Feminism as "let's be nice to everyone"

[OneFlewOverTheDodosNest]

I've started getting the rage with celebrities and women I know who like to virtue signal about the importance of feminism, but then make the definition of feminism so broad that's it's useless.

Some things I've seen lately that have made my teeth clench include "feminism works for all genders", "feminism is another word for equalism", "we can only make feminism work if we get men on side, so let's be nice to them" "here's a list of things feminism works on for men" etc etc.

One thing that REALLY pissed me off was Emma-Feminist-Watson (I know...) saying that boys not being able to cry was the "saddest thing" she could think of and it just really brought home to me how feminism has turned from this fight to liberate woman, to this platitude designed to show that you're nice but "don't worry, not in a threatening way". Seriously, you can't think of a single thing SADDER than a bloke being emotionally stunted?

How did it happen that mainstream feminism started focusing on the emotional needs of men, rather than the increasing rates of DV and sexual violence? How did the conversation shift from "we need to fund these shelters for women" to "we need to make sure men have refuges [that never get used]"?

Nyconcrete That's interesting, can I ask why you think that?

"But shouldn't we want to, as a personal goal, try to be nice to everyone? Being horrible doesn't achieve much"

The point is that women who are assertive, or firm or even just expressing a point of view are told they need to be nicer.

And no, I don't think we should try to be nice to everyone. What about nasty people?

My thoughts are that the hard left, have no respect for human rights. They don't respect the right to a private family life, the expression of religious or political opinion. My experience of momentum has been of controlling, angry, rich, straight, while, middle-class males and women that accept males who behave that way.

It is quite liberating being able to tell someone who's asking, what about the menz? that feminism isn't about them, at all. Because, although it may not stop them whinging, it does keep the discourse on track. It's a fairly effective antidote to derailment. Especially if the person has an agenda.

Lately I have read many accounts of feminists, who aren't radical, saying they became radical purely by dint if the irrefutable logic of radical feminism. Often coming to light over the trans debate.

The complete lack of logic over feminists supporting the political implications of trans has lead a lot of women to a mind change.

All you really need, in that debate, is time, before someone will agree with you. There's simply too much evidence to deny.

So quite a few women have accepted that radical feminists know what theyre talking about, at least with regard to that. And therefore they have read more. I read a lot of accounts about how 'surprising' it is that so much of it makes sense.

The other side of the coin to that is how radical feminists alienate other women through use of the words like patriarchichy, oppression and liberation.

One really shouldn't have to sugarcoat these things, but I often do. Largely over those explicit terms, and explaining that doesn't mean there is some huge conspiracy where men meet and write down minutes on how to oppress women. (Even though this is exactly what they do, when they write policy that disadvantages them!).

You can't just focus on 'women' and assume that all women will have the same experience or face the same challenges.

As a matter of fact, yes, we can, and that is actually what feminism is about.

#Yesallwomen.

You recognize a feminist issue from the fact that almost all women are affected by it. Male violence? #Yesallwomen. Medical research only being done on men? #Yesallwomen. Bans on abortion? Affects all women at some point in their lives. Even those who are infertile suffer from fear of unwanted pregnancy as long as they don't know they're infertile.

Feminism isn't about making everyone feel better. It is about liberating women from patriarchy. It is about the things that most women have in common, not about your individual problems.

If you just want to tackle your personal problems, then go find a self-help group for those problems. Feminism isn't for that.

But shouldn't we want to, as a personal goal, try to be nice to everyone?

I am nice to everyone who is nice to me but there are many people who take being assertive, or having even the minutest of personal boundaries as not being nice.

So it suits them to tell us to be nice, because then they'll get away with being very much not nice, whilst the rest of us act like doormats.

It has been making me unspeakably angry, especially the Trans agenda we are being forced to accept. Women have always been 'nice' (read - compliant with the wishes of men) and it hasn't got us very far, the suffragettes achieved the most palpable difference but their protests were by no means entirely peaceful and I think people forget that. But then I doubt that being aggressive in the pursuit of equality as in the past would serve us well as the top of the power structure in our society is men who's interest lies in preserving the patriarchy that serves them so well, and sadly I think any women who speak out will be punished one way or another.

