Why is feminism seen as a bad thing by other women??

'Do we not function as part of a society?'

I wish feminists would make their mind up about this. I've read various feminist blogs where they say women are repressed by society (well, men..but society means men and women doesn't it?)

Of course I'm interested. As are plenty of others. There have been several threads started on the board for newbies or nervous posters. They always seem to sink.

I can't tell much from one post, and I'd be interested to see the context, but I genuinely, honestly don't think that's a nasty reply to you, nor one that constitutes repression. Why wouldn't you be interested in a particular word, or facet?

I'm a big fan of Feminism 101, because it saves a shitload of time all round, but every time I've seen it mentioned the poster to whom it is offered tends to huff off about being 'patronised'.

'Do you really mean 'repressed', Sigmunda? Or do you mean 'made to feel uncomfortable'? Because I can see the latter, but the former I struggle with.'

I mean repressed. There are plenty of posts I have wanted to take issue with, particularly when it comes to generalisations and assumptions, but I haven't because I have felt that I wouldn't be taken seriously or considered a trouble-causer.

Someone tried to repress me today, here is the post responding to mine.

'Are you not al all interested in why that particular word? If the answer is no, then that's fine- but might I respectfully suggest that this is not the thread for you?'

So yes, I mean repressed.

Are you prepared to give an inch on this? Are you prepared to state that feminist critics, thinkers and activists are not constantly in debate with one another regarding privileges and exclusions? That feminist thinkers like bell hooks never existed?

"Feminism" as a movement is guilty of all the worst traits of any Western traditional or patriarchal power group. It is not remotely inclusive.

That statement has so many holes in it, Bonsoir. Do we not function as part of a society? Do you really mean to suggest that we should only look out for ourselves? That our own individual self-realisation is not negotiated through the eyes of others?

And feminism does try to do better, as I said. It is one of the most self-critiquing, self-reflexive, political/philosophical movements out there.

Feminism should try to do better. At the end of the day, what matters is individual self-realisation, and that alone...

Bonsoir Feminism is hardly alone in that regard.

Do you really mean 'repressed', Sigmunda? Or do you mean 'made to feel uncomfortable'? Because I can see the latter, but the former I struggle with.

Feminism is in constant danger of promoting the privileges of the dominant social group and its own values and norms, thereby marginalising and excluding others who have less recourse to social power.

I disagree that feminism is about women and not the individual. I think a great deal of it is about the individual. And I've never felt as repressed about my views and choices as as a woman, as I have on MN.

Grrrrrr, wodalingpenwin (AWESOME name, btw). How annoying.

Point him to the Guardian's little article on 'Was Margaret Thatcher a feminist'? that ran recently. The answer was 'no' - not because she didn't fight in a man's world, or because she didn't show that a woman could do a Top Job - but because she didn't do a damn thing to raise other women via her own success.

Feminism is, and always has been, as far as I'm aware, a communal movement. There have indeed been feminist texts that have been unaware of their privilege, whether that be race, class, whatever. Other feminists are always the first to call them on it.

Raise ourselves - then raise others.

Bonsoir It's not a zero sum game. Feminism can do both.

I wonder, however, how effective feminism would be if we just gave up our large scale political analysis. Given that statistical analysis of data from as large a group as possible is a standard assessment tactic used by everyone from big pharma to the government, I suspect that the answer would be: not very.

Great point VictorGollancz. This is what my OH never gets. He hates me going off on one about inequality between men and women because he thinks I'm being ungrateful about the advantages I personally have.

OrmIrian, I think that feminism gives women the confidence to base their self-esteem from someplace other than the patriarchy. Hence it's not a problem when someone says push-up bras and heels are patriarchal bullshit (and I wear both - they're still patriarchal bullshit though).

Equally, I don't get het up about feminists who write that women's participation in heterosexuality is propping up the patriarchy. I think this is probably true, as it goes; I have no intention of ditching my partner, however.

But I suppose I should jump up and down and huff and puff about my super-special extra equal relationship. I suppose I should ignore the simple, proveable fact that marriage is exploitative and damaging to a significant population of the world's women. Etc.

If I refused to engage with those who claim that heterosexuality = patriarchal tool, I'd be missing out on whole fields, whole vistas of interesting ideas. Such as if heterosexuality is part of being a woman, than womanhood is negotiable and precarious and patriarchal and we should all try to be unwomen.

How very interesting.

I disagree. If all women had the skills to negotiate the life they wanted and deserved, we wouldn't need to have conversations about pornography - women wouldn't want to degrade themselves that way to get ahead. It is, IMVHO, a lot more important to strengthen individuals than to fight collective battles.

Some women like the status quo. They are happy that looks can be used as currency as they have them in spades. Telling them they can't use them because it's unfeminist upsets them.

