The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Mattopilos]

Glad this is agreed upon.

Liberal feminism asserts the equality of men and women through political and legal reform. It is an individualistic form of feminism, which focuses on women's ability to show and maintain their equality through their own actions and choices. Liberal feminism uses the personal interactions between men and women as the place from which to transform society. According to liberal feminists, all women are capable of asserting their ability to achieve equality, therefore it is possible for change to happen without altering the structure of society. Issues important to liberal feminists include reproductive and abortion rights, sexual harassment, voting, education, "equal pay for equal work", affordable childcare, affordable health care, and bringing to light the frequency of sexual and domestic violence against women.[1]

Describes liberal feminism in a nutshell. That is kinda the goal of liberal feminism - to aim for their goals purely through reform and word of law.



Depends on the interpretation on the 'Include men" idea: are we talking "Men should fight for feminism too!" (Which I agree with but has kinda been a message the whole time", or are we talking of some kind of pitying of men but including them in reforms for equality that seems like an afterthought? Because that annoys me as well. Very few things that could work with, like working on rape and domestic violence victims, given how big a problem that is for all genders.



Well of course - you need more than just women aiming for equality, that is a given. To ignore that men had some part in it would be pretty stupid. I mean, obviously when they are arguing that it was the system affected by men that required the fighting for equal rights in the first place, they aren't wrong, per say, but to argue that men didn't have a role in actually aiming for equality for women is another, far less less logical, claim to make.

Huffington Post Article This article, and the essay it referred to, both annoyed me.

Feminism for everybody: in this article, typically no real gratitude and also a patronizing demand that men be good to women and nothing about how women should be good to men.

The impression I get is that this is a kind of propaganda that is rewriting history and actually in my opinion unnecessarily creating conflict.

> Obama
> Feminist
Wut

And the second article has the tone of men helping reach equality that I hate.

[Costa Fierro]

I can't understand why men would become feminists anyway. You don't support a movement where the mainstream views you as subhuman.

[Alvecia]

I can't understand why men would become feminists anyway. You don't support a movement where the mainstream views you as subhuman.

Assuming for the sake of argument that your views on the mainstream are correct, the meaning and definition of feminism varies from person to person.

[Mattopilos]

I can't understand why men would become feminists anyway. You don't support a movement where the mainstream views you as subhuman.

Because only the fringe has the tendency to think so. Also depends on the group of feminism and you must have some very bad experiences with feminists.

[New Edom]

I can't understand why men would become feminists anyway. You don't support a movement where the mainstream views you as subhuman.

Because only the fringe has the tendency to think so. Also depends on the group of feminism and you must have some very bad experiences with feminists.

Maybe subhuman is a bit of hyperbole, but certain it would be accurate to say that most feminists express themselves in ways that talk of men as being less moral, less intelligent and less socially responsible than women. And never hold women accountable for anything, because of a word: patriarchy. So sexually active men and women I would argue talk about one another equally as objects of pleasure. I have no issue with this. What I do object to is feminnists piously saying that when men do it it's DIFFERENT--because patriarchy. So bear in mind it is not the actions that are bad, necessarily--though they sometimes are--it's the positions.

This is all nonsnsene. And this is mainstream. Nearly all major left or liberal leaning news articles about feminism lean this way. Nearly all lectures about feminism at universities lean this way, towards this patriarchy theory stuff. This is not fringe. This is mainstream. Hell, even the President and Vice-PResident of the United States supported patriarchy theory--until recently when those roles changed.

[Mattopilos]

Because only the fringe has the tendency to think so. Also depends on the group of feminism and you must have some very bad experiences with feminists.

Maybe subhuman is a bit of hyperbole, but certain it would be accurate to say that most feminists express themselves in ways that talk of men as being less moral, less intelligent and less socially responsible than women.

I think 'most' is a hyperbole here as well.

And never hold women accountable for anything, because of a word: patriarchy. So sexually active men and women I would argue talk about one another equally as objects of pleasure. I have no issue with this. What I do object to is feminnists piously saying that when men do it it's DIFFERENT--because patriarchy. So bear in mind it is not the actions that are bad, necessarily--though they sometimes are--it's the positions.

Of course - it is the methodology and the theory behind the idea that matters. some feminists... just don't grasp anything related to it and take patriarchy as a ticket to hate men, plain and simple. Again, the rhetoric that """"""most""""" feminists are like this still irks me. I am sure you have had crappy experiences with feminists, but lets not create hyperbole on the issue. There are shitty feminists, and that is agreed.

