Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

it's not Narnia, it's the Feminist Section!

205 replies

JaneMare · 13/02/2012 17:21

i thought i'd start a thread for those of us who don't normally post in here, so we can chat without derailing (any further Angry) the thread about strip clubs.

shall we stay then? Wink

OP posts:
blackcurrants · 15/02/2012 14:53

I had patience because I had tea. The tea is now gone, and I have marking to do. . .

Thank you all for your kind comments, I learn so much from this board, and it is such a great source of support for me, that I wanted to just say to Widow that I do know what you're saying about finding radical feminism 'unapproachable' - I felt similar. But actually their complete lack of desire to seem approachable, their cheerful "Fuck off!" to the antifeminist goblin that most women are taught to carry on their shoulders whispering "shh, be nice, Nice girls are nice, don't be confrontational, don't show anger, don't rock the boat, don't wear that or you'll force someone to rape you and you'll deserve it, don't interrupt when that man is talking, even though he interrupted you and you know more, don't, don't, don't, placate, placate, appease, appease"...

I love how radfems take that little shit of an antifeministgoblin and cheerfully strangle it! Oh, to live in a world where all those goblins were DEAD.

StarsAndBoulevards · 15/02/2012 14:54

You know what really pisses me off with society?

We have two women a week killed by former or current partners. Yet, people want to call the feminists extremists.

Men were legally allowed to rape their wives until 1990. Yet, people want to claim feminists hate men

The government is cutting funding to services that help women escape abusive relationships. Yet the feminists are "scary".

We have women subjected to rape jokes and sexual harrassment, despite the fact 1 in 3 women is sexually harassed in her lifetime, to some extent. Yet we're supposed to shut the fuck up and take it. And we're the scary ones.

What's so scary about women who are standing up for the 52%?

WidowWadman · 15/02/2012 15:18

blackcurrants - thanks for your posting and engaging with the argument I was trying to make. I don't entirely agree with your proposed response of more radical feminism in order to normalise things, but I can follow your argument and see where you're coming from.

I don't think that it's "perception of what is 'normal' is the problem." alone, what is the problem.

I totally agree there should be more feminism. I believe firmly that this is something which concerns everyone, and the inequality of genders hurts everyone. I'm actually quite vocal about that (and subsequently get a lot of the stupid hairy-legged-lesbian-in-need-of-a-shag stereotypes thrown at me in other places on the web)

When my perception of the more extreme views is that I find them extreme, then that's probably not going to change even if my ideal world of total equality was achieved. And I doubt that they really are useful to normalise feminist ideas, but are more fodder for the haters.

Take the PIV thing - yes, there's an inherent risk of STDs and pregnancy. And even if the pregnancy risk is removed by contraception/menopause/existing/pregnancy/infertility, the STD risk remains. But it's not only a risk to women, and I find insisting on that the STD risk is just a risk to women is not only incorrect, but dangerous. Men can and do contract STDs from heterosexual intercourse. They need to know that, and the core message should be that people who engage of sexual intercourse of any form with men or women should inform themselves of how to do it in the safest possible way. That's how the risk is minimised best for anyone involved. Men who don't infect themselbes can't pass it on to women either. The other important message is that people should only engage in things they want to do and if they don't particularly enjoy PIV then there's nothing wrong with that.

However, the argument that women should best not engage in vaginal intercourse because it's harmful to women is, in my opinion a) as useful as proposing that the promotion of abstinence could stop HIV or teenage pregnancy. The stats clearly show that the opposite is true and b) an oversimplification.

Is it an important topic to talk about? Yes, of course it is. Do we need to go as far as going for an oversimplified and potential dangerous argument in order to start the discussion? I don't think so.

ArtexMonkey · 15/02/2012 16:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

blackcurrants · 15/02/2012 17:09

ww I dont agree with much of that post either, but I think it is great for shifting the overton window, moving people's expectations and provoking discussion about some things; like PIV being the be all and end all of sex, and why that is silly and damaging to men and women. Most people want to shut that conversation down, anx I do not. I am glad it exists, because I think female sexualityis only considered in relation to penises, not as an imprtant autonomous entity.

sorry aboug sausavefingers typing. On train now, but reaxing with interest.

WidowWadman · 15/02/2012 17:11

Ah - see where we differ is that I think it shuts down the opportunity for discussion instead of opening it. But I see what you mean.

blackcurrants · 15/02/2012 17:17

argh, reading with interest.

Also, as my students would say, 'haters gonna hate.' If there were no radfems.do you think the misogynists would stop being misogynists? I dont. I think 'moderate' feminists would be the next target.

