Feminism divisive?

I agree. I'm against ANY movement that puts one groups interests above the interests of all humanity. It is counter-productive and hypocritical in the worst way. Their definitely are many many many good people that identify themselves as feminists, and they are by and large NOT the problem at all, however the very labeling itself, and the singular thought patterns that evolve from fighting battles on behalf of a socio-identity group are harmful, and in the end does nothing beneficial and lasting once the legal rights are in place.

 

I don't know what kind of feminists you guys encounter, but I'm in feminist groups at my school, and many of the students in my major program (social work) identify themselves and feminists, and NONE are divisive or hypocritical. We notice the hypocrisies in society, and strive for equality.

It's people like you guys who give feminists a bad name. I'm even friends with male feminists. We unite in our fight against injustice based on gender. It's not men vs. women. It's equality.

 

I truly believe that the fact that you are involved in such groups and ascribe to the mentality is the reason you cannot see the forest for the trees. You are completely and totally missing my point, i'm not trying to give feminists specifically a bad name........i've said over and over throughout this thread that i'm against any socio-identity group that fights for their cause in specific, yet you totally misinterpret my position as somehow picking on feminists. You are more interested in being defensive and arguing the merits of feminism than seeing the broader picture of what i'm trying to espouse. Look at the title of this thread, now think about what is dividing our philosophies right now and preventing you from understanding my position. This is going absolutely nowhere. It's pointless, you advocate your sex, defending your socio-identity group even though I am not attacking it, just pointing out the futility of singular objectives, I am trying to advocate for humanity as a whole.......nuff said.

 

Sorry about the wall of text.

I just figured that I would throw in my 2 cents here regardless of how many bags of change that I need to use to do so.

Also, I don't have too many posts under my belt here so I may make some mistakes using tags here and there. You have my apologies in advance.

Furthermore, note that rather than responding to the entirety of some quotes, I will respond to pieces that are of interest to me. However, I will include the link so anyone can check the whole and see whether or not I am taking something out of context.

With that, I will start with the OP.

That is good to know. However things are usually stated as being true theoretically as a predecessor to saying things are not that way in real life. So, some clarification would be helpful because it sounds as if the OP is saying that in reality he does not believe in equality. So, a clarification would help here on the use of 'theoretical' versus actual/real regarding the OP's feelings about all people.

Wow. OK, attention garnered.

My first thought here is to say that it sounds as if the OP is ascribing ideology of some organizations to what feminism is as a whole. Which, I believe is unhelpful and divisive because it will push people away from a noble cause by seeking to represent it with the bad seeds.

Also, I think that there could be the beginnings of circular reasoning here. It is because it is and it can be proved that it is because the fact that it is is proof enough...

Again, this is a tactic I find personally distasteful. Whenever a statement is made in an OP, there will be those who disagree. Saying that a group's first instinct will probably be to zealously criticize the OP because it is human nature is very similar to tactics used to try and dismiss counterarguments before they are made by giving others the impression that such arguments are based on emotion rather than logic. I believe it would be more fair to not try to influence people to dismiss arguments that have not been heard. But, maybe I am misinterpreting this here. I will have to wait and see.

OK, I am with this. Thank you for the history summary.

This statement appears to be using the fact that feminism is a radical ideolgue to prove that feminism is a radical ideologue. An argument can be made that by trying to convince others that feminism is an ideologue pitting men against women it is attempting to divide and conquer all by itself. If men feel they are treatened by feminism, then they won't supposrt it. If people feel they are being required to adhere to a specific socio-identity, they will feel that their individuality is being threatened. I believe Sun-Tzu would be proud.

