Feminists today: are they doing it wrong?

[Dyakovo]

And your evidence that major feminist organizations are ignoring the plight of women in 3rd world countries is?

I didn't say major feminist organizations. I said feminists. I'm sure there are feminist organizations that do great things for women in 3rd world countries. I am speaking on a completely personal level. I apologise for not stressing that point.

So because I, personally, have not managed to do anything to help women in 3rd world countries, I'm a hypocrite?
How, exactly, do you expect individual feminists to solve these problems? I mean, you're condemning them foir not having done it, so you must know the way for them to do it.

[Lordieth]

That's not really the point. If you claim to be for a global movement against something, and then only focus on the patch you reside in, that's hypocrisy.

No it's not. The fact is that a feminist in France can do precisely fuck-all about the plight of women in Saudi Arabia. What is hypocritical about acknowledging that fact? I'm sure you wouldn't suggest that they don't care about those women - even really awful humans usually feel some compassion - so why do you think they're not doing anything about it (leaving aside the fact there are almost certainly many feminist groups attempting to change that situation and you just haven't heard of them)?

We're not talking about groups with aims to specifically tackle plights in particular countries. We're talking about feminists. We're also talking about slacktivism, and how the vast majority of cases highlighted by western feminists are mostly western problems.

If it's about raising issues and highlighting issues of unfair treatment of women, then what difference does it make where the problems are? If your goal is to raise awareness, then of course you can do something. "precisely fuck-all" is a cop-out.

[Lordieth]

I didn't say major feminist organizations. I said feminists. I'm sure there are feminist organizations that do great things for women in 3rd world countries. I am speaking on a completely personal level. I apologise for not stressing that point.

So because I, personally, have not managed to do anything to help women in 3rd world countries, I'm a hypocrite?
How, exactly, do you expect individual feminists to solve these problems? I mean, you're condemning them foir not having done it, so you must know the way for them to do it.

"Solve"? Of course not. Individual feminists aren't going to solve any problems, regardless of the problems they are addressing and highlighting, except on extremely local levels. I am referring to raising awareness. Is it not logical to focus on where the largest gender gaps are?

[Narthakka]

Strawman

No, it isn't. Perhaps I should rephrase.

You said: "Funny how western feminists turn a blind eye to some atrocities." And here you are - as far as anyone here can tell, turning a blind eye to some atrocities. A lot of atrocities, in fact. Are you as terrible as them, or is there another explanation for this apparent blindness?

When I say atrocities, I mean the gang rape epidemic in India, for example, which would seem like a big issue for all people, obviously, but especially women. How is Ebola an atrocity? But no, they'd rather focus on how the biological construct of gender is a 'social construct' or some other such nonsense. I never claimed to be fighting poverty. I donate to animal charities, I sign petitions and donate to people struggling all over the world, because I'm a soft bastard.

[Dyakovo]

So because I, personally, have not managed to do anything to help women in 3rd world countries, I'm a hypocrite?
How, exactly, do you expect individual feminists to solve these problems? I mean, you're condemning them foir not having done it, so you must know the way for them to do it.

"Solve"? Of course not. Individual feminists aren't going to solve any problems, regardless of the problems they are addressing and highlighting, except on extremely local levels. I am referring to raising awareness. Is it not logical to focus on where the largest gender gaps are?

No, it's logical to focus on places where you can actually have an effect.

[Tubbsalot]

The thing is in a decentralized structure those lunatics DO represent you to the general public at least. Have a look at the civil rights movement and now imagine it without MLK but still with the Black Panthers. There needs to be a moderate feminist organization which is moderately skilled at PR.

The goals of the feminist movement, as it existed originally, have been either accomplished or have had a lot of progress made towards them. There is hardly anyone who feels strongly enough about these issues to dedicate their life to it at this point. I'm sure there are plenty of moderate feminist organisations who aren't awful at PR - but who would particularly care what they had to say?

You can sure try advocating people not be dumb but I don't think it's ever worked before.

Even so, I find it more palatable than actively advocating for stupidity.

We're not talking about groups with aims to specifically tackle plights in particular countries. We're talking about feminists. We're also talking about slacktivism, and how the vast majority of cases highlighted by western feminists are mostly western problems.

If it's about raising issues and highlighting issues of unfair treatment of women, then what difference does it make where the problems are? If your goal is to raise awareness, then of course you can do something. "precisely fuck-all" is a cop-out.

Again, what do you expect a random Western feminist to do about the state of Saudi Arabia? What is even the point in bringing it up? "Saudi Arabia is a bad place, isn't it." "Yes. It is. I'm glad we had this conversation."

