Feminism, whats the goal?

[UglyGlassVase]

How can we ever be in a place were we aren't reliant on men?

We have the babies.

We are physically weaker.

How do we get around that? What's the goal?

I'm feeling very despondent, the more I think about it the more bleak it seems.

Always interesting to see those trying to wriggle out of naming the issue. In any other area, even a relatively small quantitative difference between groups is usually seem as something meaningful and needed explanation. The sheer size of the difference between females vs males committing violent acts of various sorts, the robustness of this difference across various societies and times.........Plus the fact that when you point this out someone wants you to use different groups, or pretend it is complicated, or just ignore it in some way, tells you a lot about what is going on.

If we really thought the problem was unsolvable, then we should perhaps be having a conversation about whether or not the Y chromosome was conducive to the long-term survival of the species, and how we could possibly get rid of it........Except (most) feminists don't. Which in some sense shows how civilised we are. That we were patient enough to wait for the marital rape exemption to be removed in 1991. ........................

I obviously have different life experience being a man, but I observe that feminism often looks at couples individually rather than as a team. So, for instance, when we say that the man gets to enjoy the benefits of the high powered career, it isn't often taken into consideration that they probably have a joint bank account and she may well be getting the same financial benefits as the man but getting to spend more time with the kids and pursuing hobbits etc.

Of course, the flipside is that should they divorce she doesn't have the same career prospects she may had before kids. I defo notice a real variation in opinions on here though. Many women with high earning husbands seem to count themselves lucky they can experience a high quality of life whilst still having lots of time to themselves (going by what I've read on here).

Hobbies not hobbits FFS!

If we really thought the problem was unsolvable, then we should perhaps be having a conversation about whether or not the Y chromosome was conducive to the long-term survival of the species

I'm not sure there's ever a good time to discuss the benefits of what is pretty much genocide. But tbh we could lose 90% of the world's population and still survive so it's unlikely to be an issue. Climate issues are I think a much bigger threat to mankind's continued existence. The population can't just keep growing - at some point it will reach critical mass.

The irony is that we'd probably not have lasted this long without male aggression to fight off predators etc, but we're now in a world where it's possibly more a burden than a benefit. But for sure it's unlikely IMO that we'll ever escape from conflict. It would require a religious/ideological truce that I just can't see happening. And where there is poverty and instability there will always be dictators and Kim Jongs.

Always interesting to see those trying to wriggle out of naming the issue

As it is interesting to see people trying to force others into precise viewpoints and perspectives that they no longer, or never did share.
You do realise that yours is just one of many perspectives on human relationships and how they have evolved.

@SomeDyke

Always interesting to see those trying to wriggle out of naming the issue. In any other area, even a relatively small quantitative difference between groups is usually seem as something meaningful and needed explanation. The sheer size of the difference between females vs males committing violent acts of various sorts, the robustness of this difference across various societies and times.........Plus the fact that when you point this out someone wants you to use different groups, or pretend it is complicated, or just ignore it in some way, tells you a lot about what is going on.

If we really thought the problem was unsolvable, then we should perhaps be having a conversation about whether or not the Y chromosome was conducive to the long-term survival of the species, and how we could possibly get rid of it........Except (most) feminists don't. Which in some sense shows how civilised we are. That we were patient enough to wait for the marital rape exemption to be removed in 1991. ........................

Yeah I don't think getting rid of males is really where most feminists are at. No one is saying we can't talk about male violence or that we should ignore it. We just had a huge chat about how best to name the issue.

What do you think is 'going on' then? Do you think feminists are just too weak and pathetic to call for the eradication of males? Shall we put all the boys in a camp for re-education?

If we really thought the problem was unsolvable, then we should perhaps be having a conversation about whether or not the Y chromosome was conducive to the long-term survival of the species,

Are you on glue? (a) of course men are necessary for the long term survival of our species, (b) one group tending to be pushed around by another group doesn't mean the dominant group should be murdered to bring equality. Women's lib doesn't need any guillotines.

Anyway, inequalities are not necessarily a problem to be solved. For example, most men are bigger and stronger than most women. In the UK we choose to organise our society in an attempt to limit the negative effects of this while keeping the positives. We are being fairly successful compared to many other places.