I believe there is a strawman here. There is no connection demonstrated between the two. For instance, a strong argument can be made that women entering into the workplace has created problems for families spending time together and juggling the many problems of married life. This would occur regardless of whether or not 'feminism' was the reason for the increase of women in the workplace. But, there is no connection in this statement to the 'pervasiveness of the feminist mentality'. In fact, I would say that most reasons that can be directly attributed to the rise in divorce rate (such as divorces being easier to obtain) and indiectly to feminism can be directly related to necessities (such as that the difficulty for divorce left women incapable or at least hindered in the escaping from many situations...) but can only be related to the 'pervasiveness of the feminist mentality' by unbacked opinion.

And, if I were to suggest that this OP is written by someone who identifies with the anti-feminist movement and thus cannot see the forest for the trees...It is a two way street that this post is traveling on.

The point is that I am beginning to truly believe that there is an outright attempt to dismiss counter arguments on the basis that they disagree with the OP rather than on the merit of the arguments being made. However, (somewhat) final judgment will be left for reactions to responses.

So, equality for women means they are goddesses on the earth? This seems contradictory in itself...

Also, this is working on the mistaken assumption that feminism is for women to plot separately from men. Feminism (the movement but not necessarily any particular organization...) espouses equality for women but not at the expense of any other. Anyone who believes everyone should be equal in treatment would not disagree that women should be included in everyone, right?

True, but I am not sure how the blinded part is figuring in to this.

There is some misdirection here. It assumes that because different groups with equality agendas have their own priorities that they work against those of the other groups with equality agendas. For instance, to counter this, I have seen much working together between the feminists and the gay and lesbian community. I have seen feminists who are strong advocates for funds that aid children. I believe I have seen strong advocates for feminism lend their support to equal access for physically disabled.

There are two points to be made here. One feminists spend time aiding other groups. Two, there is no need for people to limit the time they wish to spend helping others to only one cause. We should endeavor to spend more time rather than less. /rant

What this is apparently trying to imply is simply not true. Factions accomplish a tremendous amount of things that would not have occurred without them. Again there is nothing lending credence to the rhetoric being used about how troubling the 'fractionism is that is caused by feminism. It is only referencing itself over and over. Circular reasoning.

First, going to another quote...

On to what else factions have accomplished...
Did the abolitionists fail to abolish slavery? Did those who wished to gain for women the opportunity to vote fail? Did those who fought for labor unions fail to gain the opportunity for unions to all as well as clout that improved the working conditions of those who have never been a member of a union? Have the many organizations that have supported civil rights for minorities not seen great advances since when a black man couldn't use the same water fountain as a white man? The list goes on and on.They all have had remarkable success.

But to go further, I believe that there is a very important point that needs to be made. All forms of inequalities are not the same. They have differing historical sources and often manifest themselves in differing forms and at differing times. Because of this they will require varying solutions until the final total unity is reached. (Note: that final total unity will never happen.) Having differing groups committed to differing causes allows those involved to become more familiar with the ins and outs of their particular problems and needs. Thus, they are better able to mobilize people to enact change with regards to those problems than someone who is generically in charge of equality for all.

Proof? Substantiation? Something? Circular reasoning?

Not a lot to say on that and it ends my dissection of the OP...

*************************​

The next quote on the list in this wall of text...

Note: this one is snipped...

And the basis for this opinion other than a guess (examples being hard facts, personal experience that can be related somehow to the larger whole...) is what?

This is another strawman. The same comment about origins could probably be applied to most of the posters in most of the forums regardless of what side of any fence they sit.

A side topic point to this is that search engines such as google will give different results for people who use differing languages. So, if Dutch is the primary language one uses and NOW is googled, the National Organization for Women probably won't show up on the first page if it even shows up at all. So, many in foreign countries are unaware of the feminist movements in the US and may be entirely unaware of the Hip Forums themselves.

*************************​

On to the next...

This is a debate I will pass on here because it would require a thread all to itself.

Again, I hate to use this so often, but this is a strawman. A woman can buy a gun w/o a background check the same as a man. I am certain there are men who use vibrators. They do not have the opportunity to purchase them legally in Mississippi either.

The people who say the things being complained about above are idiots. However, I believe most people are not that stupid, but what do I know.