And who, exactly, is unaware that Saudi Arabia is a sexist shithole? And again, what is the point in 'raising awareness' when it doesn't change the situation in SA?

[Lordieth]

We're not talking about groups with aims to specifically tackle plights in particular countries. We're talking about feminists. We're also talking about slacktivism, and how the vast majority of cases highlighted by western feminists are mostly western problems.

If it's about raising issues and highlighting issues of unfair treatment of women, then what difference does it make where the problems are? If your goal is to raise awareness, then of course you can do something. "precisely fuck-all" is a cop-out.

Again, what do you expect a random Western feminist to do about the state of Saudi Arabia? What is even the point in bringing it up? "Saudi Arabia is a bad place, isn't it." "Yes. It is. I'm glad we had this conversation."

And who, exactly, is unaware that Saudi Arabia is a sexist shithole? And again, what is the point in 'raising awareness' when it doesn't change the situation in SA?

What do you expect a random Western feminist to do about the state of her own country? Are you saying that a feminist isn't able to highlight the problems of Saudi Arabia? So your argument being, western feminists, on an individual level, are powerless to help any but their own?

[Dyakovo]

Again, what do you expect a random Western feminist to do about the state of Saudi Arabia? What is even the point in bringing it up? "Saudi Arabia is a bad place, isn't it." "Yes. It is. I'm glad we had this conversation."

And who, exactly, is unaware that Saudi Arabia is a sexist shithole? And again, what is the point in 'raising awareness' when it doesn't change the situation in SA?

What do you expect a random Western feminist to do about the state of her own country? Are you saying that a feminist isn't able to highlight the problems of Saudi Arabia? So your argument being, western feminists, on an individual level, are powerless to help any but their own?

Beyond contributing to international feminist organizations? Yes, they are.

[Lordieth]

What do you expect a random Western feminist to do about the state of her own country? Are you saying that a feminist isn't able to highlight the problems of Saudi Arabia? So your argument being, western feminists, on an individual level, are powerless to help any but their own?

Beyond contributing to international feminist organizations? Yes, they are.

I don't fully buy the argument that the feminists who spend a lot of time highlighting localised problems (and I mean only highlighting, here, aka slacktivists), aren't motivated by selfish, rather than a group mentality to make positive change.

As long as we're making a distinction between aimless slacktivism, and feminists who are genuinely working to make the world a better place, I concede to your points.

[Tubbsalot]

When I say atrocities, I mean the gang rape epidemic in India, for example, which would seem like a big issue for all people, obviously, but especially women. How is Ebola an atrocity?

Pretty sure the Indians have the whole 'public opinion' deal nailed down by themselves. What could a New Zealander could hope to contribute, at this point? And why do you think western feminists were fine with the publicised rapes? Just because you didn't read Jane Public's opinion on the front page saying, pointlessly, "rape is bad"?

But no, they'd rather focus on how the biological construct of gender is a 'social construct' or some other such nonsense.

Now this is a strawman. I couldn't give less of a shit about that, and I don't know why you think feminists in general do.

I never claimed to be fighting poverty. I donate to animal charities, I sign petitions and donate to people struggling all over the world, because I'm a soft bastard.

And yet all those other problems go sadly overlooked by you. I won't be happy until you've reported on your fight against every single issue in the universe, for all locations in the universe, because that's what you'll need to justify your comment about feminist blindness. (And it's worth noting also that, while I identify as feminist, I don't identify as part of The Greater International Feminist Movement - which doesn't exist.)

[The Justinian Horde]

The radicals are taking over , so yes they're doing it wrong

[Lordieth]

The radicals are taking over , so yes they're doing it wrong

I think it's more accurate to say the radicals are more and more in the spotlight, and more and more being scrutinised and being ridiculed than a take-over. They're giving feminists on a whole a bad name.

[The Nihilistic view]

I don't even know what they do bar when they kick up so much fuss about a perfectly ordinary thing to do or say that it gets on the news. I guess that's the problem, it's only the stupid crap that a few feminists do that makes the news, all the good stuff others do is not really considered newsworthy and is forgotten about or not brought to peoples attention.

[Tubbsalot]

What do you expect a random Western feminist to do about the state of her own country?

Vote, agitate for change, and engage with the public, for starters.

I mean, I wouldn't expect every feminist to do that, because most people have lives outside of a single issue. But they could do all that, certainly. And they couldn't do any of it in SA - except maybe engaging with a fraction of the public via internet, for those who speak Arabic.

So your argument being, western feminists, on an individual level, are powerless to help any but their own?

Pretty much. We have a sphere of influence, and for the average Westerner, that sphere doesn't extend outside the West.

