the bus, and they're not banned from public libraries and theatres. Hell, they aren't even forced to eat their lunch in a seperate room at their workplace. Comparing feminism to the Black Power movement is like comparing apples to something that isn't even a fruit. Perhaps the main difference between the Black Power movement and the feminist movement is that the former never pretended to be campaigning for the rights of white people (not that there was any need to, of course), whereas the latter often presents itself as an all-inclusive civil rights movement genuinely interested in advancing the interests of men as well as women. If you think for a moment, I'm sure you'll be able to understand why what you presented was a strawman argument and not a clever parody of what has been said in this thread thus far.

See, I didn't need to explain what I was saying; you got it. Comparing movements to better humanity isn't comparing apples to something that isn't fruit. It's valid. Many people are making ridiculous claims, and it's as simple as that.
 
Trifolium- that is a most knit pickety dissection of a post. I kinda feel like I made dinner and you just mashed up the meat loaf. lol :tongue1:

My post is my opinion and experience and the 'elaboration' asked of me. I used a fictional example to raise a point, it was not meant to be taken literally. I don't want to give a real one because it's too personal for me, I've loved ones who have been effected. My belief of what is happening is in my last post. I am finger directing at something I think exists, and I think GKTR was right to raise it. I am merely bravoing the handywork of something that can apparently do no evil.

You've kinda assumed I'm not a feminist. Why? You think feminists can't be disenchanted with some of the attitudes displayed by other feminists in the name of womankind? Feminism is not static and deserves to be poked and prodded occasionally because it is most certainly not perfect.
Very well, and I do admit that I am dissecting your post apart. I must say I apologize for the rudeness, but I will also add that I apologize for misreading your post.

(it does create a constructive, if a bit heated, discussion somewhere else, though; and I very much thank you for that :) )

I don't assume you're not a feminist (more like, I pick the argument apart as I saw it, so if anything the problem is in how I see things) and I apologize if my words apparently say something else entirely-- I will admit that some of your words does evoke a defensive reaction from me.
It was more like, while I readily acknowledge that feminism as a whole can be very uninclusive in regards of people of color, trans* people and men and a lot of other things, the experience I had so far have been very neutral-to-positive in that aspect. Lucky me >_<.

Again, my sincerest apology.
 
And you dodged a question. :mcunni:
I am! And that was a misreading from my part, as well! Whew.

Feminisim can never promote real progress as long as it promotes the notion that one's achievements must be compared to that of others.
Men, for the most part do not compare themselves to women.


How can anyone feel valued, respected, appreciated, or even simply IMPORTANT, if one's achievements are always being compared to that of someone else. Such an approach is disastrous among siblings, workmates, spouses, friends, and in every other area.

Does a particular model of feminism make you feel more assuredly good about yourself - as you are? If not, I suggest it is not worth pursuing.
To be very fair, it's not just-- feeling good, at some cases. It can be a matter of living, of security, of happiness and peace and the right to live without harassment and such, and sometimes even a matter of life and death.

You have a point, but IMO it's a bit.....well, faceted.
 
I am! And that was a misreading from my part, as well! Whew.


To be very fair, it's not just-- feeling good, at some cases. It can be a matter of living, of security, of happiness and peace and the right to live without harassment and such, and sometimes even a matter of life and death.

You have a point, but IMO it's a bit.....well, faceted.

I suppose that I do not see a problem with every facet of feminism; only the ones which create more division, rather than heal division.