And some people get a hard on for powerful women , and others just want to have the impression that supposedly strong women (they want weak women who appear strong) cater to their desires and it goes round and round on both sides...

But, to be clear, I am not throwing around the accolade that you attributed to yourself in a snarky manner.

On to another post...

I concur.

*************************​

Next point:

I included this post because it specifically concedes the justifucation of anger at the social paradigms. But somewhere else the OP seems to not believe they exist any more for races...
Note: I am not personally commenting on those, just noting the concession in this post.

On to the next post...

Now, there is strong reason to believe that others beliefs are being dismissed and a misdirection is going on...

So, I will follow this with a host of quote snips from the OP and subsequent posts.
Note: there are too many to put in the individual quote tags...

That does qualify as trying to give feminism specifically a bad name. It compares it to other isms that already has negative connotations and explicitly states that is what it is doing.

Mentioning a few times that others are also included in the ire does not prevent feminism from being specifically attacked. It is.

To go further, why go to all the trouble of pointing out all the specific problems with just feminism? Why not point out all the problems with all the different isms and how they relate to the grand sceme rather than just pointing out those specific problems as feminism and saying they are the same as other groups? Could it be that such an endeavor would be too much for a single thread and a truly mighty undertaking?

If so, does the argument that the problems faced by women are too great to be merely lumped into a basket with all the others facing inequality not also work as a reason for feminism to be important? Sometimes there is so little available potential to activate change that if it is spread out evenly in a thin layer nothing will be accomplished. Sometimes tasks need to be divvyd (sp?) up and prioritized. That is another reason why there is a need for many different groups/movements.

No one is arguing against (virtually) everyone agreeing that everyone deserves equal treatment. However, differing people may actually have differing ideas on what that equal treatment is. So, everyone lumping under one banner and saying 'Yay! We all believe in equality!' just won't solve anything, IMO.

But, back to the quotes being discussed...

So, is the group of feminists being attacked?

Look at the following compilation (without tags for brevity)...

In response came this quote:

Note that feminism is being defended, not womanhood.

The above quote received this reply:

In summary of the above compilation:

So, feminism was definitely being attacked.

The post being responded to was explicitly defending it. katherine explicitly gave personal experience that those hypocrisies were not evident in her involvement with feminism as well as touting the merits of feminism..

The above quote dismissed the counter on the basis that Katherine was advocating her sex and failed to consider her testimony disputing the divisiveness.

This is an inappropriate attempt to dismiss others arguments and misdirect them as being something else.

The broader picture that is attempted to be drawn can be seen. It just isn't being drawn with facts or accuracy that is convincing in any way shape or form.

Not by a long shot.

 

I'm glad you did that TheGrayRaven - a reread of Kather1ne's posts showed clear discrimination against males - feminism doesn't typically equate to sexism, now, eh?

Raven, you seem like you are a level headed and rational person; the problem is, I rarely run into feminists like you, and more typically run into feminists like Kater1ne. I find most feminists tend to have slanderous comments towards men, blame men for all the woe of the world, and act indignant and superior of the male gender Furthermore, I find feminism had many of these ideals implanted in it from the very beginning, of course, not by all early feminists, but they were there.

It reminds me of The Wiz. They made it because there was not a single black in the Wizard of Oz; so then instead, they use only blacks; ironic, no?

 

Now, the funny thing is that those feminists who I have seen that most vociferously defend against judging the group as a whole by the comments of the extremists are the ones I personally feel are the most extreme.

Regarding The Wizard of Oz, I believe it is a true classic that transcends bounds.

And yes, if remakes are to be made in order to remove prior prejudices, new ones should not be instituted in my opinion.

My opinion on feminism as a whole is that it is simply the belief that women are equal to men. I believe there are an enormous number of people (most really) who actually believe what feminism stands for, its definition, but do not lay claim to the title of feminist because they do not wish to be associated with the extreme ends. The movemnt (what it should truly mean) has grown to great proportions but has allowed itself to be defined by a smaller segment of its 'membership'. That is a battle that the movement is losing and I think it needs to take back.