The millennial generation love labels, feminism has become just that, a label of supposed moral superiority - the watering it down to include men just makes it a more palatable version of signalling virtue without making the menz think you hate them.

I completely agree that being nice is code for compliance. Or prefacing every single assertion with an apology that you're even having to talk about it.

Sorry NY should have been clearer, you said that intersectionality harms black women, that confused me as intersectionality was coined by a black woman as a way to explain her own experiences. Just wondered if you thought it had changed over time, or if it has always been harmful?

bertrand if someone is horrible, stick up for yourself, but you can also choose to not stoop to their level. I personally strive to be nice to people, even if I don't like them, this doesn't mean always agreeing with them or even forcing myself to always engage with their arguments. But I'm not gonna bully or harass people either. I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'being nice'.

Datun Sure some people will change their mind, or agree with you. But to suggest that everyone will given time, makes it seem like you think you are right and everyone else is either wrong or ignorant. That just isn't the case. There may not even be a 'right' and 'wrong' just differing opinions, and currently society is favouring one side over another, which is fairly normal when you have competing views that can't exist together.

Feminism used to be a activism, to be a feminist meant that you were doing something. Liberal feminism is passive, it's wearing a t shirt or badge and doing sod all. When confronted by, for example, male violence, it's so easy to say 'not all men', 'women do it too' or 'men have a tougher time'. That way nothing has to be done about the problem, because we all do it and we all suffer.

When men claim to be feminist, but simultaneously change the definition away from women and girls, it just show their misogyny. They do not want women to succeed, they invade the movement to sabotage it.

Intersectionality as understood by libfems centres men, so that obviously harms black women. It harms all women, but black women, as the most vulnerable group, will probably be hit first.

It may have been coined by a black woman a long time ago, but it is not about black women anymore.

Feminism should be about all women. Which includes black women. No need for intersectionality. If something white women want harms black women (such as, oh, for example legalizing prostitution), then chances are it will harm white women, too, they just don't see it right now.

vestal There are no 'universal female experiences' that affect every woman in exactly the same way, even the experiences that affect 'most' women will impact some women more than others.

There are some issues that disproportionately target black women for example (more black women die in childbirth, more black women are unsuccessful in education) or poor women (more poor women in prison, more poor women in care) etc... feminism should aim to remove those barriers not just the 'general' barriers that exist for "all" women.

Some women will have privilege over some women and some men (white women over black women and men). If you don't acknowledge your own privilege then you can't fight to end that oppression.

Feminism used to be a activism, to be a feminist meant that you were doing something. Liberal feminism is passive, it's wearing a t shirt or badge and doing sod all.

YY BigDeskBob I think this is part of my frustration with the whole thing. How many of these women calling themselves feminists have done even the slightest thing to support actual women?

There has been a massive defunding of refuges over the last few years but the response has been piffling from most quarters. How many non-rad fems are doing something beyond sharing a facebook post or signing an online gonna do nothing petition?

There are no absolute experiences that affect all women in exactly the same way @Loopsdefruits of course. But your example of death in childbirth. Yes, it absolutely disproportionately affects Black women but it very clearly affects only women, including white women. Childbirth is one of the most dangerous times in a woman's life, wherever they live, and whoever they are. So antenatal and postnatal care are feminist issues.

This article sums it up pretty nicely:

www.feministcurrent.com/2017/07/26/white-feminism-thing-gender-identity-ideology-epitomizes/

In short, when gender identity worshippers declare themselves "intersectional" it means that they are willing to throw poor women and black women and all women under the bus and centre males.

All women have a universal experience; we are not men.

There are some issues that disproportionately target black women for example (more black women die in childbirth, more black women are unsuccessful in education) or poor women (more poor women in prison, more poor women in care) etc... feminism should aim to remove those barriers not just the 'general' barriers that exist for "all" women.

All of these are issues that are women's issues. Maternal health, women in prison, the exploitation of vulnerable women are ALL massive feminist issues.

If we say "women should be listened to in childbirth" then you can put an intersectional lens on that which advocates for interpreters for women who don't speak English as a first language, but if you don't achieve the overall feminist aim of getting the health care professionals to give a damn about what women are saying in the first place then the fact someone can translate what the woman in labour is saying isn't going to matter very much.

