Feminism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2014, 01:12 AM
RE: Feminism
Ok, I took the following two paragraphs (First and Second Wave feminism) off a website that was concurrent with my background in feminist history and theory. The last paragraph on third wave feminism is mine. I will also have a comment at the end.

There seems to be some confusion on what these terms mean.

Feminism, First, Second, and Third Wave :

"Bottom line, the goal is homogenous: Feminism aims for gender equality within a currently patriarchal society."

The First Wave:
"What historians refer to as "first-wave feminism" arguably began in the late 18th century with the publication of Mary Wollstonecraft's (Mary Shelly's mother) Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), and ended with the ratification of the Twentieth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protected a woman's right to vote. First-wave feminism was concerned primarily with establishing, as a point of policy, that women are human beings and should not be treated like property."

The Second Wave:
"The second wave of feminism emerged in the wake of World War II, during which many women entered the workforce, and would have arguably ended with the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), had it been ratified. The central focus of the second wave was on total gender equality--women as a group having the same social, political, legal, and economic rights that men have."

The Third Wave:
The third wave of feminism emerged during the mid 1990s. Up until then, many women felt, with good cause, they were left out of first and second wave causes (the earlier focus being on white, upper middle class women): these new women are women of color, lesbians, poor women, transgender, and women of all cultures worldwide. Also, young women found little to identify with in early feminism. These young, new feminists believe being feminine (makeup, dresses etc.) should not be lost to women. The third wave feminism supports a generalization, recognizing all women, all backgrounds, all cultures worldwide.

I don't know what a feminazi or a radical feminist is. I have never met one. Maybe she is like Sojourner Truth, an "African-American abolitionist and women's rights activist. Truth was born into slavery in Swartekill, Ulster County, New York, but escaped with her infant daughter to freedom in 1826."

Sojourner Truth was speaking at a convention in 1858 when she was heckled by a man in the audience who challenged her being a woman at all, instead calling her a man in women's clothing. Truth replied, "I plowed and reaped and husked and mowed, can any man do more than that." Truth then bared her breasts to the audience and told them that her breasts spent more time suckling white babies than her own babies. Truth's action disgusted many and several women's groups canceled her.

Radical woman? Yeah.

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dee's post
11-09-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: Feminism
(11-09-2014 12:07 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  
(10-09-2014 10:17 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  It is a good that we seem to have found some common ground. I think with these kinds of problems the most effective thing you can do it speak out. You and I are aware of some of these problems, we have some agreement on it, we should talk to other people who are not aware of these problem; take the time to explain it to them, why it's not so good, and how we can do better. Progressive dialogue has been the driving force of all social movements. We are so much better of today because of all the vocal feminists who refused to be quite about the issues in the past. We still have a ways to go though. One of the ways we make it better is we talk about it. Acceptance and resignation to the status quo is the death to progress.

What would the purpose of speaking out be if we don't intend for anyone to actually do anything? Is it that merely educating people on the existence of sexism in media will in effect immunize them against being infected with those ideas in real life?

If you do not examine media critically, then you are likely to assimilate messages in media uncritically. Each of us, no matter how intelligent we are, incapable of putting cultural messages into context if we don't know what to look for. If you can get to the point where you understand how a message could be harmful, then you can better identify variations of that message when you see them. If you can explain that to another person, then they can do the same.

I said it earlier and I will repeat it here; the only way we change how we think, is to challenge how we think. Acceptance and apathy are the death to progress.