This is all nonsnsene. And this is mainstream. Nearly all major left or liberal leaning news articles about feminism lean this way. Nearly all lectures about feminism at universities lean this way, towards this patriarchy theory stuff. This is not fringe. This is mainstream.

Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. In the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

Not actually inaccurate when you look back at history, and even the fact men are the ones that pass the name.
Patriarchy CAN make sense as an idea and theory, just not when it is taken as "All men are bad". That wasn't even the original meaning of it, but meh, radfems make use of what gets their message across.

Hell, even the President and Vice-President of the United States supported patriarchy theory--until recently when those roles changed.

I don't see the issue. The issue is that he wasn't an uber-good president. That is another issue, though.

[Hirota]

I think 'most' is a hyperbole here as well.

Why?

It's reasonable to say in the past most women (and most men too) were feminists, but more recently that does not appear to be the case, with most women believing in "equality of the sexes" rather than personally identifying themselves as feminist. Far be it for me to mansplain to them that equality of the sexes is the dictionary definition of feminism. But perhaps they don't believe that modern feminism is the same as the dictionary definition.

Nonetheless, in general, if people were to leave a self-identified demographic it is reasonable to assume they are either a hardcore minority who have moved onto another label, or the moderates who have moved away from the label. Since we can see evidence from the two surveys that these women appear to be generally moderate, we can assume that the remainder who do identify as feminists are more likely to be amongst the hardcore radicalised minority rather than moderates. Because we can reasonably assume that there are less moderates in this demographic, it stands to reason there are more hardcore radicals. Therefore "most" isn't necessarily inaccurate.

Still, it is particularly difficult to establish proportions on if most current feminists are rabid lunatics or more moderates. All we can look at to measure this is estimate the relative influence and popularity of key figures in feminism to see if we can establish a trend. The moment you start looking at that then suddenly the "most" statement starts looking less and less hyperbolic and more and more realistic - but that might be because the rabid ones tend to expend the most energy getting their voice heard, and the more rabid viewpoints tend to get given the most time and space compared to the more moderate and nuanced views.

[Mattopilos]

I think 'most' is a hyperbole here as well.

Why?

It's reasonable to say in the past most women (and most men too) were feminists, but more recently that does not appear to be the case, with most women believing in "equality of the sexes" rather than personally identifying themselves as feminist. Far be it for me to mansplain to them that equality of the sexes is the dictionary definition of feminism. But perhaps they don't believe that modern feminism is the same as the dictionary definition.

I see feminism as seeking equality of genders, so I don't see the point with this.

Nonetheless, in general, if people were to leave a self-identified demographic it is reasonable to assume they are either a hardcore minority who have moved onto another label, or the moderates who have moved away from the label. Since we can see evidence from the two surveys that these women appear to be generally moderate, we can assume that the remainder who do identify as feminists are more likely to be amongst the hardcore radicalised minority rather than moderates. Because we can reasonably assume that there are less moderates in this demographic, it stands to reason there are more hardcore radicals. Therefore "most" isn't necessarily inaccurate.

not necessarily inaccurate could also mean not necessarily accurate. Inference is great and all, but not entirely accurate. The fringe part of the feminist group mustn't all be for women superiority, given I happen to be in a lot of groups where equality is the aim. I find radfems and libfems to be the ones, when ever it is the case, to suffer from the misunderstanding that the cause they are fighting for doesn't exactly match the idea of 'equality of genders', aka feminism.

[Hirota]

I see feminism as seeking equality of genders, so I don't see the point with this.

And it's evident you are in the minority with this perspective.

not necessarily inaccurate could also mean not necessarily accurate. Inference is great and all, but not entirely accurate.

If you have a better way to measure it I'm all ears.

[Mattopilos]

I see feminism as seeking equality of genders, so I don't see the point with this.

And it's evident you are in the minority with this perspective.

not necessarily inaccurate could also mean not necessarily accurate. Inference is great and all, but not entirely accurate.

If you have a better way to measure it I'm all ears.

I edited my comment, but I do understand that the label has been tainted, hence the divide people feel between the label of feminism and gender equality. As for a way to measure it, I am not too sure myself. It seems like something hard to measure unless you did a large poll or something for people who identify as feminists and to see what the views they hold in relation to issues of equality for men and women. Could also include the specific labels for the sects of feminism.
We have to be fair here, though, since media does love to have spin on every movement. MRAs are seen as the devil, for one, and feminism is either torn apart or egged on. Hard to tell much on which side America tends to do so as an Australian, but media has a large effect on the interpretation on movements, as well as other elements related to people they come in contact with.

[Nioya]

Does my nation conform to feminist standards?

