Anti Feminist Bingo!!

i think custardo may have a point if i hae understood correctly - women are trated worse because they are poorer, not becase they are women?

i think there must be some mileage in that?

But Custardo there isn't a banner big enough under which to fight all injustices, everywhere. Feminism is just one area of focus.

I think you are a feminist at heart because you agree gender based discrimination does exist, and it shouldn't. So that's the basic premise of feminism. It's a broad church and we here are not the high priestesses. Many roads, and all that.

and I didn't say your argument didn't make sense. It makes sense. It's just wrong, factually incorrect, to say poverty is not gendered

It doesn't make me feel good at all when someone says that the reason I disagree with them is because I don't understand their argument
When the truth is not only do I understand the argument, but I can pick off the flaws in the argument one by one

we are now debating semantics as is always the way with these things.

you said that it didn't make sense

i said you didn't understand

you inferred something more from that (clearly) and rebutted with naff.

who what where when and how...all i know is, this isn't making me feel good. so i'll leave you to it

Eh? I said your ideological premise was naff. That's not hate. That was a rebuff to your suggestion that I didn't understand your ideological premise. Just because someone disagrees with your premise doesn't mean they don't understand it.

"If all women felt oppressed then wouldn't they all be feminists?"

No.. I love TheFeministParent's description of emerging feminist consciousness: "It's like I've just woken up from a long sleep"

sakura why are you so angry at my posts? this isn't a debate its a chance to put in sly comments here and there, and i am so over that style of debating on mumsnet, as i've had it for years.

if there isn't going to be a debate in friendly terms. then i'm off.

claig, love your posts in general, hate your anti-socialist posts. love/hate.

I think there is discrimination based on gender and there is also discrimination based on wealth or class and they also overlap.

But I also think that sm and Custardo are right that not all women are oppressed. Is the Queen oppressed? Was Imelda Marcos oppressed? They may be relatively oppressed with regards to men in a similar position, but I don't think they feel the oppression greatly, otherwise they would all be feminists. If all women felt oppressed then wouldn't they all be feminists?

NO, I most certainly do understand your naff ideological premise

patriarchy and capitalism feed off each other.

I like to call it patriarchy-capitalism = the feminization of poverty

if a feminist calls another woman names does that make her a feminist anti feminist?

I'm sorry that you don't understand my ideological premise. Yes whilst one cannot argue that women are not amongst the poor ( as are children and men) My standpoint is that societies inequalities are perpetuated by capitalism which needs to subjugate poor people.

that is not to say that there aren't lots of inequalities, lots of different segments of society who are discriminated against based on gender, sexuality, ability and race. I would rather perpetuate an ideology which would enhance the lives of all people. Not just women.

" i don't think discrinimation is based on gender but on the distribution of wealth."

That dOn'T make sense, Custardo. Poverty is gendered- in the UK and throughout the world. VIolence is gendered. Mutilation Cosmetic surgery is gendered. The list goes on.

YOu're not making sense.

then why did you suggest it?

Sakura, why would i be upset that feminists get to set the debate?

No idea

wukter Thu 25-Nov-10 23:39:53
"Debating specific points isn't anti feminism. Debating the premise of feminism it self is. It's not difficult to get your head around."

it is this statement that struck me and made me think that i am probably an antifeminist.

Sakura, why would i be upset that feminists get to set the debate?

Elephants, i am not saying that calling someone else names, whomever that person may be - is right. That would indeed be a very weird standpoint for anyone to take.

i think questionning the very premise of feminism can come from a neutral position. to debate this ideology doesn't have to include name calling.

but if the definition of an anti-feminist does include someone who is merely a hater of people who hold the feminist ideology, then i would not count myself amongst them

i don't agree with the globalised marginalised contruct that women are oppressed. all women.

as an ideology to believe in, i don't think that feminism is for me. i don't think discrinimation is based on gender but on the distribution of wealth.

No idea which point you are talking about, but I'm always happy to help.

I am still struggling to swallow the idea that, as feminists, we should regard statements that slag off feminists in general, or ourselves individually, as "neutral".

If I said "Custardo is an orrible bitch who hates children and animals and wants a good slapping", do you regard that in a neutral manner? Would you, if it came from the guy next to you at work, or from your mother?

scottishmummy, sorry this is late (from last night, referring back to Thu 25-Nov-10 22:44:07), but I was really interested in your comment: "i struggle with the all women are oppressed but many dont know it hypothesis".

It is all too possible to be oppressed without knowing it, or knowing how. Good political journalism, for example, should aim to expose the insider trades, the secret ownerships, the hidden kickbacks, the scope of problems (i.e. revealing when certain phenomena are widespread, so that those "suffering alone" can organise).

Bad political journalism is, of course, self-indulgence, "I'm more an insider than you are!" stories which are personal stories, not really political ones. For example, in an age in which homosexuality is no longer illegal, was it really important to publicly out David Laws? Of course not. I saw a political journalist I know, out that evening, who made his excuses to leave a party, saying some news outlet had just "broken" the story and they all had to follow, even though they had all known for ages that he was gay. This story probably makes me sound like a bit of an insider, too, for which I apologise. However, I'm bearing witness to it here, according to the model I described for "good" political journalism, above.

If it is only a "clever few" who are enlightened, or have inside knowledge of any kind, that is indeed insidious.

That is probably why moral people who have seen any kind of "light" try to share it. "Public interest" journalism and whistleblowing, and proselytising feminism.

Perhaps the problem you identify comes when the proselytisers come to seem like insiders themselves, or gatekeepers, through reserving the "inner truths" for themselves (perhaps by over-intellectualising), or through not being sufficiently humble, respectively. What do you think?

Aggressive? Bullying?

I've had the above just for having an opinion that's different from the accepted norm (eg strip clubs are bad) and for expressing it.

People can be accused of being anti-feminist or anti the feminist movement in the same way that feminists are often accused of being 'anti men'. I then explain my position when that happens to me, ie I am not anti men, I do not hate men, but I hate misogynists and sexists.

To add to the anti-feminist bingo, the political editor of the local paper called us "sour faced feminists" recently in the context of Hooters (a potential advertiser) opening.

Have we had Millie Tants? Wimmin?

sorry, I don't get you Custardo. are you upset that feminists now and again get to set the terms of the debate; that it should always be non/anti-feminists [i.e the status quo] who get to set the terms of debate?

elephants - i think you proved my point nicely thank you

what I don't understand is...why don't people just let feminists get on with it. If feminists don't have a point or a purpose the sane thing to do would be to just leave the maddos to it, wouldn't it

Not to worry SM. It's not as if any of us intelligentsia (!) are going to get a slot on Question time or anything. NO they reserve that for people who have real opninions and valid points of view, like NIck Griffin. We've just got...Mumsnet, for the most part.

ElephantsAndMiasmas - it's usually called Feminist Bingo. There's a link about half way up which goes to loads of grids. Plenty of choice there as there is so much shit talked about feminists and feminism.

drat, I missed the party