I'm just rearranging my thoughts (and conversations) into a readable format. This will probably make for dry reading, so pardon in advance :p
point to clarify:
1. I consider myself a feminist. Sorry if that was vague in the previous post. I realize I come off as reluctant to admit that sometimes. That is not due to shame of being one, but the shame of feeling like I don't do enough to deserve being called one. But like Young said, it's a principle, and I may not be an activist or doing anything significant to help women, but I am still a feminist.
On to misconceptions.
I don't know if most of you admit to this, but the general idea I get from your dismissive responses is that:
feminists = man-hating female supremacist
Okay...I wonder what that says about what you people think of me =.= But in the interest of maintaining cordial relations *ahem* I shall assume that you do not have that impression of me. Logically, from that you should realize then that it is not true. That if I contest that image, surely there's something wrong with it. I'm not likely to contest it just for the heck of it. Hell, the whole definition of the ideology itself doesn't advocate female superiority. Anyone who tells you that it does is wrong. That there may be people like that who call themselves feminists, doesn't make it feminism.
It's not "extreme feminism". It's not feminism, period.
Next: feminism isn't needed anymore.
Men and women are equals. Women should be entitled to the same opportunities as men. Those are pretty much the basic tenets. So when it's said that feminism isn't needed, it can be one of two things:
1. women shouldn't need to be entitled to the same opportunities.
2. women already have the same opportunities.
I'll go with 2, since 'anymore' should mean 1 isn't what you guys have in mind (hopefully).
So women are considered equal to men already? Really? Then why is there still gender discrimination in the workplace? Why aren't men and women getting equal pay? Why do women face more hassle/obstacles/stigma trying to acquire contraception? Why have I grown up being told not to swear, to smile (seriously when my brothers don't smile they're just being guys, when I don't I'm being sullen), not to xxx because I'm a girl? Don't bother telling me none of these stuff are true. And don't bother saying double standards are intrinsically human; we're better than that. We've gotten this far, we can go further.
Also, check out the male privilege checklist compiled by Ampersand. I'm not entirely sure about all of them, but most of it hits the spot. Andrea Rubenstein has external links to the issues. Ampersand:
Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to men. Being privileged does not mean men are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that men do not work hard, do not suffer. In many cases - from a boy being bullied in school, to a soldier dying in war - the sexist society that maintains male privilege also does great harm to boys and men.I also quote Ampersand's reference to an essay by Peggy McIntosh:
In the end, however, it is men and not women who make the most money; men and not women who dominate the government and the corporate boards; men and not women who dominate virtually all of the most powerful positions of society. And it is women and not men who suffer the most from intimate violence and rape; who are the most likely to be poor; who are, on the whole, given the short end of patriarchy’s stick.
McIntosh observes that whites in the U.S. are “taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group.”I believe it's the same thing with the denigration of women. Feminists don't only stand up to physically substantial threats (the abusive husband, the sexual harrasser at the workplace), they stand up to harmful ideas that society and the media perpetuate. It's about bringing light to issues that we would otherwise gloss over, them being so ingrained in society. But anyway, these people explain it better than I do. Andrea Rubenstein again, in case you missed it up there ;)
Further thoughts:
- Why do rapists use the excuse 'she led me on'? People are entitled to change their mind. Thinking it justifies rape suggests that they think those women owe them something. See the problem with that line of thought?
- Statistics vary from country to country, but generally more than 50% of rapists are known to their victims. For Australia, the stats given in my criminal law lectures show that only 17% of the rape cases were perpetrated by complete strangers. And those are only the ones that are reported. How much more likely are you to not report someone you know compared to a total stranger?
- There's something wrong here. Most of these cases aren't about strangers in dirty alleys treating a random unfortunate passerby as a sex object. A lot of them are men who know their victims as a person, have probably even conversed with them like a friend, sometimes in a position of trust...and these men have apparently given no thought to how they hurt them. Why is this? I don't really think it's such a stretch to suggest a relationship between violence against women (sexual or otherwise) and a perceived inferiority of the sex.
...wow it feels good letting all that out. When I should be doing my microecons. Shit. Anyway, this is messy and unedited at best, but I think it comes off best that way? Screw eloquence, this is how I feel: raw and passion and not without reason. Still, don't take the things I say here for granted. Go do a little googling of your own. I only hope I've managed to better explain why I am a feminist, in conjunction with the previous post.
Edit: random question - What would you think of a father who says he loves his wife more than his kids? Following that, what would you think of a mother who says she loves her husband more than her kids?
see, i wanted to say something SUPER INTELLIGENT and stuffies but i cant think of anything so eh..
ReplyDeleteAWESOOOOMMMEEE!! XD
i mean, you mentioned most in the convo but its so much better phrased here! XD
I've said it once and I'll say it again;
ReplyDeleteSpokesperson!
:D
Nicely-written post.
nice read! btw, those purported extreme feminists...here's a blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://missandry.blogspot.com/
this woman used to blog in livejournal until her blog was taken down. mostly coz of her rude remarks.
btw, are men and women really equals? we are different. neither superior, inferior or equal to one antoher. just different.
i agree we have to break through the glass-ceiling and so-called gender stereotyping. so, i do not agree that feminism is not needed.
but still, i'm having a hard time understanding what feminists really want. because oftentimes, they like to make themselves "manly" to be accepted in high ranks. this is a wrong albeit common approach taken by women in top executive positions.
my 2 cents. =)
Hi, thanks for the comment :)
ReplyDeleteI agree, men and women are different. But I don't think equal means we can't be different. When we say equal, we mean equal in rank, equal in value, and in our world, that should translate to having the same rights and privileges. It means that different as we are, we should have the same opportunities, especially because we are Not inferior.