[Mattopilos]

Does my nation conform to feminist standards?

"Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal, it is a common belief that a sport isn't sport if there are no decapitations, the government enforces a policy of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to the available budget', and the nationalistic national anthem inspires citizens to literally spit at foreigners"

...


Sounds like it to me.

[The Grene Knyght]

Does my nation conform to feminist standards?

no nation conforms to my impossibly high standards

[The Grene Knyght]

You're a socialist, right?

So here's the thing it's not capitalism that exploits or oppresses or whatever; rather consumerist corporate capitalism, which is all most people are aware of, can be exploitative or oppressive. The approach to commerce, banking and insurance that it represents arguably led to ending much of slavery in the West and maing it possible to have a more meritocratic society.

I bring this up a lot but here goes again: in Canada, women's political freedoms became effective because of liberal democracy and capitalism, not because of socialism. The women who led the movement here were largely middle class and upper class women who had contributed to society in various forms of private enterprise. They helped found hospitals, developed organizations that helped immigrants assimilate, founded schools, provided clothing and food to the poor and sick, and contributed in various ways to the war effort in wWI. Largely their campaigns were done through petitions, holding mock parliaments, selling postcards and holding meetings and challenging laws. One of the most important momentwas what was called the Persons case, in which the notion that women were not 'qualified persons' was challenged and after going through successive courts was repealed. One of the women who challenged this, Emily Murphy became our first female judge. This was done throught he system of liberal democracy, which existed because of the development of capitalism, not in spite of it.

Liberal democracy was aof benefit to men also; it was this that made it possible for men who did not own property to vote; it was this that made military service more human and encouraged universal education in Canada.

I am also dubious about the word 'oppression'. Today I don't think it's quite right. I would say rather that we're dealing with outdated approaches to dealing with a number of big issues and that rethinking these approaches is necessary.

I don't really have too much to add that won't just echo the conversation you had with matt, but I would make a few points:
-It could be argued that capitalism automatically creates hierarchies, and hierarchies are always, to some degree, oppressive.
-Reform can take place in a liberal capitalist democracy. I won't deny that. Not the reforms I'd like to see, but that doesn't have much to do with Feminism...
-Sure, liberal democracy can help men, and women, and anyone else who was oppressed under prior regimes. Its an improvement over what came before, but that doesn't mean its the best system, only a step in the right direction
-as for the bit about oppression, thats just semantics.

You're a socialist, right?

So here's the thing it's not capitalism that exploits or oppresses or whatever; rather consumerist corporate capitalism, which is all most people are aware of, can be exploitative or oppressive. The approach to commerce, banking and insurance that it represents arguably led to ending much of slavery in the West and maing it possible to have a more meritocratic society.

I bring this up a lot but here goes again: in Canada, women's political freedoms became effective because of liberal democracy and capitalism, not because of socialism. The women who led the movement here were largely middle class and upper class women who had contributed to society in various forms of private enterprise. They helped found hospitals, developed organizations that helped immigrants assimilate, founded schools, provided clothing and food to the poor and sick, and contributed in various ways to the war effort in wWI. Largely their campaigns were done through petitions, holding mock parliaments, selling postcards and holding meetings and challenging laws. One of the most important momentwas what was called the Persons case, in which the notion that women were not 'qualified persons' was challenged and after going through successive courts was repealed. One of the women who challenged this, Emily Murphy became our first female judge. This was done throught he system of liberal democracy, which existed because of the development of capitalism, not in spite of it.

Liberal democracy was aof benefit to men also; it was this that made it possible for men who did not own property to vote; it was this that made military service more human and encouraged universal education in Canada.

I am also dubious about the word 'oppression'. Today I don't think it's quite right. I would say rather that we're dealing with outdated approaches to dealing with a number of big issues and that rethinking these approaches is necessary.

I don't really have too much to add that won't just echo the conversation you had with matt, but I would make a few points:
-It could be argued that capitalism automatically creates hierarchies, and hierarchies are always, to some degree, oppressive.
-Reform can take place in a liberal capitalist democracy. I won't deny that. Not the reforms I'd like to see, but that doesn't have much to do with Feminism...
-Sure, liberal democracy can help men, and women, and anyone else who was oppressed under prior regimes. Its an improvement over what came before, but that doesn't mean its the best system, only a step in the right direction
-as for the bit about oppression, thats just semantics.

[The Grene Knyght]

I see feminism as seeking equality of genders, so I don't see the point with this.

And it's evident you are in the minority with this perspective.

Somehow I don't think this is true.....

[Alvecia]

I think that post burnt out my retinas

[Mattopilos]

You're a socialist, right?

