to think the 'F' word is one we should be proud of......

[PosieComeHereMyPreciousParker]

Thanks to MN, especially dittany, Lenin, BoF and Anyfucker, I have been made aware of my casual attitude to misogyny. This short journey in my reclaiming my old values recently lead me to the London Feminist Network Conference on Saturday. And Oh my God it is one of the most inspirational things I've ever done.

Having money and being relatively attractive in my younger days I was mislead into thinking that being a feminist was irrelevant, after all we had a female PM and then 'girl power' where we were fooled into thinking with the right body shape and a little wit the world was our oyster (farm).

My husband's and friends' response to my recent activities have ranged from being mystified to mockery, from resentment to full on stereotypical prejudice. I am alarmed that barely any of my friends think feminism is relevant.

Am I being unreasonable to reclaim the word feminist to mean a person that wants to rid the world of gender prejudiced?

you need less words?are big words too confusing.request understood

will.keep,simple.just.for,you.dittany

ps let me know if thats too much hen

is that the best you can muster?you have done yerself in clearly.

you and your wee auntie hae a nice wee chat,seeing she talks yer language (and you understand).

Lovely language, shame the arguments are a wee bit weak though

[yawn]

Scottishmummy....why do you try so hard to be both spiky and patronising?

'Homogeneous mass' we certainly are. WE are in the eyes of the justice system where in interviews women are still asked when they'll be having babies, we are in Parliament where we fail to hold many seats in government, we are in areas of war where we are victims of femicide, in Iran where we're married at 9 and criminally responsible six years before the boys (I think it was Iran), we are as Abrahamic religion followers where we cannot get to the same level as men, we are in the countless professions where we reach the glass ceiling.

You see scottishmummy I don't think you get to decide whether or not women are a homogeneous mass, no woman gets to decide that. Prejudice has decided for you, decided not to pay you as much, not to give you as many opportunities, set our society up to think 'feminine' values are less worthy.

That's what I meant and I apologise that I couldn't post more but a friend showed up on time, which is mighty unusual. She head up psychiatry in the South West and often deals with women, for courts, who are anxious and in a state of psychosis for DV and family abuse. Funny how, through her experiences, she is a firm feminist.

TSH

I'm wondering, from a libertarian perspective - if you don't feel that women as individuals have the right to be free from gender-based discrimination? (which could very much be interpreted as an act of aggression) I would also say that I have libertarian leanings, but I don't see that as something that rules out also being feminist. If anything I think it make feminism even more important - if a libertarian view would hold that the state should not be the enforcer of equality, then surely it stands that women, as a collective group and as individuals have to step up and take responsibility for challenging acts of aggression against women themselves? What better example of feminism is there than women doing just that? Why object to it or pick holes in the idea that women should act in 'self-defence' when any libertarian would recognise that individuals should be able to defend themselves against aggression whether that aggression is individual or systemic?

Lastly, men tend to be more forthright or forceful during salary negotiations...

Does this not make you think why? Why men have the skills and confidence, more often, than women? Is it that there is already the assumption that they have less to prove?

The pay gap is a gender issue, our society penalises those (predominantly women) that have to balance work/family life. I think this could shift if we had 'parental leave' as standard which meant either father or mother could split the 12 months. Fast track return to work programs for people that choose to stay at home with their children.

Your last paragraph does go some way to explain why women have such apathy to prejudice that affects them on the basis of their gender. We really do believe that because we can terminate a pregnancy and vote that we're all equal. Equality has to consider all factors, we are not all the same. So in some cases positive discrimination has to be enforced. Helena Kennedy spoke about lots of Inns who, on receipt of her application, said 'Oh no we already have a woman'. And just because we are ignorant to the prejudice that affects us it does not mean it isn't there, it simply means we are ignorant of it.

Of course gender-based prejudice should be fought.

Without a united movement how does that happen? Many women would not have the resources on an individual level.

to succesfully combat prejudice you need to focus on the reasons for the prejudice. Women suffer discrimination because they are women. How can anything be done if this basic pattern isn't recognised or ignored in favour of a vague anti-prejudice agenda with no real focus?
I think calls to rebrand feminism are a distraction, and ultimately futile - whatever the new brand is will be undermined just the same a feminism was and will just be turned into the latest insult/joke to throw at those who disagree with it.

to be thrown by those who disagree with it...is what I meant.

How can we fight gender based prejudice/violence without emphasising the gender of the individul?

Genuinely puzzled.

I thought that this essay on the relationship between libertarianism and feminism was really interesting. It is American, but it isn't US-centric.

I'm sure others have written about similar things - but I was really struck by the comparisions of coercion by the state through threats of prison and the threat of rape for women not adhering to social 'rules'. I'm sure that comparison can be carried through to different groups in different ways, and I think it illustrates really well how having more equality than you used to doesn't make you equal or suddenly mean you can make choices without coercion.

And I think that women are still subjected to more of these kinds of coercion than men of their same racial and socio-economic backgrounds are. That might not be because of legislation, but because of social pressure. If libertarians recognise that a choice made with a threat, eg. not paying taxes=prison, is not a free choice, then why would they not recognise that a choice made with other forms of coercion aren't free choices either. If I choose not to walk home from a night out because of the threat of rape; that isn't a free choice. If I choose to conform to social norms because of the threat of exlusion from my social group and support networks then that isn't a free choice. If I choose to stay with an abusive partner because I don't have the earning power I would as a male in the same situation and would be unable to support myself and my children that isn't a free choice.

That's why I think that feminism and libertanism do go together. Both hold that individuals should be able to make their own choices free from coercion from a 'ruling class' who hold power over them.

Holding the view that predjudice or discrimination should be challenged irrespective of race, creed, gender or class is great. But I think that there also needs to be recognition that some groups are not only suffering from issue in their individual situations but a systematic imbalance of power. If libertarians recognise this when it comes to class and race, why is gender any different? Perhaps it means you would draw different conclusions when it comes to what actions would be helpful, but to come to the idea that the same actions could be applied to all different forms of discrimination seems strange to me.

Because when there's a bloody great pattern (like, say, women being kept down in relation to men in every country on earth) it seems disingenuous not to see it. Should we just shut up about it then? Should we wait until everything else is sorted first?

Totally agree mind you about focussing on e.g. stopping domestic violence. Think most people agree that it's dreadful and that perpetrators should be punished.

The civil rights movement didn't get it's successes by asking all people to stop being racist, it specifically sought rights for blacks from their white oppressors. Why should women ask for violence against them to stop? In the seventies there was no such crime as marital rape and still in 2010 a woman can get drunk, pass out and wake the next day knowing she's had sex and still blame herself....

The day that Negro people and others in bondage are truly free, on the day want is abolished, on the day wars are no more, on that day I know my husband will rest in a long-deserved peace.
?Coretta King

Note the word Negro and not just people.

I doubt that there is a single person who condemns violence against women finds any violence acceptable.

I would add that I suspect many people who want violence against women to end, are more averse to all kinds of violence, including wars. It was only a year or two I read that around 80% + victims of war were civilians, mainly women and children because they are the weakest and the slowest to get out of the way.