There was a time in American where black people where thought of as a possessing a child like, even infantile intellect. A great example of that brand of racism can be seen in the novel "Gone with the Wind", written in the 40's. It is through the influence of African american intellectuals like Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King Jr, and the writings of great African American authors and poets such as Langston Hughes and Claude McKay, that this terrible ideas about black people began to erode away. Even now, a hundred and fifty years after slavery and almost fifty years after the civil rights movement, these harmful stereotypes still exist in the minds of some people. You need look no further then the comments Cliven Bundy made to see evidence of that:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24...04821.html

You can draw many parallels between the struggle for blacks and other minorities to obtain equal rights and status in america, to the struggle for women to obtain equal rights and status in American. Just like African Americans, women in the past have been thought of as possessing as simple, perhaps even child like intellect. It was through the influence of powerful female intellectuals, like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Katy Stanton, that these negative, inaccurate, and derogatory stereotypes about women began to erode away. It was only through the work of feminist leaders, speaking out against the status quo, making people uncomfortable and angry, and refusing to be quite about the issues that the passage of the 19th amendment was made possible. You can be certain that if women had stayed home, stayed quite, and chattered mildly to themselves and only those who cared to listen, that the this amendment would have never passed and women would in all likelihood still be without the vote.

The challenges that face women, minorities, gays, and transgender peoples today are a little different than the past. Laws are binary. Something is legal or it isn't. It is the same or its not. Although minorities and women (and probably soon gays and transgender peoples) are equal in the eyes of the law, that does not make them equal in our society. The methodology for inspiring progress, however, hasn't really changed. If we want our culture to be more equal and more inclusive then we have to speak out against inequalities, against unequal and unfair representation, against harmful messages. That was how it was done in the past; challenging the cultural attitudes of the time was the precursor to legal victories then, challenging our culture now is the precursor to equality today. We will treat each other more fairly and equally when our thoughts, attitudes, and media reflect a culture that is more fair and more equal. These problems aren't going anywhere if we keep silent.

Quote:
(10-09-2014 10:17 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I reject the notion that no strong arguments can be made. If you specifically examine certain media in regards to certain issues, I think the arguments for one side can be overwhelming better formed and more convincing as compared to the arguments of the other side. I realise I just used a generalism to explain that Tongue, let me be specific. Let's talk about the Bechdel Test. A movie passes the Bechdel Test if it meets a very narrow set of requirements:

1) There are at least two female characters with names
2) Two female characters talk, to each other, about something other than a man.

The fact that so many movies fail the Bechdel Test certainly seems to imply a lot about female representation in media. In 2013 and 2014, about half of the oscar nominated films failed the Bechdel test. I believe when you examined all major budget films in aggregate they fared even a bit worse.

Keep in mind, of course, that the Bechdel test is not the litmus test for whether or not a movie is good. Life of PI is a great movie, and it fails this test. The Charlies Angel's movies were terrible it passed. The Bechdel Test, when interpreted correctly, is illustrative. This observation can allow you to make very good, very well formed, and very objective arguments and conclusions.

We agree that there is sexism in the media. We agree that neither of is in favor of censorship. For what exactly are there strong arguments?

Can you explicitly outline for me what you believe is the sexist implication of a movie failing the Bechdel Test? Then, could you outline how the implication actually effects real life? I am having difficult linking media representations with real life consequences. I suspect women have a great deal of conversation unrelated to men all the time. If I can learn that independently, why would I care if the media was accurate?

You are misrepresenting my argument. I said that the Bechdel Test does not indicate whether or not a movie is good, or even whether or not a movie is sexist. In aggregate, when you examine many titles and the majority of them fail the Bechdel Test, that says that in aggregate we have a problem with female representation in media.

The Bechdel Test is pathetically easy to pass. One would think that, seeing as how half of all people are female, that somewhere around half of all characters in movies would be female, and that somewhere in the course of a two hour movie two female characters would have cause to talk to each other about something. What does it say about our culture that half of all Academy Award nominees, the very best and most artful movies of the year, don't have two characters talking to each other even once? I think it implies very sharply that the the interactions of women with each other is not important or interesting in film. It severely down plays the relationships of female characters to other females. It makes for female characters that only interact with or motivate men. The potential consequences of that are not difficult to see. This media is conducive for a society that does not value female interactions and female relationships. Whether intentional or not, it portrays men and male relationships as more important or more interesting. I think the onus is really on you to explain how that is not a problem.