So here's the thing it's not capitalism that exploits or oppresses or whatever; rather consumerist corporate capitalism, which is all most people are aware of, can be exploitative or oppressive. The approach to commerce, banking and insurance that it represents arguably led to ending much of slavery in the West and maing it possible to have a more meritocratic society.

I bring this up a lot but here goes again: in Canada, women's political freedoms became effective because of liberal democracy and capitalism, not because of socialism. The women who led the movement here were largely middle class and upper class women who had contributed to society in various forms of private enterprise. They helped found hospitals, developed organizations that helped immigrants assimilate, founded schools, provided clothing and food to the poor and sick, and contributed in various ways to the war effort in wWI. Largely their campaigns were done through petitions, holding mock parliaments, selling postcards and holding meetings and challenging laws. One of the most important momentwas what was called the Persons case, in which the notion that women were not 'qualified persons' was challenged and after going through successive courts was repealed. One of the women who challenged this, Emily Murphy became our first female judge. This was done throught he system of liberal democracy, which existed because of the development of capitalism, not in spite of it.

Liberal democracy was aof benefit to men also; it was this that made it possible for men who did not own property to vote; it was this that made military service more human and encouraged universal education in Canada.

I am also dubious about the word 'oppression'. Today I don't think it's quite right. I would say rather that we're dealing with outdated approaches to dealing with a number of big issues and that rethinking these approaches is necessary.

I don't really have too much to add that won't just echo the conversation you had with matt, but I would make a few points:
-It could be argued that capitalism automatically creates hierarchies, and hierarchies are always, to some degree, oppressive.
-Reform can take place in a liberal capitalist democracy. I won't deny that. Not the reforms I'd like to see, but that doesn't have much to do with Feminism...
-Sure, liberal democracy can help men, and women, and anyone else who was oppressed under prior regimes. Its an improvement over what came before, but that doesn't mean its the best system, only a step in the right direction
-as for the bit about oppression, thats just semantics.

Pretty much this, without the retina killing part.

[Tahar Joblis]

I see feminism as seeking equality of genders, so I don't see the point with this.

It doesn't. It seeks to advance the interests of women as a class, primarily using as [rhetorical] justification gender equality. Which is a distinction captured subtly in some of the definitions that are offered for feminism.

Unless you're naïve enough to actually validate them by calling them feminists, that's not the case at all. Why do you think the term crypto-fascist exists? Because some political movements aren't actually about freedom, and shouldn't be classified as such, even if they claim otherwise. Female supremacists aren't feminists, because they want women to be above men and not just equal. They are not part of the feminist movement, even if they think they are, because they aren't feminists, and you shouldn't call them feminists because a real feminist is someone who wants men and women to be equal. No more, no less.

(Emphasis added.)

The "dictionary" definition has varied - sometimes subtly and sometimes quite significantly, we have unfolded some of those dictionary definitions very carefully here on NSG - and its present form is as much a consequence of political pressure as good lexicography.

feminism

[From Latin femina: woman.]

(politics) A movement of 20-century politics holding that the rights of women are equal to those of men. Feminism is sometimes extended to assert that women are superior to men in ethics (e.g., more sensitive or altruistic) or even in epistemology (e.g., more wise or insightful).

Here we have an explicit acknowledgement that feminists - yes, actual feminists - sometimes assert the superiority of women, as well as acknowledging that the claim of equal rights is central.

feminism
Commitment to the abolition of male domination in human society. Feminists differ widely in their accounts of the origins of patriarchy, their analyses of its most common consequences, and their concrete proposals for overcoming it, but all share in the recognition that the subordination of women to men in our culture is indefensible and eliminable. Many feminist philosophers oppose Cartesian dualism, scientific objectivity, and traditional theories of moral obligation as instances of masculine over-reliance on reason. Serious attention to the experiences of women would offer a more adequate account of human life.

Recommended Reading: The Cambridge Companion to Feminism in Philosophy, ed. by Miranda Fricker and Jennifer Hornsby (Cambridge, 2000); The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory, ed. by Linda Nicholson (Routledge, 1997); A Companion to Feminist Philosphy, ed. by Alison M. Jaggar and Iris Marion Young (Blackwell, 1999); Seyla Benhabib, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell, Nancy Fraser, and Linda J. Nicholson, Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange (Routledge, 1995); Feminist Theory and the Body, ed. by Janet Price and Margrit Shildrick (Routledge, 1999); Sandra Harding, Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women's Lives (Cornell, 1991); and Eva Feder Kittay, Love's Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency (Routledge, 1998).