As evidence for my assertion I present the presidential candidates for.the Republican party over here in the US, for whom opposition to legal abortion is a given, and who have now.declared that they want to ban contraception. Despite the fact that 99% of American women use it at some point in thier lives. Radical feminists didnt make these establishment political figures into.raging.sexists, they are fighting them.

blackcurrants · 15/02/2012 17:20

so what I am saying is: radical feminism is not an enemy. Sometimes it doesnt fit with me, sometimes I feel frustrated with being told that I am too.feminist by some and not feminist enough by others! but radical.feminism isnt really going to put people off, feminism alone does.that, and foucs on division between feminists is a.favourite misogynist tactic.

WidowWadman · 15/02/2012 17:40

Gosh no, of course it's not the feminists who make misogynists misogynists. And feminists going away certainly wouldn't stop them from being misogynists. But I think that a misogynist - who often will just use extreme stereotypes to dismiss any feminist argument, are probably even less likely to engage in an argument when the radical is thrown at them.

I think in order to change people's way of thinking it's best to try and talk to them rather than at them. A lot of sexism is unthinking sexism, and once you point it out to a thoughtless sexist, they're usually horrified at the idea and that's where you get to challenge their thinking and behaviour.

At least that's what I extrapolate from my experiences with unthinking xenophobes (as opposed to the outright nasty ideological ones) Once you resort to namecalling, the discussion is over and you lost them.

It's just different ways of discourse. Look at this thread, too. When I've done my initial posting I got a lot of aggressive responses, which insinuated things that I hadn't said, and been accused several times of not wanting to discuss and engage. This basically just confirmed my prejudices about some types of feminist - whilst I find the debate I now have with you much more welcoming and thought-provoking.

"and foucs on division between feminists is a.favourite misogynist tactic."

Interesting point. Would it be possible to argue that even feminism as a whole isn't entirely free of misogyny? I mean the deriding of "funfems", which I guess is not something everyone who identifies as a radfem does, is not an invention by outsiders, is it? I've browsed through a few things on the radfemhub now, and I wasn't always sure whether it was real, or satire designed to discredit feminists. So how can looking down on "funfems" be squared with being truly feminist? (NB: This is not meant to troll, but a serious question.)

JerichoStarQuilt · 15/02/2012 17:46

There are times when I don't want to engage with misogynists, I just want them to fuck off and shut up. I certainly don't feel as if I have a duty to soft-soap my arguments so they'll agree. Why?

Why would you want to argue that feminism isn't free of misogyny?

If you mean feminism as a political ideology - yes, by definition, it's opposed to misogyny. If you mean individuals, then yes, I'm sure misogynistic reactions and habits creep into people's behaviour from time to time - that's why misogyny is so powerful, because it is a hugely influential structure underlying much of our culture.

PosiePumblechook · 15/02/2012 17:52

I think I love you blackcurrants....

This should be the radfem/feminism argument everytime, I'm tempted to copy it into word!!

Beachcomber · 15/02/2012 18:03

Blackcurrants your Shakespeare analogy is brilliant.

Thank you from a radical feminist.

vesuvia · 15/02/2012 21:30

WidowWadman wrote - "Would it be possible to argue that even feminism as a whole isn't entirely free of misogyny? I mean the deriding of "funfems", which I guess is not something everyone who identifies as a radfem does, is not an invention by outsiders, is it?"

I think misogyny is more about hatred of any and every woman, needing no other reason than the target happens to be female.

Is calling someone a "fun" feminist hateful of females for being female? I wouldn't be surprised if there are also some male fun feminists. Your example seems to me more like a radfem's derisive dismissive comment based not on the sex of the target but on the political views that the target has chosen to express.

WidowWadman · 15/02/2012 21:35

vesuvia - I see your point about male "funfems". However I meant negative attitudes towards women who like/embrace (hyper)feminine traits

JerichoStarQuilt · 15/02/2012 21:41

But is femininity the same thing as female-ness? As I understand it, feminists would say femininity is a misogynistic construct, wouldn't they?

WidowWadman · 15/02/2012 21:48

Does a feminist neccessarily have to subscribe to femininity being a misogynistic construct?

JerichoStarQuilt · 15/02/2012 21:54

It'd depend how you defined 'feminist'.

But if we're talking (as we were) about radical feminists, then yes, that's a basic tenet I am sure. So, I think vesuvia's point holds.

StarsAndBoulevards · 15/02/2012 22:07

WidowWadman, may I suggest you read Naomi Wolf's "The Beauty Myth". That goes a long way to explaining how misogyny is interspersed with femininity.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't be feminist AND feminine (hell, I live in dresses...) It's the idea that the epitome of being a woman is being "feminine", a construct which is usual determined at various points through history by men.

blackcurrants · 16/02/2012 00:15

I think that femininity and masculinity are both constructions of the patriarchy.

if you think about it, believing that femininity = femaleness or masculinity = maleness is just saying "Girls are like this and boys are like that."