Always interesting to see those trying to wriggle out of naming the issue.

After a several-pages long discussion, with a fair bit of nuance, about the advantages and disadvantages of categorising or grouping phenomena in a particular way, that's your response?

I suspect SomeDyke might not be keen on men.

Quite interesting because aggression is one of the reasons why humans have even made its this far, along with intelligence, opposable thumbs and general adaptability. I would love to see early humans 'strongly rebuke' a sabertooth cat during dinner time. Anything that has existed had to fight for its right to live on this earth. Those that do not are left in the pages on history. Nature does not care and can be cruel.

Has anyone read the feminist sci-fi thriller “The Power”. I read it in a friends book clubs recently and This discussion is interesting. The premise is all women start growing these especial electric organs that instantly makes them able to easily Overpower almost any man. Now that they have the power, gendered violence and oppression flip. It’s a very contrived but the point she’s arguing is that it’s the Native ability to wield power which Causes the issue. I think she’s trying to say in the end that it doesn’t have to be this way - but that power plus entitlement to Use that power is at the root of male violence (not “Maleness” per se). Women commit domestic violence against children at high rates as well which does support this model soemwhat

@FWRLurker

Has anyone read the feminist sci-fi thriller “The Power”. I read it in a friends book clubs recently and This discussion is interesting. The premise is all women start growing these especial electric organs that instantly makes them able to easily Overpower almost any man. Now that they have the power, gendered violence and oppression flip. It’s a very contrived but the point she’s arguing is that it’s the Native ability to wield power which Causes the issue. I think she’s trying to say in the end that it doesn’t have to be this way - but that power plus entitlement to Use that power is at the root of male violence (not “Maleness” per se). Women commit domestic violence against children at high rates as well which does support this model soemwhat

I think the will to power is a consistent human drive. Not everyone has it equally, but I think it's fairly evenly shared out across the sexes, ethnicities, etc. Some cultures encourage it more than others.

Physical strength has always been a pretty basic way to assert that will to power, it's the first one children use against each other.

I think the relation of the sexes includes that for sure, both directly and in the sense that woman are affected by pregnancy and concern for children. But it's also a lot more complex, because they are interdependent and even with no will to power involved, reproductive role will impact the shape of a society. There are a lot of different kinds of things going on in any society when looking at male and female roles, and it can be difficult even to tease them apart.

I thought that book was brilliant. I could feel the Power in my hands! Amazing. Two very harrowing scenes in it which have stayed with me. I thought it was quite convincing in showing that women aren't inherently any nicer or kinder than men - if somehow our relative physical power relation was reversed, no guarantees that we would have a better world. It also does a good job of showing how power is used against us. It's a really great book.

In reality, of course there is a lot more complexity. But in general I think we can't just assume that we could reverse things to put women in charge and that's the answer, or that men should somehow be stripped of all their power. We have to figure out how to work together. For the most part, I think we are heading in the right direction, but there are definitely still some big areas where we are not getting it right, and we are often being put on the back foot and having to re-fight for what we thought we'd won. It's hard. But we are getting there. I'm optimistic. Might as well be!

I am totally for lesbian separatism - I support it. It obviously isn't going to be how the majority of women want to live, but I'd like to think that as a society we can accomodate different ways of life, communities and families.

I think women should start demanding our own state, or women only autonomous regions within current states, because of ongoing femicide that is our moral right.

Men are not inherently violent or sexists, living in patriarchy makes them such, in women led society it would be easier to raise boys into decent human beings.

I think women should start demanding our own state, or women only autonomous regions within current states, because of ongoing femicide that is our moral right.

Could I ask where the funds (for land purchases and infrastructure) would come from? Also, would this receive ongoing support from the country in which it is established or would the goal be true autonomy? For the latter, I'm not suggesting that power stations and communications hubs need to be built but, for example, would an internal economy support the purchase of energy? Would women be required to leave to engage in heterosexual relationships or could the 'vouch' for select men?

I realise this is a bundle of questions. Primarily, I'm interested in how what I see as tyranny (taxation without representation at best, apartheid at worst) could be morally justified in its execution. If I misunderstood and you meant a privately purchased area of land, I realise those questions don't apply.

Yes, I think it should be funded by state or UN, women are taxpayers too and with their unpaid work contributed greatly to modern society.