And of course no-one likes being told they are reacting to conditioning when they wear heels or push-up bras - it makes them feel stupid. But let's face it, most of us deny that we are influenced by advertisements. But most of us are to a greater or lesser extent.

Did you miss the bit where I said women's autonomy and agency was good? But that, individually, it doesn't add anything to large-scale political analysis?

Because it doesn't. Feminism isn't about restricting women. But feminism also isn't about pretending that we live in an equal society. Because we don't.

I have, as far as I'm aware, an equal life. I don't know what that statement is supposed to add to discussions of say, the global production of pornography.

If feminism doesn't allow individual women to negotiate their own life choices, according to their own preferences, what on earth is the point of it?

Just realised that 'some people' looks v. passive-aggressive: it's not aimed at anyone on here.

I'm just musing really, lurking and enjoying the discussion, but some people, some of whom might be women, are totally unable to separate themselves from any political discussion.

So a discussion of women's disempowerment is always going to leave them cold, because they can't get past the point of shouting 'I AM EMPOWERED', as if their one experience means that the rest of global womankind are doing just dandy.

Then they get the hump when others point out that actually, while having a nice boyfriend/taking the lead in bed/earning more money than their male partner/not feeling oppressed is all very good, and exactly the right direction we want to be heading in, this is not enough to ignore group statistics, vast economic patterns and well, large scale political analysis. Suddenly, feminism isn't for them - it is 'irrelevant'.

This obsession with the individual gets very tiring and is the major reason I'm hardly on this board any more. You are one woman; feminism is about women.

that's a great analogy, Cat

Reading the last part of this thread I can't help feeling that feminism is often seen as a bad thing precisely for the objections that SF is articulating; especially her opposition to the idea that people's choices are socially conditioned (you use the word "brainwashing" SF, which suggests a lot of hostility to me).

While people argue that their choices are entirely free, it will always be possible to affirm that strip clubs/porn etc are not always harmful. At the same time their arguments on this subject with feminists who believe in the idea of social conditioning will be be essentially debates in which both sides appear to talking at cross purposes.

Without going into questions likely to lead to bunfights, I can only think of explaining a my feminist point of view as follows.

I see myself as a free agent with the necessary intelligence to decide what to do and what not to do. I know what I like and have made many decisions about what I do not and what I am willing to tolerate or not. I think that the vast, vast majority of adults are just like me.

However, when it comes to clothes, what I wear is very much dictated by what is available. I am small and humpbacked and I find it difficult to find clothes that fit in mainstream shops. I buy clothes that fit me from the choices available. However, even if I was a size zero 6 footer, I would also be in the same situation. I just might have more choices available to me than I do as a humpbacked midget.

However, even if I were a size 0, if I wanted to dress like Elizabeth I or Bodicca on a daily basis I would find it difficult, if not impossible to find clothes for this on the high street. I could make my own clothes or have a dressmaker make them for me, if I had the money, but otherwise the chances of me being able to dress like Elizabeth or Bodicca are slim.

Finally, how do I decide what I like amongst the choices I have? Do i go to the shop with no expectations or ideas? In my case ( and I suspect I am not alone in this) I decide what kind of thing I am looking for on the basis of when I am going to wear the clothes and for what occasion. I also base my decisions on what I think looks good on friends or colleagues etc. For work situations especially, custom and rules impose certain clothes on me. Many non work situations, like weddings, parties, parents evenings etc also have informal or formal rules of dressing.

In short: my clothing choices are constrained by fashion, my physical appearance and my budget. They are also constrained by written and unwritten social rules about dress. I make my clothing decisions within all these variables. Feminism argues that all choices within current society are similarly constrained. Some people have more choices than others due to physical appearance, riches, education and a host of other variables. The variable of biological sex determines many of these choices, but within the sexes different people have more or less choice depending on their life conditions.

Feminism criticizes this set-up by pointing out how people's choices are conditioned by the society in which they live in. The aim is not to claim that women are brainwashed or too stupid to make sensible decisions. The aim is to show that "free" choice is an illusion that can blind us to the constraints in which we all live, or indeed an illusion that makes us hostile to anyone who points them out.

Finally - to put an end to a mammoth post - feminism insists that one of the most weighty constraints placed on women's free agency is the custom and tradition that a woman's most important asset is her body and her attractiveness to men. (Which is why being ugly and a lesbian are often used as insults to women). We tend to refer to this as the objectification of women, ie considering then objects designed principally for the male gaze. Acts and institutions which promote the objectification of women are thus viewed as harmful to women as a whole and hard to justify even if they might benefit some women as individuals.

Thank you of you read all that.

I would be very much interested in studying further this people, where the women own the property but the men run public life. I wonder if it's more egalitarian.