I like a bit of femininity now and then. Depends on how much I can be bothered. But I don't feel that I have to be hyper-feminine all the time to prove that I am female and not some fake-woman. I am a woman every second of my life, no matter how feminine or unfeminine I look/behave. I've got the vag and uterus to prove it!

[not showing anyone emoticon]

blackcurrants · 16/02/2012 02:08

Also, before I finally go to bed, Widow when I said "focus on division between feminists is a favourite misogynist tactic" I didn't mean that it's a misogynist thing that feminists do - I mean that it's a divide-and-conquer, pit-them-against-each-other-so-they-don't-have-the-energy-to-fight-the-power kinda tactic.

If we're worrying about "well I'm feminist but not feminist like that, because those feminists piss me off/put others off/aren't feminist enough" - well that's just dandy for the patriarchy, cos it means we aren't lobbying/marching/running for parliament/stickering posters/writing stern letters or raising feminist consciousness and feminist children. So hence my whole embrace of the radfems, even if they wouldn't want to embrace me back all the time. We might not agree about every thing, but we agree on most of it, and they've got my back against the real problem.
Sorta thing.

Look at the way media characterize conflict of any kind between powerful women: "catfight" or "Squabble" or whatever. No matter how heated PMQs gets, you never read that Cameron had a 'catfight' with Milliband, do you [tangent, sorry]. Bedtime for me. Thanks everyone for a fascinating thread today, I'm looking forward to checking in tomorrow.

And sorry that I've diverted it somewhat from the first few posts. I'd quite like some turkish delight, y'know...

WidowWadman · 16/02/2012 08:13

Thanks for your responses - I find them really interesting.

I think I haven't made myself quite clear with what I meant by "misogyny" in that context. Rejection of hyperfemininity is one thing - (personally I don't think it's a patriarchal construct only, even if some of it is borne out of it, it's a bit more complicated than that)

But I've read a few times things which roughly paraphrased were "these women do it (dress feminine/like cum in their face/like BDSM/be a SAHM/paint themselves orange) only because they've been conditioned to do it by the patriarchy" as if being a woman makes you (before the radfem bolt of enlightenment hits you) incapable of independent thought and actually tastes of their own. That doesn't sound overly respectful to me and more like that these women are per se passive and have things done to them. Men are described much more as active in the same paradigm, IYSWIM

WidowWadman · 16/02/2012 08:17

"If we're worrying about "well I'm feminist but not feminist like that, because those feminists piss me off/put others off/aren't feminist enough" - well that's just dandy for the patriarchy, cos it means we aren't lobbying/marching/running for parliament/stickering posters/writing stern letters or raising feminist consciousness and feminist children"

But it's not the patriarchy which has invented the different streams? I'm uneasy with the idea of embracing a group with values which I definitely don't share, just because they've got some ideas which are similar to mine.

JerichoStarQuilt · 16/02/2012 08:44

I don't believe that is true. I think all of us are conditioned and none of us make free choices - men or women,.

Moreover, that point was made very clearly on one of the threads you're referring to.

I have never seen a feminist say men are more active and women are more passive. What I have seen, is feminists focusing more on women's lives than men's. But if you think about it, there is no reason why every time someone offers an opinion about women and women's choices, they have to also offer one about men. If I say that there's a social pressure on women to (to take your example) paint themselves orange - what would make you assume there isn't a social pressure on men to do the same, or to paint themselves purple, or whatever?

This is a point I think gets made quite a lot - people see a discussion that concentrates on women, and they say 'but you don't seem to think the same pressures apply to men, and they do!'. This may be true - but we don't always have to talk about it. We don't always have to understand any statement made about women, or any opinion put forward about women, as if it's only valid when it's compared with men's situation.

As to freedom of choice, lots of people would like to say they have it and there are no social pressures on them. They just happen, coincidentally, to fall in with conventions. I don't believe that is true. I don't think, by saying some of our choices are constrained and structured by society, I'm taking anything away from women or men except maybe that illusion that they were acting completely freely.

If I'm wrong, and other feminists are wrong, and we all do have perfectly free choice - why are you so worried by us saying these things? If everyone has free choice, my belief won't do you any harm.

Beachcomber · 16/02/2012 11:28

I think Radical Feminism must be one of the most misunderstood political movements going. And I don't think it is a coincidence that that is the case.