Also see EB, SEP on feminist topics, epistemology and philosophy of science, social epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, history of philosophy, perspectives on the self, and approaches to the intersection of pragmatism and continental philosophy, Kristin Switala, Judit Hell, IEP, Krishna Mallick, and Olga Voronina.

Gender equality didn't make it into this one at all.

fem·i·nism (fĕmə-nĭz′əm)
Share:
n.
1. Belief in or advocacy of women's social, political, and economic rights, especially with regard to equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.

Note "equality" is shoe-horned in under the clause "especially with regard to." It's not actually necessary, in meeting this definition, to believe in equality of the sexes, it simply happens to be a common justification for advocacy on behalf of women's social, political, and economic rights.

feminism
Syllabification: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: /ˈfeməˌnizəm/
Definition of feminism in English:
noun

The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
The issue of rights for women first became prominent during the French and American revolutions in the late 18th century. In Britain it was not until the emergence of the suffragette movement in the late 19th century that there was significant political change. A ‘second wave’ of feminism arose in the 1960s, with an emphasis on unity and sisterhood.

I have emphasized an important group of four words. You do not need to believe in gender equality to be a feminist per this definition, either; this definition says that feminists invoke equality as the justification for advocacy of women's rights. You can do this independent of actually believing in gender equality, or advocating for men's rights in the cases where they are inferior to women's rights. (E.g., parental rights.)

feminism (ˈfɛmɪˌnɪzəm Pronunciation for feminism )

Definitions
noun

a doctrine or movement that advocates equal rights for women

Closest match so far for you - but feminism refers to doctrine or movement. Which is to say that simply being a movement explicitly advocating equal rights for women suffices, even if (as with the "Ism Book" definition above at the start) some of its members assert, implicitly or explicitly, female superiority.

feminism

NOUN [UNCOUNTABLE] feminism pronunciation in American English /ˈfemɪˌnɪzəm/
the belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men

Same rights and opportunities. Note, by the way, we have a lot of significant variation in terms of the scope of "equality." The Collins version didn't refer to opportunities (just rights) while the MacMillian version includes opportunities. (We can, historically, identify people in both camps as feminist ... or not feminist.)

feminism
noun fem·i·nism \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\

1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Mirriam-Webster. First definition refers back to a theory - the ideology described in the philosophical dictionary, really - while the second refers to a movement acting for women's interests (as well as rights). We've gone from "rights" to "rights and opportunities" to "rights and interests." Interesting, no?

feminism
noun [U] /ˈfem·əˌnɪz·əm/ US
› world history an organized effort to give women the same economic, social, and political rights as men

Here feminism refers to the effort - again, to the movement.

So what we see in the meta-analysis of these different definitions is that there are several distinct things that are being lumped under the term "feminism." Descriptively, the word is used to refer to movements that have typically (but not always, historically speaking) used the rhetoric of equality to justify advocacy on behalf of women's interests, but which includes people who appear to think that women are in some ways superior to men. Descriptively, Valerie Solanas was a feminist (at least until she was committed to a mental institution for criminal insanity), even though her beliefs were very far from gender equality. She was an intimate of the movement and her work resided inside of the radical branch of feminism. Descriptively, Warren Farrell is no longer a feminist (having lost most of his ties to the movement and concentrated his attention on men and boys), even though he firmly believes in gender equality.

Feminism also refers to the ideologies associated with this movement. The Oxford definition is in some way the most insightful: Equality is the justification for advocacy on behalf of women. Use of this justification for action on behalf of women's interests more or less requires the belief that that women are disadvantaged. Pursuit of these ideologies may end up with the assertion that women are in some sense superior to men.

As you can see, though, "the" definition of feminism is not universally held by experts to be what you claim it is - and what you are objecting to, the description of feminism in terms of being a movement, which is to say identifiable group, with its members (defined by their presence within the movement in spite of whatever their beliefs might be) being called feminists, is actually not at all unusual.

There are a number of reforms which have been proposed that would clearly be in the interests of gender equality. Feminists have constituted the mainstay of the opposition to some of those reforms.

For example, men have been exiting the teaching profession in a long-term trend whose beginning coincides, roughly, with the rise of second-wave feminism into the mainstream. (This may or may not be coincidental.) A little while later, boys began to fall behind girls in scholastic performance within the educational system.

Once it was clear that these gaps were genuine, chronic, and increasing (and slowly rising up the ranks of the educational system from primary to secondary to post-secondary to post-graduate over time) various groups have made proposals to try and fix one or the other problem, sometimes in relation to one another. This cuts across the traditional political spectrum. The only group providing substantial opposition to reform? Feminists.