Bigdesk Actually, plenty of intersectional feminists are involved in activism. They march, contact government representatives, volunteer for charitable organisations. Even wearing a shirt or badge is often donating money to an organisation you wish to support. Just because they are doing so in a way that you do not approve of, doesn't mean they're not doing it. Often activism requires a level of education, time commitment, financial investment that not every person supportive of the cause can access. The women's march is a good example, there were many individuals who chose to 'march' via the internet, that still counts.

Vestal Ok, yeh I see what you mean. I don't agree but I can see why people would come to that conclusion. The way I see it, and the way it was explained to be, is that every single person has different parts of their experience that can make them privileged or not when compared to other people, people need to listen to other people who may have a different experience than them.

Loopsdefruits

Datun Sure some people will change their mind, or agree with you. But to suggest that everyone will given time, makes it seem like you think you are right and everyone else is either wrong or ignorant. That just isn't the case. There may not even be a 'right' and 'wrong' just differing opinions, and currently society is favouring one side over another, which is fairly normal when you have competing views that can't exist together.

I don't at all mean that it is 'wrong' to support the trans ideology. Obviously, because many people do. You could consider it a matter of opinion, perhaps.

What I mean is you can't disagree that it harms women. You may feel that the harm to women is negligible in which case that's just collateral damage.

But if you think it doesn't harm women, that's verifiably wrong.

Rich white women are a tiny minority, I wonder why anyone would assume they are the "default" woman.

If millions of women all over the world die in childbirth, then I don't care shit that some rich white women have a very low risk of that, it is still very much a feminist issue.

I do think everyone is a victim of patriarchy. I don't want my young DS to be conditioned into dysfunctional traditional stereotypically male type violence. I think it is as shocking waste of potential when men become abusive instead of doing something more constructive for everyone. The fall out effects everyone.

This does not mean I am being 'nice', just that I recognise the catastrophic effects, all round, of patriarchy.

Am I concerned with men's needs more than women's? No. However I am not concerned with women's needs more than men's either. Although, being a woman, I probably have more insight into women's needs as I have experienced them. If I was only concerned with women's needs, I think this furthers the patriarchy, in that it only deals with half the issues. There are so many problematic male pattern behaviours, if we want to prevent them occurring in roughly half the population, we need to understand how they occur and how to prevent them. Just telling men to stop often will not work. The rot has probably set in much earlier, in childhood. I wouldn't want to condemn anyone to live in such dysfunction.

vestal But that is what intersectionality is. It's saying that just because an issue is not an issue for one group doesn't mean it isn't an issue for anyone. The reasons why women are dying in childbirth are not the same, they are very dependent on race, class, education etc... so to solve the problem of why women are dying in childbirth you have to treat the issue as 'different' depending on the individuals it is harming.

Datun Ok, but what if you don't believe the 'trans ideology' harms women. What if you think that the arguments for this are contrived, overstated or just plain bigoted. You have listened to the arguments, from both sides, and you don't agree with one side. You're not ignorant, and until proved otherwise you're not wrong either.

I recently read this and thought, er, huh? It's like using the buzzwords is the most important thing. www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/magazine/why-rashida-jones-changed-her-mind-about-porn.html?_r=0

The temptation of intersectionality comes from 1) wanting to be nice/'inclusive' and 2) the everyday meat-and-potatoes issues (violence, objectification, sexualisation, devaluation etc) are now seen as so entrenched that (if not entirely invisible) they're regarded as unsolvable and people move on to more interesting, novel, niche issues like trans rights.

I wonder if a certain kind of education (and absorption of feminism into the post-modern academic ghetto) means that young educated women think of it as a thing to talk and write about rather than a lived-experience issue. Everyone seems to be able to throw the most interesting new buzzwords into their diatribe, and a lot of the focus seems to be about using the right words.

Loopsdefruits

I'm not talking about arguments. I'm talking about evidence.

Intersectionality is incredibly valuable and it is clearly very important. The majority of women are poor and WoC so only hearing about the issues that Western white women feel are important is problematic.

It is not expressed that way often though. It is expressed as whatabouttery. Women talk about periods (whether that's shame in the West, death in the Himalayas or loss of education in Africa) and they are told, "you can't talk about that, you aren't centering infertile women or women with penises or older women...". It's bullshit made to make women look in another direction and lose all focus, time and energy. It's the Judean People's Front.