WidowWadman you said the following which I think is interesting to examine;

But I've read a few times things which roughly paraphrased were "these women do it (dress feminine/like cum in their face/like BDSM/be a SAHM/paint themselves orange) only because they've been conditioned to do it by the patriarchy" as if being a woman makes you (before the radfem bolt of enlightenment hits you) incapable of independent thought and actually tastes of their own.

I think you are pretty well on the money with this. Except that it is not quite as straightforward (I appreciate that you were paraphrasing).

As I radical feminist, I would say that women and men are socialized to behave in certain ways, rather than conditioned.

And to say that, does not mean that we are not capable of independent thought. It means that we are influenced by the society in which we live - I don't think that is an outrageous statement to make. Look at how differently people behave now, to for example, Victorian times - we can clearly see how societal norms and paradigms affect a population's behaviour.

Radical feminists disagree with the current set up. In order to disagree with something in a politically organised way (feminism is a political movement after all), one first needs to analyse what one is disagreeing with. To do that one needs to develop analytical tools, thought processes, concepts and abstracts.

And this means examining the current set up through a female perspective and really scratching under the surface to see if a thing is a result of patriarchal thinking or not. To see if a thing is oppressive to women as a group or not.

And this is quite difficult to do. It is difficult because it means rejecting a lot of values and ideals which are familiar and feel secure and 'natural'. This is where Blackcurrants' Shakespeare analogy is brilliant.

Radical feminism is a political movement which challenges the current status quo. And it challenges it in its entirety. Radfems believe that there is nothing to be salvaged from patriarchy/male supremacy. They think the whole thing is wrong.

They think it is all wrong because their analysis of it, is that patriarchy is a social system based on the fetishization of submission and dominance - with women being the submissives and men being the dominants. In other words we are in a male supremacy with female oppression. Radical feminism does not work towards equal rights but towards liberation. There can be no equal rights in a meaningful way within male supremacy. Male supremacy must end for women to be able to achieve equality.

And that is kind of it really. But the above thinking leads one to reject the social constructs of femininity and masculinity and by logic, their manifestations.

Now of course this idea, from the position of the status quo, feels pretty extreme and 'out there'. And of course this position challenges our lifestyles, our values, our morals, our culture, our family set up, indeed our very identities. And that is pretty scary (well I think it is anyway and I'm a radical feminist).

But pure radical feminist thought does not want to tell anyone what to do. The objective, if you like, of radical feminism, is revolution (not necessarily in the way we think of it in patriarchal terms). Radicals often talk wryly of 'come the revolution, such and such will happen'.

Ideologically after the revolution (should it ever come to fruit) there will be no culture of submission and dominance. There will be no social constructs of masculinity and femininity (which are based on submission and dominance whilst simultaneously used to perpetuate and reinforce submission and dominance).

Most of the radical feminists I have met try not to judge women for their current behaviour in patriarchy - they concentrate on the behaviour of those in power, the men.

Yes, you will come across some scathing comments or sarcasm sometimes but I think it is borne out of frustration and also the fact that radical feminists are maligned and 'othered' - and that kind of gets to you sometimes.

We women, all do what we have to, to get by in the patriarchy, is the way most radical feminists see it.

And that might be shaving your legs, being drawn to BDSM, being a prostituted women or anything else. (All three of those examples come from the foundations of submission and domination however.)

blackcurrants · 16/02/2012 12:21

aah, Beach you just did the hard thinking for me, thank you!

I was trying to articulate 'Not conditioned but socialized" - that's how I regard the AntifeministGoblinOnYourShoulder nonsense that I was using earlier. I am not inferior to anyone, but I was certainly socialized to pretend I was, to make men feel better. Even while being told I could be anything I wanted, etc etc etc.

How can I possibly make free choices in a patriarchal system?

It's an easy analogy for me to make after living in the US for so long, but I'm a naice middle class white lady who grew up with some non-white friends but mainly surrounded by white people and until I moved here and did some reading and thought about it and made some different friends and basically REALLY worked at it, I hadn't accepted just how socialized-to-be-racist I really am, nor how much I benefit (enormously) from white privilege.

Even nice people who aren't mean bigots benefit from the fact that society prefers it if you're white. Ditto male. Ditto heterosexual. Ditto rich.

I want to believe I'm a free agent but I know I'm not. I'm awash with contradictory influences, family, friends, marketing, education... and all that I think distinguishes me from someone who KNOWS that they are a free agent, is the knowledge that I'm not.
Doesn't make me 'better' - it's just that I took the red pill and not the blue one. Or whichever way around it is in the matrix film, I can't bloomin remember!

[in my defence, 7am, been up since 5, no tea yet. Off to make tea...]