The criminal justice system treats men and women in an unequal fashion. In particular, men are being discriminated against. All feminist efforts to address the criminal justice system, formal or informal, have been work aimed at increasing this discriminatory gap.

The definition of rape currently used in official government publications, and within the sexological literature, excludes women forcing men to have sex with them, via definitional fiat. Research establishing that this really happens at a non-trivial rate dates back three decades, and it turns out that opposition to adjusting the definition lies entirely within the domain of feminists.

Domestic violence perpetrated by women is rarely acknowledged as a problem, but there are people trying to address this and more fully understand the problem. Feminists have been actively blocking research, support services, et cetera, in order to try to maintain a monopoly on all things related to domestic violence; and in particular in such a manner as to insure that female perpetrators remain largely invisible.

I cannot think of a single case where women's perceived class interests and gender equality came into conflict and feminists collectively sided with the latter over the former. The few cases that come to mind as being close (e.g. opposition to protective labor laws, 1980-era support for adding women to the Selective Service System) are cases where (A) support was perhaps not very unanimous, leading to less than usual effectiveness by feminists as a group and (B) even then, the feminists who supported gender equality had a clearly expressed argument for why women's class interests were being served by their position - just not one that everybody agreed with.

[New Edom]

You're a socialist, right?

So here's the thing it's not capitalism that exploits or oppresses or whatever; rather consumerist corporate capitalism, which is all most people are aware of, can be exploitative or oppressive. The approach to commerce, banking and insurance that it represents arguably led to ending much of slavery in the West and maing it possible to have a more meritocratic society.

I bring this up a lot but here goes again: in Canada, women's political freedoms became effective because of liberal democracy and capitalism, not because of socialism. The women who led the movement here were largely middle class and upper class women who had contributed to society in various forms of private enterprise. They helped found hospitals, developed organizations that helped immigrants assimilate, founded schools, provided clothing and food to the poor and sick, and contributed in various ways to the war effort in wWI. Largely their campaigns were done through petitions, holding mock parliaments, selling postcards and holding meetings and challenging laws. One of the most important momentwas what was called the Persons case, in which the notion that women were not 'qualified persons' was challenged and after going through successive courts was repealed. One of the women who challenged this, Emily Murphy became our first female judge. This was done throught he system of liberal democracy, which existed because of the development of capitalism, not in spite of it.

Liberal democracy was aof benefit to men also; it was this that made it possible for men who did not own property to vote; it was this that made military service more human and encouraged universal education in Canada.

I am also dubious about the word 'oppression'. Today I don't think it's quite right. I would say rather that we're dealing with outdated approaches to dealing with a number of big issues and that rethinking these approaches is necessary.

I don't really have too much to add that won't just echo the conversation you had with matt, but I would make a few points:
-It could be argued that capitalism automatically creates hierarchies, and hierarchies are always, to some degree, oppressive.
-Reform can take place in a liberal capitalist democracy. I won't deny that. Not the reforms I'd like to see, but that doesn't have much to do with Feminism...
-Sure, liberal democracy can help men, and women, and anyone else who was oppressed under prior regimes. Its an improvement over what came before, but that doesn't mean its the best system, only a step in the right direction
-as for the bit about oppression, thats just semantics.

You're a socialist, right?

So here's the thing it's not capitalism that exploits or oppresses or whatever; rather consumerist corporate capitalism, which is all most people are aware of, can be exploitative or oppressive. The approach to commerce, banking and insurance that it represents arguably led to ending much of slavery in the West and maing it possible to have a more meritocratic society.

I bring this up a lot but here goes again: in Canada, women's political freedoms became effective because of liberal democracy and capitalism, not because of socialism. The women who led the movement here were largely middle class and upper class women who had contributed to society in various forms of private enterprise. They helped found hospitals, developed organizations that helped immigrants assimilate, founded schools, provided clothing and food to the poor and sick, and contributed in various ways to the war effort in wWI. Largely their campaigns were done through petitions, holding mock parliaments, selling postcards and holding meetings and challenging laws. One of the most important momentwas what was called the Persons case, in which the notion that women were not 'qualified persons' was challenged and after going through successive courts was repealed. One of the women who challenged this, Emily Murphy became our first female judge. This was done throught he system of liberal democracy, which existed because of the development of capitalism, not in spite of it.

Liberal democracy was aof benefit to men also; it was this that made it possible for men who did not own property to vote; it was this that made military service more human and encouraged universal education in Canada.