 

I don't even have the time or patience to respond to all that. It definitely irritates me when people pick apart every single little sentence and read more into things than is intended. I started off this thread with the intention of convincing people to unify. This is growing into a destructive and pointless dialogue that i'm not going to feed into.

I guess i'm just a closet misogynist.

 

That's the things with movements though; and one of the great problems of keeping any idea alive too long - the extremists tend to take it over.

I'm very anti-PETA, and it's come to the point, where I feel I have to bring up a discussion about it with every animal rights or veg. I encounter, because there support is so widespread, and evils are so underexamined.

Communism, could be a great system in theory - but it's never worked quite right in the real world, because extremists (of different types, I might add) have always been the ones to control it.

The 9/11 Truth Movement has been hurt by the extremist conspiracy theories - but without the extremists, there is little with enough passion to actually carry it on.

I think this thread is more about what feminism is now, and I think it's hard to say that all the men in here, and the few more open females are all closet misogynists or biased - these are based off of our actual experiences with members of the movement - and I think that says more than anything.

If the majority of the Black Rights Movement was militant, would it have worked out so well?
Which brings me to a few questions - Affirmative Action in the last few years has been losing popularity and even been challenged at the Supreme Court - I would be one to say that it's a form of discrimination and even, in some cases extremism.

So how do you make two separate and different groups truly equal? How do you compensate for the differences in a way that makes all groups happy? If feminism is being divisive - would a male-focussed companion to feminism be more divisive, or could it be designed in a way to show that while women are getting the prejudices and restrictions against them removed, that the same should happen for males (who are face mostly with prejudice), without causing a backlash?

Also, have you been active in the feminist movement? If so, what do you think of the male feminists you've encountered? Cause most seem like the apologist white liberals that reverse-discriminate against themselves or the gay bashing closet fag republicans that do the same, to me.
Most I've encountered go into the same, 'boys are snips and snails and puppy dog tails' and cheating assholes, routine that the (bad) femme feminists go into, and it's all bullshit to me.

 

Women have come so far in history; and perhaps yes we still have a ways to go. But many feminists are waaay to extreme or just want special treatment it seems.
I as a woman feel I already have equal rights. Now, are men and women exactly the same? certainly not, and I wouldn't want them to be. However, women in other countries do need more rights.

 

I don't think it's how the movement "allowed" itself to be defined. It is how the patriarchy and media defined us. Feminist, especially in a modern context, appear to be given two choices:

1. Attempt not to question or disrupt the current social statues, the idea being that any attempts at "radical" thought will scare away most people. Here, a woman should attempt to not "call herself a feminist", should agree with men when they voice their concerns of feminism sexism, and should - in a way - play the submissive role. This is less than ideal.

2. Be anything less than submissive and automatically be labeled a "radical" who simply hates me and wishes that women were superior. This means that most any chance of intelligent debate is nearly impossible. This, also, is not the ideal.

The ideal, of course, is that women are able to both claim the term feminist and speak up against the injustices of institutionalized sexism, and it would be considered perfectly acceptable. No, I take that back. The idea would be that women would not have to speak up about this at all, because it simply would not exist.

Women have come so hard in history, yet are still paid less, still under represented in government, still used as sexual objects, and are still afraid to claim a title such as feminist for fear of appearing too aggressive. Men are under represented in family court, but the end result of that is that the burden of child and home care is placed on the women regardless of her situation. Many people have called this recession a "he-cession" because men are losing their jobs at a higher rate that the same studies they quote for these facts go on to say that men are laid off more because women are often paid less (why keep a man on for 40 dollars an hour when a women will do his job for $35?), they are in lower statues jobs, and they are more likely to take a job that is viewed as being below their station in order to support their families. Which makes sense, as most single parent families are headed by a mother, women are allowed to win the children in family court and then expected to both be a mother and a bread winner.