As long as we're making a distinction between aimless slacktivism, and feminists who are genuinely working to make the world a better place, I concede to your points.

I'd note that, if your problem is with slacktivism rather than feminism, that's something you really should keep clear in future.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And your evidence that major feminist organizations are ignoring the plight of women in 3rd world countries is?

I didn't say major feminist organizations. I said feminists. I'm sure there are feminist organizations that do great things for women in 3rd world countries. I am speaking on a completely personal level. I apologise for not stressing that point.

Wait, you're casting aspersions on feminist organizations for focusing largely on the issues that they're the most intimately familiar with (and therefore equipped to handle) rather than acting like the Great White Savior for women in nations with cultures that they may not understand all that well, and getting involved in situations where they could easily make things worse due to a lack of knowledge of the nuances of the situation? Seriously? That's ridiculous. While international cooperation and solidarity is a positive thing, it's often a wise idea to focus one's main efforts on one's own nation, or region, or state, or city, or neighborhood, or even block. That's not "conveniently ignoring" issues. That's putting one's talents where they're the most likely to do some good.

This whole "Well, if you really worry about x, why aren't you focusing on x in another country, where it's so much worse?" is just another way that people have of attempting to confuse the issue so that nothing gets done on x right here and right now. It's a weak attempt at sabotage, it's a banal and meaningless response, and in my estimation, it's not worthy of being taken seriously as a question.

[Lordieth]

What do you expect a random Western feminist to do about the state of her own country?

Vote, agitate for change, and engage with the public, for starters.

I mean, I wouldn't expect every feminist to do that, because most people have lives outside of a single issue. But they could do all that, certainly. And they couldn't do any of it in SA - except maybe engaging with a fraction of the public via internet, for those who speak Arabic.

So your argument being, western feminists, on an individual level, are powerless to help any but their own?

Pretty much. We have a sphere of influence, and for the average Westerner, that sphere doesn't extend outside the West.

As long as we're making a distinction between aimless slacktivism, and feminists who are genuinely working to make the world a better place, I concede to your points.

I'd note that, if your problem is with slacktivism rather than feminism, that's something you really should keep clear in future.

Slacktivism is as much as problem in Feminism as it is in any other movement, and doesn't invalidate my criticism of anyone who can help beyond their own backyard, and yet chooses to focus exclusively on it anyway.

It reminds me a little of Christopher Reeve. He donated a lot of money to stem cell research. A lot of people praised him for it. Then someone came out and said "Hold on. So he has all this money, and the cause he aims to focus on is the one thing that could cure him? Sure, what he's doing is great, but lets not pretend his motivations aren't almost entirely selfish." I'm paraphrasing, of course.

My point is, if you are able to help beyond your own backyward, but choose only to help your own backyward, then you are helping yourself, more than the cause of feminism at large. Simple point, really.

[Lordieth]

I didn't say major feminist organizations. I said feminists. I'm sure there are feminist organizations that do great things for women in 3rd world countries. I am speaking on a completely personal level. I apologise for not stressing that point.

Wait, you're casting aspersions on feminist organizations for focusing largely on the issues that they're the most intimately familiar with (and therefore equipped to handle) rather than acting like the Great White Savior for women in nations with cultures that they may not understand all that well, and getting involved in situations where they could easily make things worse due to a lack of knowledge of the nuances of the situation? Seriously? That's ridiculous. While international cooperation and solidarity is a positive thing, it's often a wise idea to focus one's main efforts on one's own nation, or region, or state, or city, or neighborhood, or even block. That's not "conveniently ignoring" issues. That's putting one's talents where they're the most likely to do some good.

This whole "Well, if you really worry about x, why aren't you focusing on x in another country, where it's so much worse?" is just another way that people have of attempting to confuse the issue so that nothing gets done on x right here and right now. It's a weak attempt at sabotage, it's a banal and meaningless response, and in my estimation, it's not worthy of being taken seriously as a question.

Did you even read what I wrote? I said I wasn't criticising feminist organizations. I applaud them for the work they do. Everything you said is spot on, but those are not my aspersions whatsoever. Organisations have to focus. That's logical resource management.

[Syndicapolis]

I agree with the OP: contemporary feminism has ceased to be feminist. The "Ban Bossy," thing has created a picture of feminists being pedantic, which in turn makes people think that feminists are just overreacting and our movement is irrelevant. I also think that the radical socialist current of feminism needs rejuvenation, though. Without also ending class oppression, fighting to end gender oppression is futile.

[Narthakka]

Pretty sure the Indians have the whole 'public opinion' deal nailed down by themselves. What could a New Zealander could hope to contribute, at this point? And why do you think western feminists were fine with the publicised rapes? Just because you didn't read Jane Public's opinion on the front page saying, pointlessly, "rape is bad"?