I am also dubious about the word 'oppression'. Today I don't think it's quite right. I would say rather that we're dealing with outdated approaches to dealing with a number of big issues and that rethinking these approaches is necessary.

I don't really have too much to add that won't just echo the conversation you had with matt, but I would make a few points:
-It could be argued that capitalism automatically creates hierarchies, and hierarchies are always, to some degree, oppressive.
-Reform can take place in a liberal capitalist democracy. I won't deny that. Not the reforms I'd like to see, but that doesn't have much to do with Feminism...
-Sure, liberal democracy can help men, and women, and anyone else who was oppressed under prior regimes. Its an improvement over what came before, but that doesn't mean its the best system, only a step in the right direction
-as for the bit about oppression, thats just semantics.

I applaud your effort in making an even more horrifying post than Matt.

As to the other stuff: hierarchies are vital. They are a bit more fluid in execution in large civilizations than previously imagined, but they nevertheless remain. Don't be deceived; social order is vital. A prosperous society can be more subtle about how it is wielded, but nevertheless it exists and will probably always exist.

I would argue that in organizations that have to respond to emergencies or make swift decisions that it is vital that they exist. The only reason they seem less obviously authoritarian today is because of widespread literacy and advanced communication systems.

However all civilizations must presume that that emergencies and unexpected decisions will happen, and that existing structures will be challenged by them. So the ladder has to be in place for those times.

[Wallenburg]

I can't understand why men would become feminists anyway. You don't support a movement where the mainstream views you as subhuman.

1) You don't think men can be feminists in the first place, so what are you talking about?
2) Mainstream feminism doesn't believe that. Stop talking out of your ass.

[The Grene Knyght]

I don't really have too much to add that won't just echo the conversation you had with matt, but I would make a few points:
-It could be argued that capitalism automatically creates hierarchies, and hierarchies are always, to some degree, oppressive.
-Reform can take place in a liberal capitalist democracy. I won't deny that. Not the reforms I'd like to see, but that doesn't have much to do with Feminism...
-Sure, liberal democracy can help men, and women, and anyone else who was oppressed under prior regimes. Its an improvement over what came before, but that doesn't mean its the best system, only a step in the right direction
-as for the bit about oppression, thats just semantics.

I don't really have too much to add that won't just echo the conversation you had with matt, but I would make a few points:
-It could be argued that capitalism automatically creates hierarchies, and hierarchies are always, to some degree, oppressive.
-Reform can take place in a liberal capitalist democracy. I won't deny that. Not the reforms I'd like to see, but that doesn't have much to do with Feminism...
-Sure, liberal democracy can help men, and women, and anyone else who was oppressed under prior regimes. Its an improvement over what came before, but that doesn't mean its the best system, only a step in the right direction
-as for the bit about oppression, thats just semantics.

I applaud your effort in making an even more horrifying post than Matt.

Thanks, took me about 7 hours to code every individual letter, but the end result was well worth it

As to the other stuff: hierarchies are vital. They are a bit more fluid in execution in large civilizations than previously imagined, but they nevertheless remain. Don't be deceived; social order is vital. A prosperous society can be more subtle about how it is wielded, but nevertheless it exists and will probably always exist.

I would argue that in organizations that have to respond to emergencies or make swift decisions that it is vital that they exist. The only reason they seem less obviously authoritarian today is because of widespread literacy and advanced communication systems.

However all civilizations must presume that that emergencies and unexpected decisions will happen, and that existing structures will be challenged by them. So the ladder has to be in place for those times.

This is probably getting a bit off topic... We can continue this in LWDT if you wish.
But primarily what I meant was a worker/owner hierarchy, where one person accumulates wealth and one person works to produce wealth. Where these groups do not intersect is a hierarchy always created under capitalism, and thus it is inherently oppressive - of course, the counter argument to this is that this is a relatively benign form of 'oppression,' and that this form of 'oppression' is necessary for society to function - which, naturally, I disagree with...

[New Edom]

I applaud your effort in making an even more horrifying post than Matt.

Thanks, took me about 7 hours to code every individual letter, but the end result was well worth it

As to the other stuff: hierarchies are vital. They are a bit more fluid in execution in large civilizations than previously imagined, but they nevertheless remain. Don't be deceived; social order is vital. A prosperous society can be more subtle about how it is wielded, but nevertheless it exists and will probably always exist.

I would argue that in organizations that have to respond to emergencies or make swift decisions that it is vital that they exist. The only reason they seem less obviously authoritarian today is because of widespread literacy and advanced communication systems.

However all civilizations must presume that that emergencies and unexpected decisions will happen, and that existing structures will be challenged by them. So the ladder has to be in place for those times.