It's unfortunate you feel that feminism promotes sexism, when the desired goal is obviously the exact opposite. It's unfortunate, but it's not surprising, because this is exactly what the media says feminism does, that it attempts to elevate women (often man hating, usually gay) and disregard men. While, yes, there is no denying there are extremist as there are with any movement, even mainstream and middle ground feminism has been shown this way, to the point where "mainstream" has had to keep moving over, until at least we have women saying that they WANTED to be filmed naked and drunk on their vacation because it's all about CHOICE and how they, in fact, don't even feel they are oppressed anymore. It's probably just a rumor. Like racism.

I would like to explain to you why it is feminism is such a maligned but necessary movement. I would love to take the time to explain how it's not just "proper" for us to seek equal treatment, but is needed for this world to function at it's full potential. I could easily go on and on about examples of modern day sexism that remain largely unaddressed by the mainstream media as proof that ignorance only spreads bigotry, and ignoring the problems faced by an underprivileged group is simply willful ignorance of their struggles. I have in the past tried to explain to people why assume that equality means that we ban together and become one monolithic group instead of addressing and embarrassing our diversity is an inherent bigoted idea as it assumes that the heterosexual, white male culture is somehow superior, and that all minority groups needs to align themselves to them in order to work together and achieve equal rights, but would you listen?

Because that is the trick to feminism that I think has tripped so many people up, as it has in many major movements. You have to stop and look at your life and accept that you have an advantage over people, that you are - with no effort - prized above certain people and that this gives you the privilege of saying things like "feminism is bad" or "racism only exists because we won't ignore it" because some of us our in a position where we can't ignore it.

I cannot ignore the way women and their bodies are treated by the media, or the way my customers are able to speak to me in specific ways because of my gender, or the way that while health care in this country negatively impacts people of both genders studies have shown that some of the highest costs and worst coverage is seen in woman's health care. I cannot ignore that little girls are told the following:

- The best day of their life will be their wedding. As oppose to any career they may have, or other ambitions, it will be the day they are officially handed off to a man.

- Do not walk alone at night, in cities, or in strange places and when you walk always move over for strangers, do not make eye contact, and do not speak with them or they will hurt you. Because, as a girl, you should inherently be fearful of violence from men. I wonder how many boys are told as constantly that when walking in the city they should not beat, intimidate, or sexually harass women. It, of course, lies on the women to protect herself and not on the men to, I don't know, not beat people up.

- That she would be beautiful if she lost weight, did her make up, fixed her clothes.... This is the goal of all women, to be beautiful. You know that because from an early age, you will have people randomly stop and tell you how you look as if it's the most important factor in determining your identity.

- A love of sex makes you a slut instead of a player. Being in a high position of power makes you a castrating man hater who probably slept her way to the top instead of a successful businessman who pulled himself up by his bootstraps. Attempting to speak up for yourself makes you a bitch as oppose to when a man speaks up for himself, which isn't called anything because it's simply accepted as being the normal thing to do.

- And, by the way, anything you perceive as being sexual harassment or sexism is just you being overly sensitive, and your best course of action is to laugh it off. Men enjoy a women who can laugh at her own oppression and does not question the authority behind this system. Forgetting for a moment that you have been told in a million ways growing up that your only worth is in your sexuality it helps if you thrown in something about enjoying getting drunk and stripping at parties, that the attention you receive for this is positive and not at all forced because social pressures no longer count.

- Actual school text books have been quoted to say that a girl is like a rose, and every man she sleeps with is plucking a petal from her and that no man wants to marry a stem of thorns. The same book says that men should respect a woman's virginity. Because a women is nothing more than an object valued by the number of sexual partner she has had, and it is the man's job to ensure she is kept virginal until marriage (his is option). At the same time, a woman should be sexy and allow men to comment on this freely, she should feel these comments are compliments and not at all inappropriate. The idea that a man finds her beautiful enough that he would sleep with her is the highest form of a compliment and much more desirable than being clever, passionate, financially stable, or ambitious.

