So after my other thread. What is a feminist?

[ByThePowerOfGreyskull]

what are the desired goals?

I hope you didn't mind me shortening your name to Greyskull. Maybe I'll call you ThePower instead?

Swoon at that intellectual contribution, SupposedToBeWorking

TeiTetua, dittany has mentioned 100,000 thousand girls in India & china who are not alive.

I would like it to start at my friends' house - the teenage DS does nothing but play on the computer and lie around.

The teenage DD is expected to help around the house. We are in 21st Century Britain aren't we or do I time travel when I go there?

And yes the DD is bloody angry about it.

The same problem has been there for millenia - men will get away with that behaviour while it is tolerated. The parents are showing their DS that this is acceptable.

All the women throughout history that have been denied an education - how much the world of art, science, medicine etc etc has lost - never to be discovered because they were washing dishes?

I've seen TeiTetua's argument on MRA sites. "women on average live longer (the bitches) and if feminists really cared about equality, they'd be doing stuff to make men live longer. As they're not, they deserve everything bad that happens to them"
It's a moronic arguement, worthy only of a

Rogue e there - argument

For me, A new feminist, I think feminism is the movement to end sexism, to allow women to not be bound by a patriarchal society. I recognise more and more injustice....one is the 'women can't have it all' crap, you know babies and a career. I disagree with that and think 'women can't have it all within the constraints of our patriarchal society'. Perhaps even what's in a name is important, I would like female names to go through the female line and men's through mens. So let's say my mother is a parker, like her mother and so on...my dd would be Doris Parker-Noble (Noble being my husband's surname), WE're all Parker-Nobles, when my dd marries she will only take Parker into her new name and also her husband's father's name....so she becomes Doris Parker-Smith, because her husband John Jones-Smith takes his father's name, only, into the marriage. And then we have equality in our names!!!

Read the Dorothy Parker short story 'Mr Durant'.

Written 60 odd years ago and still rings true.

Blimey, not a thread (as a non-feminist) I should be commenting on, but....

Custardo Feminism is a women's movement. It is concerned with other inequalities becasue they intersect to oppress women-a black lesbian is discriminated against in a variety of ways, for example. But its focus is on ending oppression of women, and it can't be accountable for all other forms of discrimination in itself or criticised for not being so (although many feminists are).

Dittany I agree with most of what you say,m but not that 'patriarchy wouldn't exist if men didn't wish it to'. That too ignores intersectionality-a passionate male feminist ally earning just enough to make ends meet risks a great deal by destroying it. Surely that too is an element in radical feminism-not necessarily simply separation, but an acknowledgement that broader systems need changing before meaningful action can be taken, that pulling at threads in a tapestry of oppression is not necessarily liberating for anyone?

Also a non-feminist here.

Mostly because some of the more radical arguments put me off and often come across as wanting to move from male oppression of women to women's oppression of women (this is particularly stark in debates about the hijab and burka).

I also find the argument about equality of wealth (in the financial sense) rather odd. Financial wealth is a patriarchal construct going back to the Cave Days when the most valuable commodity for bartering was meat - as men were the hunters, this was the start of financial power.

Surely if the aim is to overthrow the patriarchy, financial wealth would no longer be important because it would no longer be the central spoke through which scoiety turns.

feminists are trying to oppress women through the hijab and burka? Can you explain more? I honestly have no idea whether we're meant to be stopping women from wearing them or forcing them to to stop them being objectified. Most of the feminists I know are very explicit that it is a woman's choice what she wears.

Dittany - sorry - that post from you only re-inforces my view (as well as coming across as rather childish - I don't think anyone is suggesting that feminists are just like the Taliban).

I have seen many arguments on here from feminists saying that the Burka or the Hijab should be banned because it is oppressive.

None of this takes into account the many women who choose to wear it because they want to.

The radical feminist assumption seems to be that they may very well want to, but only because they have been blinded by centuries of oppression into thinking that it is their choice.

How is constantly telling educated women who have made a conscious and informed choice that they shouldn't do something because if they do they are giving into oppression and being submissive not oppressing them?

