Rebutting the Straw Men/Owning up when "it's a fair cop, guv.

To go to your analogy then Yops, how would you feel if a bunch of people said "I'm against trade unions because they want to increase the tax rate to 95%." Because that's the situation we find on these boards a lot - women saying "I'm not a feminist because feminists believe..." and then stating an extreme view that in all my years as a feminist I have never once come across in feminist literature. Where is this coming from? This total misrepresentation of what feminism is about?

Ah, sorry - this last sentence confused me - "You as a woman benefit from that."

Yops, of course posters critique various current books on feminism - both by journalists and by researchers etc. That's a bit different to commenting on an entire movement, surely?

I know that Yonic.

Please don't post stuff like 'and I think you know that'. It makes for a snarky exchange instead of an open discussion of views.

It is perfectly possible to 'slate' modern day trades unionism, if it purports views that were relevant 100 years ago, but is now populated by dinosaurs who no longer understand the modern world, and leaders who have their own agenda for self-aggrandisement and dictatorial attitudes. It does not mean that I fail to recognise the sacrifice and achievements of past unionists, or that I am not thankful. But I can be critical of those who nowadays spout rhetoric without understanding it, or those who's views are 'my way or the highway'.

And this is not a direct parallel to feminism, so don't take this as 'Yops thinks all feminists are dinosaurs/out of touch'. I don't but I recognise that the feminism of, say, Polly Vernon or Caitlin Moran (I don't agree with everything the say or write), is different to some of the posters on here, and I think that there is sometimes an attitude of 'well they aren't doing it right'.

Yops is male, Cailin!

That's not what innocent was talking about when she said 'slating' Yops (and I think you know that.) She meant people who entirely dismiss the whole thing, so in your analogy a worker sho says 'I think we don't need unions.'
So, stating it again: reject feminism if you want to. But if you are a woman, be aware that without feminism you and any daughter you might have would be living in a world where simply because you are female you are not really a person. You wouldn't have access to education, to professional jobs, to contraception, to the right to vote. You would be a non-person who only exists in relation to a man, so much sk that your only real option in life is to get married, at which point you lose everything - your name (both first and last) your property, your control over your own body. That was the world that existed before feminsists changed it.
So, reject feminism. But don't start spouting that it's about man hating and women being better than men. If you're going to criticise it, learn what it is actually about, which is working to ensure women are no longer treated as non-people. You as a woman benefit from that.

I would like to say that I disagree with thisis post - it would be awesome if posts by one poster on a feminist topic weren't taken as speaking for all feminists. Thanks.

There is nothing wrong with 'slating' a movement, if by that you mean questioning it when something arises that you don't agree with. I am in a union at work because I believe in workers' rights. It doesn't mean I give the union carte blanche to do what it likes in my name.

What you seem to be referring to, thisisnot, is a cult or religion. Don't question the dogma, don't think there might be a better way, don't think that times change or that different people might want different things. Is a woman doctor, or scientist, or lawyer or politician 'conforming to the Patriarchy'?

That last post demonstrates the whacky you-don't-know-your-own-mind cult of feminism that I can't bear. You can't be in the club until you admit that you are weak on your own and need the club. It's creepy.

Innocent

Slating the movement that fought and is still fighting so that you can be treated as a human being rather than chattel is incomprehensible to me.

My feeling is that they're institutionalized by the patriarchy. Some women gain a degree of personal security and success because they're good at conforming to the gender stereotyping that feminism stands against. Feminism is a threat to what makes them feel valued as individuals. They're not lazy or ignorant, they're just scared of losing what little control they have over their lives.

Pleased to hear it Clash. I'm happy to answer any questions I can.

That's good, clash.

Well, as someone who posted on the 'why I don't identify with feminism' thread originally it has been quite eye opening and useful.

I'm not sure what I think now, but I feel a lot more open to engaging with it rather than dismissing it out of hand.

I would say that if you don't believe that women have been and still are oppressed by a patriarchal society then you are not a feminist.

So a lot of the arguments people raised, we've rightly explained that NA-Feminists-ALT.

What are the fundamental, if you don't believe this you're not a feminist, stuff?