I'll take a leaf out of your book and say 'agitate for change'.

But no, they'd rather focus on how the biological construct of gender is a 'social construct' or some other such nonsense.

Now this is a strawman. I couldn't give less of a shit about that, and I don't know why you think feminists in general do.

Funny, because I've seen otherwise, like on nearly every feminist tumblr account and blog. I mean, if they think race is a 'social construct', why not?

[/quote]
And yet all those other problems go sadly overlooked by you. I won't be happy until you've reported on your fight against every single issue in the universe, for all locations in the universe, because that's what you'll need to justify your comment about feminist blindness. (And it's worth noting also that, while I identify as feminist, I don't identify as part of The Greater International Feminist Movement - which doesn't exist.)

You're saying me, as an individual, has to become the next Jesus, Mother Teresa and Ghandi has to basically surpass what hundreds of thousands of feminists do, only then you'll be happy. Gee, that's fair.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Vote, agitate for change, and engage with the public, for starters.

I mean, I wouldn't expect every feminist to do that, because most people have lives outside of a single issue. But they could do all that, certainly. And they couldn't do any of it in SA - except maybe engaging with a fraction of the public via internet, for those who speak Arabic.


Pretty much. We have a sphere of influence, and for the average Westerner, that sphere doesn't extend outside the West.


I'd note that, if your problem is with slacktivism rather than feminism, that's something you really should keep clear in future.

Slacktivism is as much as problem in Feminism as it is in any other movement, and doesn't invalidate my criticism of anyone who can help beyond their own backyard, and yet chooses to focus exclusively on it anyway.

It reminds me a little of Christopher Reeve. He donated a lot of money to stem cell research. A lot of people praised him for it. Then someone came out and said "Hold on. So he has all this money, and the cause he aims to focus on is the one thing that could cure him? Sure, what he's doing is great, but lets not pretend his motivations aren't almost entirely selfish." I'm paraphrasing, of course.

My point is, if you are able to help beyond your own backyward, but choose only to help your own backyward, then you are helping yourself, more than the cause of feminism at large. Simple point, really.

Who cares, if it's a good cause?

I remember years and years ago, when St. Vincent de Paul (a shelter in San Diego) opened up their shelter in San Diego, and their long-term residential unit was named the Joan Kroc Center, named after Joan Kroc, widow of McDonald's kingpin Ray Kroc. Why was it named after her? Well, she'd donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the project. Why? Theories varied. Some thought that she just wanted her name in the paper in a positive way, others thought that it was a way of making up for her late husband's incredibly shady business practices, still others mentioned rumors of a brother or other relative who had been on the streets for a while. My thought?

It didn't matter. Whether she was buying a good name, buying a clean conscience, or buying a stairway to heaven, what really mattered was that the money went to the project, and people who would have otherwise run the risk of dying of exposure ended up under a roof with showers, food, laundry facilities, and social workers to help them try to put their lives together. I ended up being one of those people for a while. If I end up making tons of money, you can bet that some of it is going to go into helping homeless people. Why? Because it's a problem that I'm familiar with, so I know the ins and outs of the issue. Even more would go to research into researching conditions like the kind that my daughter has, because that's another thing that personally affects me. This doesn't mean that other causes are less worthy. It simply means that I know these ones personally, I know the effect that they can have, and I take pleasure on both the personal and the more abstract levels when I'm able to help them. Others are personally affected by breast cancer, or schizophrenia, or drug and alcohol addiction, or racist practices and institutions, or sexism, and they focus on those causes. That's the backbone that keeps the charities and non-profits going with volunteer work: People who have been personally affected. If you have a personal stake, your motivation can be unflagging.

[Tubbsalot]

I'll take a leaf out of your book and say 'agitate for change'.

And how would a New Zealander agitate for change in India, ignoring again that the Indians have it covered?

Funny, because I've seen otherwise, like on nearly every feminist tumblr account and blog. I mean, if they think race is a 'social construct', why not?

You believe that feminists in general think this because, when you look at explicitly ideological blogs on a site infamous for the extremity of its feminism, some of them mention social constructs.

Okay.

As I've already said, feminism is now a much less compelling cause than it was, thanks to all the progress which has been made. This means that the only people who dedicate themselves to the issue are going to be extreme and probably unreasonable, and very much unrepresentative. So I find your proof unconvincing.

You're saying me, as an individual, has to become the next Jesus, Mother Teresa and Ghandi has to basically surpass what hundreds of thousands of feminists do, only then you'll be happy. Gee, that's fair.