Quote:
(10-09-2014 10:17 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  You are grossly overgeneralizing here. It is an unfortunate state of things that these female employees require a male escort in order to feel safe. Where you see playing into gender stereotypes, I see an unfortunate by product of violence against women. I think women everywhere have very good reasons to fear being targeted as a victim because they are women. I can't imagine what it must be like to be afraid every time you have to walk out to your car.

If it were only a byproduct of violence against women, why hasn't the common solution been rooted in female action to solve their own issues? It is true that women are targeted often as victims of violent crimes. However, instead of armed and self defense savvy women marching boldly up to their cars, like any man already does, the solution has been to use men as bodyguards. It seems logical to me that if these women felt confidant in their ability to defend themselves effectively, they wouldn't ask for an escort. The mere request is an admission of weakness.

Understand that I know their fear is legitimate. I know the threats are real. I know fear is justified. I don't mention weakness in order to be insulting or judgmental, because I am afraid when I walk to my car too. I am weak in the face of violent crime too. It seems to me that I have a different set of unspoken social requirements to follow. I am not arrogant or stupid enough to think that I would do any better in the face of violence than most women. I am no fighter, and even if I was, I have no guarantee of being able to defend myself effectively against an ambush or multiple attackers. However, the social climate in this society requires me to walk to my car without showing fear or asking for protection from someone else, and I do it. I would like to know why women aren't required to take that responsibility for themselves?

Understand as well that it doesn't really matter to me if women decide they never want to protect themselves without help. I will gladly lend a hand if I can, even if I can't do much. I care about other people, even if the rules aren't exactly fair. I just wonder if they recognize the contradiction in demanding rights while shirking responsibility.

First off, what is wrong with weakness? I am a tiny man. If I felt unsafe some place I would certainty want a larger or better armed person to escort me to my car.

Secondly, why do women, or anybody for that matter, have to be responsible for preventing their own assault? That sounds a lot like blaming the victim. As I said earlier, I don't see anything wrong with admitting weakness. I could be the victim of violence just as easily as many women could. Nobody faults me for that though, because I am a man, and if you are a man it is not your responsibility to protect yourself from a random attack. It is just women who need to grow eyes in the backs of their head.

Now you touched briefly on an issue I think that is important. You said that you are made to feel as if it is not ok, for you as a man, to be afraid. That is a legitimate complaint, and it has been my experience that most feminist believe men do not have the freedom in our society to express themselves in certain ways or who certain kinds of emotions. Men are not all masculine all the time. It is a terrible shame that men are unable to be emotionally vulnerable, especially with other men. That isn't a problem with feminism, however, that is another symptom of culture that value masculine qualities over feminine ones. As a feminist, I believe men have a right to be emotionally vulnerable and gentle, the same way woman have the right to be aggressive and assertive.

Quote:
(10-09-2014 10:17 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I appreciate how you feel, but I reject the implication that it is not worth doing.

I don't know what the value is in talking about gender related expectations in a society. If you see some value in it, tell me more about that. What do you get out of it? How do people benefit from examining these things? What is to be gained here?

There is tremendous value in critical thinking. Even if sexism didn't exist and racism was dead (neither are true btw), then there would still be something to learn, and insights to gain, from critically examining media. Knowledge is good for knowledge's sake. On this forum we encourage critical thinking and rational debate on topics related to religion, science, politics, and philosophy. We don't ask the question "why are you doing that?" when someone reexamines the cosmological argument, or tries to disseminate passages in the bible, yet another time. Why wouldn't we do the same for movies, or books, or poetry, or dance, food, sports, whatever? What is it about artistry and media that makes them off limits? That some how excludes them from critical review? Seeing as how our media is a direct extension of our culture and by extension many of our common attitudes and beliefs, how wouldn't you want to take a closer look at that? I think we have a great deal to learn about ourselves through the critical, rational, and open ended discussion of culture and media.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
11-09-2014, 02:27 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2014 10:46 PM by Dark Phoenix.)
RE: Feminism
I agree with practically everything you just wrote. In fact, I don't know how much our opinions actually conflict if at all. I only have just a few points left.