This is probably getting a bit off topic... We can continue this in LWDT if you wish.
But primarily what I meant was a worker/owner hierarchy, where one person accumulates wealth and one person works to produce wealth. Where these groups do not intersect is a hierarchy always created under capitalism, and thus it is inherently oppressive - of course, the counter argument to this is that this is a relatively benign form of 'oppression,' and that this form of 'oppression' is necessary for society to function - which, naturally, I disagree with...

...seven HOURS?

Anyway I think it is relevant in that we're talking about the background to the feminist approach in things. There is a strong socialist trend in popular 3rd wave feminism.

So imagine this: you start a business, it's al your ideas and those of your supporters, and so you all get shares in terms of what you've done in terms of the work. you mayb eallow shares for your employees too. why should you NOT run the business and get the most profit from it?

And you can see how this applies to feminism too: if men have done most of the work in bulding business and governments, why should they not be in positions of leadership? Why should women not have to earn their way towards that and be judged on the merits of the time they put in and the work they have done?

[The Grene Knyght]

Thanks, took me about 7 hours to code every individual letter, but the end result was well worth it

This is probably getting a bit off topic... We can continue this in LWDT if you wish.
But primarily what I meant was a worker/owner hierarchy, where one person accumulates wealth and one person works to produce wealth. Where these groups do not intersect is a hierarchy always created under capitalism, and thus it is inherently oppressive - of course, the counter argument to this is that this is a relatively benign form of 'oppression,' and that this form of 'oppression' is necessary for society to function - which, naturally, I disagree with...

...seven HOURS?

Anyway I think it is relevant in that we're talking about the background to the feminist approach in things. There is a strong socialist trend in popular 3rd wave feminism.

So imagine this: you start a business, it's al your ideas and those of your supporters, and so you all get shares in terms of what you've done in terms of the work. you mayb eallow shares for your employees too. why should you NOT run the business and get the most profit from it?

And you can see how this applies to feminism too: if men have done most of the work in bulding business and governments, why should they not be in positions of leadership? Why should women not have to earn their way towards that and be judged on the merits of the time they put in and the work they have done?

seven hours was a joke, I just used a bbcode generator
With regard to your hypothetical of me owning a business: I don't agree with that structure of business at all, and couldn't imagine myself ever doing that... I'd be far more interested, if I were to start a business at all, in the co-operative structure of business.
With regard to men deserving to be in position of leadership because of they built the governments and businesses... I don't believe women are judged fairly in comparison with their male counterparts on the work they have done, or on the merits of the time they have put in.
?

[New Edom]

...seven HOURS?

Anyway I think it is relevant in that we're talking about the background to the feminist approach in things. There is a strong socialist trend in popular 3rd wave feminism.

So imagine this: you start a business, it's al your ideas and those of your supporters, and so you all get shares in terms of what you've done in terms of the work. you mayb eallow shares for your employees too. why should you NOT run the business and get the most profit from it?

And you can see how this applies to feminism too: if men have done most of the work in bulding business and governments, why should they not be in positions of leadership? Why should women not have to earn their way towards that and be judged on the merits of the time they put in and the work they have done?

seven hours was a joke, I just used a bbcode generator
With regard to your hypothetical of me owning a business: I don't agree with that structure of business at all, and couldn't imagine myself ever doing that... I'd be far more interested, if I were to start a business at all, in the co-operative structure of business.
With regard to men deserving to be in position of leadership because of they built the governments and businesses... I don't believe women are judged fairly in comparison with their male counterparts on the work they have done, or on the merits of the time they have put in.
?

Well fair enough if you would prefer a cooperative structure; I've never heard of how that would lwork.

However why don't you think women are judged fairly?

[The Grene Knyght]

seven hours was a joke, I just used a bbcode generator
With regard to your hypothetical of me owning a business: I don't agree with that structure of business at all, and couldn't imagine myself ever doing that... I'd be far more interested, if I were to start a business at all, in the co-operative structure of business.
With regard to men deserving to be in position of leadership because of they built the governments and businesses... I don't believe women are judged fairly in comparison with their male counterparts on the work they have done, or on the merits of the time they have put in.
?

Well fair enough if you would prefer a cooperative structure; I've never heard of how that would lwork.

However why don't you think women are judged fairly?

On cooperatives (I'm fairly surprised you aren't aware of these).

On my second point, it seems clear to me that women aren't judged fairly because, although the ratio of men to women in the world is equal (slightly skewed towards women in the west), men vastly outnumber women as the leaders in our society (i.e. politicians and CEOs)