By 'manly' you mean...aggressive? ruthless? Correct me if I misunderstand you. Stereotype: men are the testosterone-driven ones, the aggressive alphas; women are the emotional and the empathizing ones, the moral compass. Not all men are aggressive by nature and similarly, some women are ambitious and are willing to be ruthless.
I'm not sure what's wrong about that, unless you mean ethically...or you think that these women have somehow given up who they 'really are', their own identity, in order to succeed. Maybe they have. Maybe they haven't. Maybe they Are just like that by nature. We wouldn't know. In the end, it's their personal choice.
It's true that this makes it harder for women who aren't like that to succeed, because they perpetuate the idea that you have to be one way in order to do so. But I would think it's the same for men? And how untrue is it anyway? But again, it's a personal choice stemming from a personal ambition. Even if they were feminists, I don't think they're actively trying to say 'Women, be like me!' Like a friend of mine said, that's like moving from one binding stereotype to another.
Okay wow this is getting long. Again, thanks for taking an interest :D
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry for reposting so many times. But I made lots of typos =.="
ReplyDeleteAh, it's good that you clarified. Your post, as you mentioned was rather messy. =.=" I didn't really know what you were talking about. I clicked on the links you gave and ...so many points...I didn't really know which were you referring and agreeing to.
For me, what I understand about feminism is this:
Feminism is about empowering women, not hating man. We do not need to persecute and cast prejudices against men to empower ourselves.
What I meant about being "manly" is that a lot of feminists think that to be a REAL FEMINIST, we have to fight and oppose men and thus, be anti-men i.e. we should become misandrists.
But this is itself a no-win battle because by likening ourselves to man, we are implicitly acknowledging them as the superior breed and belittling our God-given womanhood.
So I do not find it very feministic if a woman tries to make herself more aggressive to ward off the common misconception that all women are weak. It’s not wrong to be “manly” but I don’t think it fully connotes the idea of a feminist.
Let me say this. I am not sure if I am a feminist though I purport to be one because I actually don't know much about the Suffrage or Women Movement etc., but I do think that we should embrace our womanhood as it is. We do not have to change ourselves because society thinks we are wimps or what-not. We should change society’s perception instead.
Yes, women are generally gentle, motherly, loving and whatever attributes you can associate with woman. And yes, I agree that while most women fit this mould, we should also acknowledge that there are those who deviate from the norm. However, deviating does not necessarily makes one a feminist.
Associating groups of people with certain characteristics and qualities is NOT stereotyping. Stereotyping is about negatively generalizing collective groups of people. In essence, it is about ASSUMING that ALL WOMEN are WEAK and DEFENSELESS. We are NOT!
Hence, as a feminist, our role should be to dispel such notions without changing who we are for we are just as equally blessed as men.
HAHA yes it is messy, sorry about that. Feminism's too large and nuanced a movement for me to represent in this crazily long post. I meant to provide some links for those who might be interested to read up on it. My thoughts on it were largely random and knee-jerk responses to some of the reactions I was getting lol.
ReplyDeleteI think your ideas as you have presented them are pretty feminist, though I guess it is your own discretion whether you want to call yourself one. I myself don't know much about feminist theory and the history of women's movement either; call me a fledgling if you will ;)
I don't understand the connection between being 'manly' and being misandrist. But I agree with what you say, that namely, we don't have to hate men to be a feminist.
Being aggressive does not fully connote the idea of a feminist, yes. I'm just saying while a woman can be aggressive AND a feminist, the former doesn't have to spring from the latter. So yes, we shouldn't have to change who we are. Women who are aggressive by nature are still women, as are those who are not so aggressive.
If you're talking about the corporate world... Again, it's probably a personal choice stemming from a personal ambition where a woman feels she has no choice but to be aggressive. That in itself is sad if the woman does not want to be aggressive (though it is not always so), but that's just one of the many problems with the patriarchy. I think the ruthlessness goes both ways; men too find themselves taken advantage of if they're 'too nice', so I feel this has more to do with human nature than the man/woman mean/nice dichotomy.
Stereotyping does not have to be negative. Associating groups of people with certain characteristics AND identifying them as a whole by said characteristics is stereotyping. Like you said, women sometimes deviate from the norm. So it's important that we acknowledge that normal is relative. Because when we divide people into what is normal and what is not, we chance shaming and alienating the latter. What you seem to be suggesting to me is that being aggressive = manly. I say that the fact that there Are women who are aggressive should prove that wrong. They're not any less of a woman because they have a trait commonly associated with men.
This is what happens when two intelligent and passionate girls talk about a unanimous issue; fascinating (and long) comments worthy of being full-blown posts. XD
ReplyDeleteHey Brenda. Thanks for the reply.
ReplyDeleteYoung, I’ll keep this short and sweet. XD
The point on manly and misandrist: some women think they have to be like men to fight men.
The point on aggressive and feminist: I was just pointing out they are not mutually inclusive.
Corporate world: Women are more devious than men sometimes, though. No need to show that much macho-ness. XD
Stereotyping: Yep, sorry. Not all stereotyping is negative. But usually so.
Last pt: I was suggesting aggressiveness is a commonly perceived manly trait.
My main thrust is that we don’t have to change ourselves to be acknowledged as a formidable force in society. The part on stereotyping was just a random off-shoot.
Btw, I think you’re a fiercely staunch feminist! Good on you! =]
Not going to comment anymore. I should have just posted a link to my blog and replied there. Sorry for vandalizing your blog again. LOL!!
hey! add me on msn! xuxin_rawks[at]hotmail[dot]com
ReplyDeleteand get a cbox or sth!! so i don't have to comment everytime I wanna say sth.