It's only what you expect from feminists. Seems fair to me.

[Narthakka]

It's only what you expect from feminists. Seems fair to me.

Actually, I never said that. Again I'm talking about issues feminists would be the first to jump on, I'm NOT expecting them to cure Ebola, annihilate all crime and suffering.

[New Acardia]

Feminist have become Female Surpremist .
Just look at some of there speeches and liture .

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Wait, you're casting aspersions on feminist organizations for focusing largely on the issues that they're the most intimately familiar with (and therefore equipped to handle) rather than acting like the Great White Savior for women in nations with cultures that they may not understand all that well, and getting involved in situations where they could easily make things worse due to a lack of knowledge of the nuances of the situation? Seriously? That's ridiculous. While international cooperation and solidarity is a positive thing, it's often a wise idea to focus one's main efforts on one's own nation, or region, or state, or city, or neighborhood, or even block. That's not "conveniently ignoring" issues. That's putting one's talents where they're the most likely to do some good.

This whole "Well, if you really worry about x, why aren't you focusing on x in another country, where it's so much worse?" is just another way that people have of attempting to confuse the issue so that nothing gets done on x right here and right now. It's a weak attempt at sabotage, it's a banal and meaningless response, and in my estimation, it's not worthy of being taken seriously as a question.

Did you even read what I wrote? I said I wasn't criticising feminist organizations. I applaud them for the work they do. Everything you said is spot on, but those are not my aspersions whatsoever. Organisations have to focus. That's logical resource management.

Oh, then I don't get this:

I'd sort of hope they were against poverty and pestilence, though. Obviously if they're fine with those, I'll happily concede that my post is inapplicable.

That's not really the point. If you claim to be for a global movement against something, and then only focus on the patch you reside in, that's hypocrisy. Nobody against such things would be "for" them, but conveniently ignoring issues that don't personally affect you is an act of selfishness.

Emphasis mine.

[Lordieth]

Slacktivism is as much as problem in Feminism as it is in any other movement, and doesn't invalidate my criticism of anyone who can help beyond their own backyard, and yet chooses to focus exclusively on it anyway.

It reminds me a little of Christopher Reeve. He donated a lot of money to stem cell research. A lot of people praised him for it. Then someone came out and said "Hold on. So he has all this money, and the cause he aims to focus on is the one thing that could cure him? Sure, what he's doing is great, but lets not pretend his motivations aren't almost entirely selfish." I'm paraphrasing, of course.

My point is, if you are able to help beyond your own backyward, but choose only to help your own backyward, then you are helping yourself, more than the cause of feminism at large. Simple point, really.

Who cares, if it's a good cause?

I remember years and years ago, when St. Vincent de Paul (a shelter in San Diego) opened up their shelter in San Diego, and their long-term residential unit was named the Joan Kroc Center, named after Joan Kroc, widow of McDonald's kingpin Ray Kroc. Why was it named after her? Well, she'd donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the project. Why? Theories varied. Some thought that she just wanted her name in the paper in a positive way, others thought that it was a way of making up for her late husband's incredibly shady business practices, still others mentioned rumors of a brother or other relative who had been on the streets for a while. My thought?

It didn't matter. Whether she was buying a good name, buying a clean conscience, or buying a stairway to heaven, what really mattered was that the money went to the project, and people who would have otherwise run the risk of dying of exposure ended up under a roof with showers, food, laundry facilities, and social workers to help them try to put their lives together. I ended up being one of those people for a while. If I end up making tons of money, you can bet that some of it is going to go into helping homeless people. Why? Because it's a problem that I'm familiar with, so I know the ins and outs of the issue. Even more would go to research into researching conditions like the kind that my daughter has, because that's another thing that personally affects me. This doesn't mean that other causes are less worthy. It simply means that I know these ones personally, I know the effect that they can have, and I take pleasure on both the personal and the more abstract levels when I'm able to help them. Others are personally affected by breast cancer, or schizophrenia, or drug and alcohol addiction, or racist practices and institutions, or sexism, and they focus on those causes. That's the backbone that keeps the charities and non-profits going with volunteer work: People who have been personally affected. If you have a personal stake, your motivation can be unflagging.

You raise a good point. Even if the motivation behind the act is personal, if it's doing good, then there is a net gain, regardless. Still, when we're talking about the singular issue of female inequality, which is a singular but multifaceted goal, and while it is world-wide one, if you have a personal stake in it, then you're doing good wherever your geographical efforts are pointed towards.

I also agree that helping those you are best able to help is logical and makes a great deal of sense, but when you are faced with an almost equal choice, I do think the compassionate thing to do is to help those most in need of help.