We've had the comparisons with Christianity a few times, and they have the Apostles Creed - which is broadly observed by most people who sit under the banner of "Christian".

What about feminists?

And I think maybe we sometimes have to try to strong man other people's arguments. So be generous and assume the best possible version and intentions of someone else's argument or post.

But I know that is really hard to do when there is so much trolling (and some issues which really get to each of us as individuals).

Yops, I do consider you a FWR regular.

Thread titles are often misleading and I try to read them within the context of the whole opening post. I would have been annoyed by the thread title if the OP had gone on to suggest it was universal, or near universal for women to eroticise domination within her posts.

And I could also understand why you thought such a post might be trolling.

But I was prepared to give the OP some leeway because:

a. People speaking about their private sex lives often feel more comfortable if they can couch it in more general terms than just them.

b. By posting it in FWR and talking about women beyond herself, the OP is suggesting she wants comments connecting it to other women with similar experiences. I think it is important and valuable to connect it to wider gendered patterns in issues because over one in five people who have BDSM sex will be the victim of non consensual sex acts within BDSM, and abuse within BDSM is overwhelmingly carried out against women, with being a sub, having previous abusive experiences and being young all being additional risk factors - much of which applies to the OP. And many women trying to get away from sub roles get a lot of social pressure and advice to stay in them.

So I think often FWR is about people's individual problems within a social context of trends happening to other women as well.

yy Cailin

Ok this is going to sound stroppy, mainly because that's how I'm feeling. But what I always pick up from the "why aren't you a feminist" threads is that people aren't feminists due to a long list of things that they believe about feminism which are entirely not true, but when you try to explain why those things aren't true you're then not using the right tone, you're explaining things too much, you're explaining things too little, you're not giving enough evidence, you're giving too much evidence, you're being patronising, you're being obtuse, you're being disingenuous. It is incredibly frustrating to see a cause you passionately believe in being painted as something it's not by people who simply won't listen.
If you don't like feminism, fine, there is no problem whatsoever with that. But if you're going to criticise it, at least understand it a little first. And understanding it means listening for while and perhaps delving into things that are complicated. If you don't want to do that, again, fine.

But feminism is why you as a woman can own property, vote, have a job, get contraception, get an abortion, have maternity leave, be protected from marital rape, and a whole host of other benefits that you take entirely for granted. That work was done by tireless women who in some cases risked and lost their lives and freedom. To turn and spit in their faces and say feminism is about man-hating and wanting women to be better than men when that is not what it is about at all just makes me want to pull my hair out in frustration. Not everyone has to be a feminist. But if you are a woman feminism has made your life better, so at least respect that and if you're going to engage with it, or criticise it, know what it is first.

It's frustrating to be directed to read a paper with no indication of why.

"I think women and men have different brains."
"Read Smith et al. 1996."

"Um, what?"

When if they'd just said "Read Smith et al. 1996 pp45-46. They found significant differences only where there had been physical abuse" then you'd know.

Just a summary of the abstract would do!

Are you saying that if a poster summarises a report, then this would remove the implication you take from unsummarised reports, namely that you feel too uneducated and your opinion is ignored?

I see what you're saying with this - but for me, who is not overly used to reading reports, it is helpful to at least see what the poster thinks they are saying. I wouldn't base my opinions on the summary, but it would be useful to have a bit of context to the report. For example, a study of Malaysian women in the 1930s may be much less relevant than a 2013 study of women living in Edinborough to the subject.

But yes, I do think there are people who use the information to maintain intellectual superiority.

And you're quite right, it's not restricted to FWR boards. And, a lot of time, links are very useful.

cailindana thank you for your insightful post. I just want to stress that that has been my perception of feminism - that it was all or nothing. I can see that for some, possibly most feminists that is not the case and I probably need to stop thinking of feminism as something narrow, but as a much wider general worldview with many differing view points.

But the point about the sexual domination thread is it was all about the OP. Why frame a thread about such a personal matter as if applied to all women? Then post a petulant comment about "do I really need to explain I didn't mean that"?

I'm sort of a regular and it was not clear to me either from the title or her opening post what she meant. I expected it to be a thread about 50 Shades nonsense.

Links to long reports aren't exclusive to FWR, for sure! There was a thread about symphiostomy that had a number.