The Feminist Pub (continued).

[UptoapointLordCopper]

Been busy. Came back today to have a look but the Pub thread was full! Shall we continue here?

Third episode of Borgen on tonight.

Leaving aside the "men can or can't be feminists/straight people can or can't be gay rights activists" for a moment, wouldn't there be more disagreement in feminism than in gay rights because feminism directly affects 50%+ of the population whereas gay rights affects a lower percentage?

And also - a lot of sexism has its root in biological differences such as childbearing. There is far less or no biological difference between a gay man and a straight man so once the principle of prejudice being wrong is accepted, the practice is easier, whereas one of feminism's arguments is that equal is not necessarily fair (height requirements for jobs being a trivial example).

And that is why I think sexism is one of the more ingrained -
Of the -isms.

Just been watching 'Don't ever wipe tears without gloves' and wondering if HIV was such a public catastrophy for the gay community in the 1980s that they've 'benefitted' (not the right word) from in the midterm. All those famous people that didn't even admit to being gay prior to HIV so publicly dying made it obvious that 'normal' people were gay, they were no longer hidden and scary. And maybe there will be a backlash when that folk memory recedes. Maybe feminism is having a backlash? Or maybe a resurgence? I am more aware of feminism being discussed on Radio 4 or Newsnight than it was historically, am I just living in a female friendly space?

I think Doctrine is right, or at least that's probably why feminists "fight" so much. But I really don't see how any "type" of feminist can speak for all women. As for "fights", again, with such a large group of people it is inevitable that someone would get on someone's nerves. And we are not all saints and could always refrain from personal attacks, unlike Brigitte and Katrine in Borgen. If you are heading some organised movement then you need to be careful what you do and say, but we are just having a chat and trying to understand more and have "full and frank" discussions. I think we are not doing too badly to have a pub fight only after 679 posts!

OK - not quite 679 posts but close.

2,600 posts I think. Isn't this pub thread three?

True Doctrine. I call that a miracle.

I missed whatever that was all about and I plan to keep missing it.

It really annoys me that people assume feminists disagreeing or fighting is somehow 'not allowed' or a sign that there's no point being a feminist. It's rubbish. Just because we're women doesn't mean we have to bury seething resentment/mild annoyance/whatever under a cloud of peace and love.

You want to know who really fights pointlessly? Local politicians. Trust me. I grew up with it all as my dad likes nothing better than trying to get someone no-one wants to vote for elected, and woah those people can argue over nothing. But that's allowed, because they're mostly men and it's called 'standing on principle' then.

Anyone who thinks feminism is riven with bitter divisions should take a look at the Tory party. And the Tories are supposed to be working together to govern the country, whereas feminism is a massively diverse global movement.

True.

Plus, why should we care if feminism is riven with bitter divisions? If it happens to be the best way forward, then I'll go for it and ignore or compromise, that's fine.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say, argument and disagreement is good, division isn't. One of the biggest threats to feminism isn't feminists discussing and disagreeing, but the fact that the liberal mainstream or cultural hegemony subsumed many of the previous gains into itself. Many of the demands that previous waves made, have been co-opted into the mainstream, re-packaged and given a liberal flavour and sold back to us as radical. Nothing that is subsumed and sold back to us is radical, so no we don't live in a woman friendly world just because the BBC discusses childcare or examples of successful women. Quite the opposite is happening.

I agree that healthy debate is a Good Thing generally, but not so much if it gets personal. And it's hard to not feel that it's personal when whatever is being discussed is close to ones own personal experience.

All sorts of big -isms argue amongst each other, as do large organisations. It's the ones that find MORE that they have in common than what divides them that tend to come out of this strengthened.

I do think that the expectation of 'no disagreement' is utterly unrealistic and I wonder whether it is part of the whole 'nice girls don't fight' conditioning?? Not sure .

Pacific - nice girls don't fight.

They don't do they? We are all supposed to be in total agreement, you're right.

If you go against the grain you are aggressive or a bitch. It's infuriating!

Healthy debate is necessary isn't it. Its hard though for it not to become personal. Part of the problem within feminism is the high jacking of feminism from the outside liberal forces. The cultural forces perpetuate the idea that we all have total unfettered free choice, all choices are equal and to deny this implies that the "actor" or "chooser" of these choices is less than equal because we have made a value judgement about the choice. Its impossible to separate the chooser from the choice, but we are forced to do this impossible thing, in order that we respect all persons equally. Of course many feminists (of the not choosy choice variety) accept that we don't have free choice, so again we have to separate chooser from choice and critique the choice that the chooser is unable to separate from themselves. Its like bloody mental gymnastics and its meant to be, because it keeps the cultural mainstream hospitable to the exploitation of women, children and half the world.

There's a lot of fighting within the LGBTQ community, although a lot of that is due to sexism, racism, ableism, fatphobia etc. The problem in the LGBTQ community is that it's so dominated by wealthy white cisgender gay men, and other groups suffer because of that dominance. So it's different to what happens amongst feminists and I'm not sure it could be compared.

(FYI I am a cisgender white bisexual woman)

Good grief, I just had to go and google 'cisgender' - I am educated .
Yes, I am quite sure that what the LGBTQ community experiences is more disparate that what most straight, white women's experience is.
I don't think that infighting in itself is anything to strive for, but I think it is almost inevitable when you get many individuals, some more forcefully than others, aiming for similar but slightly different goals.

Fair point, mini. I don't disagree. I just get sick of the 'you should all be nice ladies and agree' thing.

I don't honestly understand how someone could be cisgender and feminist, but I can agree to disagree on that one.

Hang on, LRD, I thought 'cisgender' meant identifying with your gender assigned at birth/conception? No?
May I not please be a feminist??
Or is there a 'not' missing from your post?

Yes, I think it does mean that. Surely if you're a feminist, you disagree with a lot of the gender stereotyping?

I don't mind being called cis (though I know a lot of people on this board do) but being called 'cisgender' makes my head hurt, since gender is not assigned at birth, it's socially constructed.

Sorry, I didn't actually intend this to turn into a 'you're not a feminist' debate, I thought I was saying something relatively uncontroversial from the 'who is a feminist' POV, if not from others.

Crosspost.

What mooncup said explains it better. Surely if you think gender is assigned at birth, you'd simply believe women are naturally inferior and deserve all the misogyny they get?

"I don't honestly understand how someone could be cisgender and feminist" - that's the bit I did not get, sorry.

Ok, I think I got a bit confused with 'sex' and 'gender' there , but I still think whether your cisgendered or whatevertheoppositeis and identify as female and are interested in women's right, then you are a feminist??

My head hurts now.
I'll have some white . This is a pub afterall

Sorry.

I think I'm doing that thing of assuming my posts are coherent because they made sense in my head. And it is not so.

all round.

I really didn't mean to be laying down the law on who's a feminist. I meant I was confused why someone would identify as 'cisgender' and be one, but not that I was sitting there saying narkily 'well you're not a feminist', because I have absolutely no right to say that.

I absolutely think if someone is female and interested in women's rights they're a feminist. TBH I don't have a huge issue with men who're interested in women's rights saying they're feminists, though I am jaded by those who do it in order to be prats. That's all.