That's just a small sampling of the subconscious messages that most girls have fully internalized by middle school. We are a culture that defines their worth as being as low as intimate objects, and then are surprised when they "dress like sluts" which, of course, will only lead to their rape because men are unable to control themselves when a prepubescent girl dresses in a way that society tells her she must in order to be valued. The logic behind such things is so twisted, I could go on about it for days.

Even after all this, though, here is what I'll bet most "I'm not a feminist because it's sexist" people see. They see that I am affronting their privilege to view female bodies for your own pleasure They'll accuse me of blaming men (when, in fact, I'm not - I'm blaming a sexist culture which feminism is attempting to correct, but that answer is complicated as it means that the they culture, a culture that is so mainstream you probably don't even think of it as being a culture but rather a norm, is wrong and that will be taken as a personal insult) and that everyone wants to be beautiful and you really do mean this as a compliment. They will not take into mind that while this might be true in a vacuum, the world we live in has been suffering from sexism so long that and the idea of beauty is so stressed in a woman's life that, yes, the idea that strangers have the right to tell women what they think of them, physically, is hurtful. Instead of putting forth the effort to analyze their behavior, they will go on the defensive.

It is like trying to explain to someone who believes that racism is over why we still need to stay vigilant and celebrate the equality of different peoples. They only see how this negatively impacts them, because it means that they must face their own biases for the common good when the alternative - living in privilege and saying you want equality without going through the actions of promoting it - is so much easier.

As a white, straight female I have a lot of privilege, too. It was not easy hearing for the first time how they were right, I didn't notice the lack of black dolls because I never went through a childhood in which all my dolls and all the fashion trends and everyone promoted as being "classically beautiful" was white. I never turned on the TV and saw that the only time women of color where considered beautiful it was always because they were "wild" or "exotic". I never went through ten years of school in which there was never a representation of a relationship like my own, I didn't notice because I didn't have to. All the relationships were heterosexual, it was the norm, and I was never meant to feel as if my feelings where something that needed to be censored from young children. Yet somehow I managed to face these, to educate myself instead of dismissing entire movements. Somehow, instead of saying "Well, if African Americans didn't INSIST on dressing so strange!" or "Well, what do gay people expect! We can't teach sexuality to young children!" I managed to listen and learn and, in the end... Look, I'll simply tell you what I learned so you can skip all that:

In the end, it isn't about being forced to be the same. It's about being equal. Which means that women should not have to conform to male standards, and men should not have to conform to their gender standards. It means that a culture does not have to be middle class white to be acceptable, and that we need to stop associating anything that comes from African American culture as being trashy. It means that instead of standing around declaring the battle won because we have the right to vote, we need to work to change social attitudes because that is where modern sexism lies in this country, and it cannot be changed be laws saying "men and women must be treated the same" it can only come about when we say "all people are created equal in their differences."

Feminism is not poisoning the culture, it is changing it, and while mainstream politics say that change is bad, change is the only way we can over come some of our long held, hurtful believes. To someone who has never had to think about their position in the culture, maybe this feels like a bad thing, but to the millions of Americans that aren't so lucky, it isn't a poison, but a medicine. Would it hurt you so much to embrace that? If you truly want unity, why not work towards unity instead of deriding entire movements because you cannot see their worth?

 

@ Gildedmuse

I will just start with a small bit...

I am assuming that this was directed at me since it says "you" and was in a large post that started as a reply to my quote.

I did not say that feminism promotes sexism. I do not believe that.

My statement is that there are fringe elements who consider themselves feminist that do so and that their actions have been inappropriately used to define (in this case by "define" I mean the perception among the general public) what feminism is. I am was pointing out that this "definition" among the general public is not what I believe the true definition of feminism is.

Does that make sense?