I try to be critical of everything. Religion has taught me that much, and I use it as a starting point. I take that position for granted so much, that it didn't immediately occur to me that others might view media without that consideration. That being the case, I can understand both the necessity and the value of educating others in a critical discussion of media. That answers two of my own questions and concerns.

I didn't mean to misrepresent what you said about the Bechdel Test. I went back to read your comments a second time and you did in fact say that it didn't in and of itself suggest the quality or sexism present. Thank you for the historical examples and explanations. Based on those former success of equality, I think one possible solution might be for the makers and sellers of media to put out more accurate representative characters. It seems to me that we haven't censored shows from the days of racism, instead we now represent black people more accurately in contemporary media. Wouldn't you agree? Could that be an effective solution?

I don't see anything wrong with weakness. In fact, I tried to go out of my way to point that out.

I don't consider it the actual responsibility of anyone to prevent their own assault. I was trying to speak to a perceived social requirement, which I have observed and experienced first hand in my society.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dark Phoenix's post
11-09-2014, 03:12 PM
RE: Feminism
(10-09-2014 04:25 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  First the politics now this. Bro females still don't have it easy.
Compared to what?
Looks like women are doing so well, that they are not afraid to be more violent than men in a relationship, apparently.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/domestic-vio...ior-290662
http://www.batteredmen.com/NISVS.htm

If males are bad... Think, who raises them? Women! Women have enormous influence on male upbringing. First at home, then 9 years of elementary school there are female teachers.
If a man grows up in a fatherless home, he will not meet a male role model until he's in high school. Women may not have as much economical and political power, but their power over shaping brains of the next generation is enormous.

Now, growing up without a father is the greatest predictor for ending up in jail. Technically, jail causes single parent families in return...
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive...me/265860/
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/a...?ID=167327
But does anyone admit that maybe, maybe, women also have an influence on how the world ends up? They decide who the father will be, they control the means of production, so they are responsible for choosing shitty husbands. Then, when they get pregnant and alone, they go crying to the state for help, and the state is the greatest male provider of all times. The state can really get money on the table, be it through welfare or by court order and confiscating the man's money till the end of his life, in USA.
So this is feminism, it's socialism with panties. What about making a responsible choice, choosing a good, responsible man and raising the next generation of men with a male role model around, modelling good behavior towards women? How father treats mother, that is our mother language of what a man and a woman ought to be, as surely as we learn our national language.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2014, 03:58 PM
RE: Feminism
(11-09-2014 03:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-09-2014 04:25 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  First the politics now this. Bro females still don't have it easy.
Compared to what?
Looks like women are doing so well, that they are not afraid to be more violent than men in a relationship, apparently.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/domestic-vio...ior-290662
http://www.batteredmen.com/NISVS.htm

If males are bad... Think, who raises them? Women! Women have enormous influence on male upbringing. First at home, then 9 years of elementary school there are female teachers.
If a man grows up in a fatherless home, he will not meet a male role model until he's in high school. Women may not have as much economical and political power, but their power over shaping brains of the next generation is enormous.

Now, growing up without a father is the greatest predictor for ending up in jail. Technically, jail causes single parent families in return...
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive...me/265860/
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/a...?ID=167327
But does anyone admit that maybe, maybe, women also have an influence on how the world ends up? They decide who the father will be, they control the means of production, so they are responsible for choosing shitty husbands. Then, when they get pregnant and alone, they go crying to the state for help, and the state is the greatest male provider of all times. The state can really get money on the table, be it through welfare or by court order and confiscating the man's money till the end of his life, in USA.
So this is feminism, it's socialism with panties. What about making a responsible choice, choosing a good, responsible man and raising the next generation of men with a male role model around, modelling good behavior towards women? How father treats mother, that is our mother language of what a man and a woman ought to be, as surely as we learn our national language.

You just love taking the daily express train to crazytown, don't you, ol' Lumi?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-09-2014, 04:17 PM
RE: Feminism
(11-09-2014 02:27 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  I agree with practically everything you just wrote. In fact, I don't know how much our opinions actually conflict if at all. I only have just a few points left.