Also, I don't know where you see any tyranny, everything would be voluntary, small experiment for a start and then see how would develop.

It is important that we start to think out of the box, neoliberal patrirachy is not the only nor the best way society can be organized.

Female separatism is already legal, if it’s on private property. I don’t know about how popular it will ever be however. It’s the human condition to love Friends and Family regardless of their sex.

There’s also questions like what happens to boys born there? Do the women have to leave if a boy is born? Or when he’s weaned he must live with relatives outside the commune?

Anyway I’m sympathetic to women who want this I just imagine it’s not going to go very far. Most women are and will remain heterosexual and will tend to want to live with their mates, brothers, male offspring etc.

Thank you for your reply. I see it as tyranny because you are involuntarily collecting from taxpayers as a whole but limiting the benefits to a group with an inherent trait, regardless of how voluntarily administered it is internally. Essentially, this aspect is a form of collective punishment. I think it would be a wonderful experiment to run, if privately funded, I just disagree that those who do not want to get involved (and, especially, those who would be unable to get involved) should be forced to foot the bill.

If a legitimate private fundraiser were set up, I'd probably throw some money in and would also poke my head in for a visit.

*For me feminism is one of those things like safeguarding, healthcare or even fitness training.

Left unchecked nature fucks us over in many areas of life. If we want to live long and live well, we have to get that lump checked out, we have to take some exercise every day, we have to be wary of CFs.

To me feminism is one of those. The physical reality of having a female body puts us at a disadvantage. Feminism tries to counter it. There is no end, no goal. Just like reaching goal weight doesn't mean you can quit the gym, down the beers and scoff several packets of jaffa cakes wrapped in streaky bacon. Annoying.*

TorkTorkBam this is such a realistic and sensible point.

Female separatism that's dependent on external funding makes zero sense. How can it be independent if someone else holds the purse strings?

Better to fund it privately and find ways of generating income to be as self-sufficient as possible. Of course 100% self-sufficiency is unlikely because you would still have to rely on all sorts of external providers for certain things like medicines or surgery. But it's totally feasible to purchase a relatively large piece of land and turn it into a space for women to reside away from men, to feel safe from male violence, learn skills, forge close bonds with other women etc. It's been done before.

I see it as tyranny because you are involuntarily collecting from taxpayers as a whole but limiting the benefits to a group with an inherent trait, regardless of how voluntarily administered it is internally. Essentially, this aspect is a form of collective punishment.

In my country, every employee must pay childcare tax, even if she/he doesn't have children, or they attend private kindergarten. No one really complains about it, it's about solidarity. So maybe not in UK but this kind of project could be more wellcomed in some other country.

Besides, there would be jobs, in the area, or on-line... women would work and eventually become financially independent.

@FWRLurker

Female separatism is already legal, if it’s on private property. I don’t know about how popular it will ever be however. It’s the human condition to love Friends and Family regardless of their sex.

There’s also questions like what happens to boys born there? Do the women have to leave if a boy is born? Or when he’s weaned he must live with relatives outside the commune?

Anyway I’m sympathetic to women who want this I just imagine it’s not going to go very far. Most women are and will remain heterosexual and will tend to want to live with their mates, brothers, male offspring etc.

I know it's legal, but women don't really have that much capital in their hands and desire for separatism is usually described as manhating and therefore not really popular in a heteronormative society. I personally don't see separatism as a "final solution" , but something that could help us establish egalitarian society sooner.

So, kind of like a nunnery.

I don't think many women will be willing to leave their sons, even the adult ones, permanently. And many also would prefer to see their fathers, brothers, etc. So it's likely to be a rather limited experiment. Too limited to have an effect other than on those living there.

In my country, every employee must pay childcare tax, even if she/he doesn't have children, or they attend private kindergarten. No one really complains about it, it's about solidarity.

I think that's quite different because everyone is a child at some point and the facilities are available to all parents/carers. It seems to me to be an extension of the same concept as publicly funding schools. Publicly funded separatism would be similar to identifying that, on average, certain ethnic groups are less able to pay for childcare and limiting provision to members of that group.

... quit the gym, down the beers and scoff several packets of jaffa cakes wrapped in streaky bacon...

OMG - do you know me?