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

[ledkr]

Hi,I would describe myself as a feminist but have no majorly radical views and am not an activist,.However,i am a female parent of 2 females and I expect myself and them to be able to move through our lives free from prejudism and discrimination so am therefore a feminist. However often in rl and on some of the threads on here it seems that that is a bad thing.I dont understand,surely if you are a female or indeed an intelligent male then it should go without saying.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bonsoir Feminism is hardly alone in that regard.

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

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

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?

'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.

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 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?)

A society doesn't act in the same way as the individual men and women that make up its component parts. Our society is patriarchal - it benefits men and prioritises their existence. This isn't the same thing as saying all men repress all women.

Honestly, you should google 'Feminism 101'. It explains a lot of stuff about what is a very large and multi-faceted movement.

The context was an OP about the word 'flattering' being used to describe a dress the OP's daughter was wearing, the OP didn't like that word.

I said that it was a word designed to sell the dress, nothing more.

Well, to be blunt (but polite), a statement that words are 'only' words, with no underlying political meaning, is generally unhelpful to any form of analysis.

Words constitute our world - we can't do anything without language. Language isn't innocent, or naive, or divorced from the society in which we live. It can't be.

I still don't think you were repressed. Brought up short, yes. But not repressed.

Doesn't our particular patriarchal system benefit women, in comparison to say, Afghanistan's patriarchal system?

I'm not a feminist, and a lot of feminism seems to be against women IMO. I'm not closed-minded though...I won't disagree for the sake of it, and am happy to admit when I'm wrong.

I will google Feminism 101.