To me taking away a women's choice to wear something is no better than telling them that they have to wear something.

Educate women, give them the power to make their own decisions, give them a sense of worth and the self-confidence, legal and societal support to decide for themselves how to dress or behave - don't ever tell them that they can't do something because it does not fit with your beliefs.

Oh and: (The man the hunter thing isn't correct either - a) women provided the vast majority of the calories for their families b) the whole tribe hunted, prehistoric humans couldn't afford sex roles)

I never said that women didn't provide the most calories for the family - I said that men hunted the most valuable commodity was meat - and large game was / is generally hunted for by the men.

Recent research that has gone into overthrowing the Men the Hunter, Women the Gatherer myth has focussed on womens contribution to sustenance and maintenance, but even then still concludes that large game hunting tended to bring the most prestige and this was usually done by the men:

[[http://foragers.wikidot.com/sexual-division-of-labor "The "Man the Hunter" conference changed the way researchers think about and study hunter-gatherer societies. It inspired research on issues and raised questions that had not been previously considered, and for the first time, women's contributions to subsistence in foraging societies became an important topic of study. Furthermore, hunter-gatherer societies were now perceived as sexually egalitarian, and thus the idea that men and women are equal (Kelly 2007: 262).

Ethnographic data has shown the importance of large game hunting in foraging societies, which is credited to the cultural value of sharing meat and the prestige it bestows upon men with strong hunting skills. Research has found that women hunt as well, but their catches are usually small game that are hunted while they are gathering. There are always exceptions to the rule, such as the Philippine Agta. About 85% of Agta women hunt, which is attributed to women leaving their children in the care of others while they are out hunting. Data collected from cross-cultural studies conclude that the sexual division of labor is the result of pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and raising children. Childcare responsibilities usually limit women's opportunities to procure food through hunting (Kelly 2007: 265-268).]]

any links Lenak? was this in the feminist topic or elsewhere?

Oppression

1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
2. an act or instance of oppressing.
3. the state of being oppressed.
4. the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.

Banning something, by it's nature must be an exercise in authority or power. Banning something because it goes against your ideals is both burdensome and unjust.

There are of course degrees to everything - but it still doesn't change the fact that stopping one form of oppression by replacing it with another is wrong - even if the replacement is infinitely milder - its still oppression.

As for not knowing any (radical) feminists that did not advocate the banning of the burkha - I find it very difficult to believe that you are not aware of the feminist support that was involved in the banning of the minarets (and subsequent local banning of the burka in some places) in Sweden or the feminist support that was garnered for the ban in France. But if you are not, google is your friend.

Incidently - I am not saying that all feminists think these things. I understand that feminism, like any other political ideology is not one homogenous group and that not all feminists agree with the argument - but a lot do.

Here is quite a good article which outlines some of the problems with the french feminist support for the Burkha and why any support for the banning of the burka is distinctly un-feminist.

Lenak - people often namecheck feminism when it suits them, it doesn't mean those people are feminists. I have seen it done in the Daily Mail which is not on the whole a feminist publication.
I am interested in your claim that feminists on here have often argued the burqa or hijab should be banned. I have never seen such posts so I am sceptical. If you link to them and they are what you say I will believe you. Googling about Sweden isn't going to answer that question (and as I don't have local knowledge about the French or Swedish feminist scenes I'm also not going to be in a position to know who the people are who are asking for the ban.)

Lenak if you are aware that feminism is not a homogeneous group and some don't support the things you're bothered about, then why does the existence of the people who do support those things put you off the entire movement? It doesn't make sense.
Surely if those things were the issue you would just say 'I support the [insert whatever it is] wing of feminism but I have issues with some of the things said by other feminists.

wow
just got back and seen all the posts.

I am unsure why other women feel the need to attack feminism in general. I understand that there are extremes in any point of view but surely the fundamental principals should by pass the agro.

Did this kind of back biting happen when equality and freedom from racism was in the fore. I don't genuinely know, but I should imagine the greater good of the cause was the driving force?

Surely if women aren't all agreed that there is a problem it just allows society to say that there was nothing to discuss.