I try to be critical of everything. Religion has taught me that much, and I use it as a starting point. I take that position for granted so much, that it didn't immediately occur to me that others might view media without that consideration. That being the case, I can understand both the necessity and the value of educating others in a critical discussion of media. That answers two of my own questions and concerns.

I didn't meant misrepresent what you said about the Bechdel Test. I went back to read your comments a second time and you did in fact say that it didn't in and of itself suggest the quality or sexism present. Thank you for the historical examples and explanations. Based on those former success of equality, I think one possible solution might be for the makers and sellers of media to put out more accurate representative characters. It seems to me that we haven't censored shows from the days of racism, instead we now represent black people more accurately in contemporary media. Wouldn't you agree? Could that be an effective solution?

I don't see anything wrong with weakness. In fact, I tried to go out of my way to point that out.

I don't consider it the actual responsibility of anyone to prevent their own assault. I was trying to speak to a perceived social requirement, which I have observed and experienced first hand in my society.

I would agree that a better representation of women in media is one part of the solution. There are many benefits to seeing strong female characters in films; it gives men and a women a more well rounded view of women and femininity, it creates role models for other women, and (I think anyway) it often makes for more interesting, and certainly more inclusive, story telling.

I would agree with you that some women (and at least just as often other men) place social requirements on men that are not fair. Some examples that come to mind, the man in the relationship is expected to be the primary bread winner. It is not generally ok for men to take extended time away from work to raise children. Then there is the splitting the check thing on date Tongue. I personally believe women should pay half on a first date. If I had to go on a date tomorrow though, I would probably insist I paid. Something of a dual kind of sexism going on there.

Regarding this topic, I have been meaning to start a thread on it. I will get around to it sometime, I have some interesting ideas I want to share about it. More on that later I guess.

I personally believe that if you elevate the status of woman that many of these archaic social rituals will fall off on their own. The idea that men can't be stay-at-home dads, or that it speaks negatively of a man if his wife or girlfriend earns more than him have already begun to erode away over the years. It will take some more time for things like custody battles and splitting the check, but I think eventually we will get there. Perhaps someday feminism will be as much about male issues as female ones; both from a greater exploration and appreciation of male inequalities in our society and due to greater progress on things like sexual and domestic violence and all the rest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
11-09-2014, 07:41 PM
RE: Feminism
Can't we just like invent a new word?

One that applies to both sexes... Like... oooh I dunno... Humanist?

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2014, 07:49 PM
RE: Feminism
(11-09-2014 07:41 PM)Sam Wrote:  Can't we just like invent a new word?

One that applies to both sexes... Like... oooh I dunno... Humanist?

Humanist already exists and they focus on a different issue.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
11-09-2014, 07:53 PM
RE: Feminism
(11-09-2014 07:49 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(11-09-2014 07:41 PM)Sam Wrote:  Can't we just like invent a new word?

One that applies to both sexes... Like... oooh I dunno... Humanist?

Humanist already exists and they focus on a different issue.

Yeah, I know it exists, I was being sarcastic.

But, unless I'm mistaken, one of the key principals of being a humanist is viewing all humans as equal, regardless of ethnicity, nationality, sex, sexuality etc...

Seems like a good catch all term for being non-racist, non-sexist and non-homophobic to me.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2014, 07:56 PM
RE: Feminism
(11-09-2014 07:53 PM)Sam Wrote:  
(11-09-2014 07:49 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Humanist already exists and they focus on a different issue.

Yeah, I know it exists, I was being sarcastic.

But, unless I'm mistaken, one of the key principals of being a humanist is viewing all humans as equal, regardless of ethnicity, nationality, sex, sexuality etc...

Seems like a good catch all term for being non-racist, non-sexist and non-homophobic to me.

A Secular Humanist as a political stance would be aligned with Gay rights Civil rights and Women's groups. The UHA (United Humanists of America) is aligned with the NOW among others.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: