Talk About It! discussion

I think I made a similar topic about feminism in literature, but now I want to know what you think of feminism generally. What exactly is feminism? (Original question, I know.) Every feminism discussion I've been in, I feel completely lost, because no definition of feminism feels totally right. Is it about gender equality, or is it just about women being real people instead of objects?

In my opinion it is about both. I think that society needs to change to accept women equally and not treat them as objects. I also think that a main goal of feminism should be equality for both genders and working together to reach that equality. There are different sects within feminism and they don't always agree with one another. Some feminists believe that men can't be feminists which I wholly disagree with. We will never reach a state of equality if we can't work together and have all genders want that equality.

I have never quite gotten feminism. I mean, sure, some feminists are pretty rational and they do make sense, but a lot don't. It seems pretty obvious to me that there are certain things that women can't do, just like there are certain things that men can't do. Just because women do different things then men, doesn't mean they aren't equal. At least, that is how I see it.

"I once saw a conversation online where some girl said she never wanted to get pregnant because the idea grossed her out (which is perfectly understandable). But then, other people were saying that she had to have children because that would give her an edge over her boyfriend . . ."

Why would anyone even think that? Not the pregnancy grosses her out part, but getting an edge over her boyfriend? It isn't a contest. I agree. It does seem to be a stupid conversation.

I agree with both of you. It kind of defeats the point of Feminism. I don't think you should ever have children if you don't want them, and especially not to "give yourself an edge". When people in general talk about feminism, I think they choose the negative experiences they've had or heard to talk about. But there are a whole lot of other people who just want equality. That's what it means to me. There is a negative stereotype in which all feminists are considered lesbians, which is completely ridiculous. I think if you want equality for men and women then you are a feminist, no matter what your gender is or if you are straight or gay. To me it's a pretty simple concept, it's just some people who make it difficult and confusing and make it look bad.

I've had a lot of situations in my life where I have been treated differently because I am a woman. I have been objectified and treated with no respect and it is a really horrible feeling. I don't think anyone should have to go through that. That's what I support and why I always try to not let people get away with being sexist. :)

So feminism is about both genders working together equally to support their society? Neither regarded as superior or inferior. Cooperating rather than submitting/dominating, or--in the extreme cases you guys pointed out of feminism that's a bit too radical to be reasonable--about trying to overpower each other.

How about the way people think about feminism? Not only the way they treat women, but the way they think about them, the context through which they view women. I don't think our world can be truly rid of antifeminism until people think of women as equals.

Jocelyn, that's what I think Feminism is, or what it should be at least.

I hope that someday women and men can be equal. It is unlikely that equality between men and women, even in the US, will happen during any of our lifetimes. There isn't even a fair pay act for women to make the same amount of money as men in the same jobs in the US. Currently women make $.70 for ever $1.00 a man makes. That is unacceptable in my opinion. I worked really hard for my degree and it's a big kick in the face to know that some guy who didn't work as hard as me or didn't even get a degree would still make more money than me at the same job. But we don't know what the future holds, especially once we are all gone. Someday it might really happen. I think we have to try with every generation to raise our kids to think that women and men are equal. And maybe with every generation there will be more people who believe that. I'm an optimist! :)

The Mighty Katara wrote: "^^ This.

Sometimes people who claim they're feminists are actually completely sexist the other way. They just want to find ways to be more powerful than men. I think that's taking your point to a..."

To do anything simply because other people want you to completely defeats the point. It makes everything politicised. Really what should be being done is the right thing, though that's an ideal that cannot really always be upheld.

I don't believe in labelling myself as a feminist because as a label it gets misused so much. I really don't like labels because they narrow everything down into one small problem when really the large problem is humanity. We need to learn to treat each other equally, with respect and as humans.

I am for equality to be brought into some kind of existence as any rational individual should be. A living equality, not a politicised equality. Because, as Erin pointed out, men and women are all equal in some way. Yeah we have different biological features but they all balance out (men are strong in some things, women in others) and it still even differs from individual to individual.

You know, considering that in all the 2 million years that humans have existed, women have only started collectively fighting for their rights in roughly 100 years, I'd say that it's making great progress.

I mean before that some women may have spoken out, but not enough to change anything. Suddenly in the late 19th and early 20th century women started fighting for their rights. The fact that the two genders are close to equal is a major improvement.

But I think the idea of a total-anti-feminist society will never happen. If everyone was equal what fun would that be? I agree that there's a reason men and women have different strong points. There are just something that men tend to be better at than women, and vice-versa.

JazzyJams wrote: "You know, considering that in all the 2 million years that humans have existed, women have only started collectively fighting for their rights in roughly 100 years, I'd say that it's making great p..."

Yeah most men I know are a lot better at physical labour and most women I know are better at communication. But there are some really physically strong women I know and some great communicators. The problem is when you refuse to acknowledge various strengths because of gender.

Whenever people mention people feminism they say "Ok, equality for women. I get that and I want that" Which is all well and good but what do we mean by equality, exactly? And how do we plan to get there?

Would, say, getting laws passed that allowed women to be equal in the workplace be enough? Probably not. If that were the case women's suffrage movements of 100 years ago would have looked like the end-goal rather than the starting point that they actually were. There are a lot of people who think that feminism is irrelevant already because women have a lot of political and personal freedoms that they didn't have 50 years ago and a lot of people who don't want to label themselves as feminist because it makes them look like a supporter of some kind of outdated militaristic movement (butch lesbians and all!).

My own belief is that we'll never have a meaningful equal society until men or woman can look at a woman and see an individual rather than a woman. We won't have an equal society until we stop trying to fit anyone with a breasts and vagina into a cosy woman shaped box.

For myself, some years ago, I thought that this would be a fairly simple matter. If you explain to guys that when they see a woman they see either a sex object or certain type of person with a predefined set of traits then it would be obvious to them that's what's happening. And if you look at the movies and literature that our society creates it would become clear what boxes we're putting people into. Having had years of debate with - largely - men online about the nature of the role of women in movies like Die Hard, Back to the Future, Raiders of the Last Ark and so on (perennial favourites of guys on movie forums) I realised quite bitterly that there's absolutely no acknowledgement from men that there's a problem of perception. Maybe 2-3 guys in 100 could see that we place the male in the role of hero and the female in the role of sex object. Every time the guy will argue that it needs to be that way in order to serve the script. If you take a look at movies still being released, at least 95% if not more contain a male as the lead (exuding a certain form of manliness) and if not then a female who is fulfilling a role as sex object. 95% the time a woman will be fulfilling a predesignated role of a "woman" (Indiana Jones is a great one to look at. (A little bit feisty but also a little bit stupid. But pretty and nice and warm). I now think that this is a somewhat unclimbable mountain but maybe by the end of my lifetime we'll have found some way to start assaulting it.

For me, then, what the fight for equality has become about is a fight for understanding of what it might mean to be male or female. It's a fight about perception, how the woman is viewed in society, and both how that leads others to treat her and how that leads her to treat herself. Not to call anyone out - oops, but I am - Jazzy's comment was fairly typical as to why this issue remains a problem. "Equality would be boring" "wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same" sounds to me like an excuse for saying "Men are like x" and "women are like y" which is teetering on the brink of Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, placing everyone back into the gender boxes we all ought to be trying to escape from.

Whenever I see people talking on the internet about feminism the topic that's most frequently introduced is rape. Feminism has somehow become synonymous with the rape issue. Either women are raped and not able to get their voice heard or campaigning to get men to treat women respectfully and not to rape them. This is a good issue to discuss - it breaks my heart that we need to be spending so much time informing men that they shouldn't rape women - but it's one small strand of what feminism means to me and too strong an identification between the two will lead to the subject getting lost. Which, ironically I think is what a lot of people want. Men can stand up and say "I'm against rape, therefore I'm a feminist" which then enables that person to go away, slap themselves on the back for being awesome and still to say "and I still believe in putting men and women in different shaped boxes"

So, the questions for me are "how are women viewed by men and women?" "why are are women viewed in that way?" and what is the impact on ourselves and society in the way that men and women view one another? Once we're on the same page then maybe we'll be able to think about changing things. The reason I tend to view myself as a feminist from a literary/arts perspective rather than a sociological one is because I think that without a proper understanding of the nature of our beliefs and perceptions historically and today, there's no way of ever moving forward. We'll simply be recording difference and abuse rather than effecting change.

To be feminist I think your first question when a baby is born has to not be "is it a boy or a girl?" and it has to not be "what colour outfit am I going to buy it?" and you have to not be compelled to say "won't she look lovely in her wedding dress" and it has to not be "she'll make a wonderful mother one day". I think that to be a feminist you need to be able to look at a person and to say honestly "That person can be whoever she wants to be and I want her to fulfill all of her hopes and dreams" and as feminists we're - well, I am - fighting for a space in society where I can make that statement without knowing that person actually can't because she is being created into society's picture of a woman from the second she's given pink to wear instead of blue.

Sadly I must end this rant for time constraints...

I remember reading somewhere that even if male and female children are treated te exact same way, the females will still go for dolls and things while the boys will prefer toy guns. I don't know if it's true, but I know that males and females are different. I'm not saying that one gender is better than the other, but they are definitely not the same.

It's funny, I always thought that girls were smarter than boys, especially in maths and science, but apparently it's a common view that males are more 'analytical' or something.

I think that as long as people are judged on individual merit, it doesn't matter what the stereotypes are.

If you take a look at movies still being released, at least 95% if not more contain a male as the lead (exuding a certain form of manliness) and if not then a female who is fulfilling a role as sex object. 95% the time a woman will be fulfilling a predesignated role of a "woman" (Indiana Jones is a great one to look at. (A little bit feisty but also a little bit stupid. But pretty and nice and warm). I now think that this is a somewhat unclimbable mountain but maybe by the end of my lifetime we'll have found some way to start assaulting it.

It's always confused me that more people don't question these kinds of things. It's one thing that's always turned me off James Bond a little (well really a lot). And one thing that I also find interesting is why do you have so many women that just put up with seeing portrayals like that? It's a sign that something's wrong.

Yet, I also hate when people feel the need to reverse those gender roles and hence still put people in a box. It becomes a matter of not doing it for the purpose of organic equality and creating a story with equal characters but really just reversing the roles. And that annoys me too. One shouldn't really be trying to push these things it should be an issue of coming to a natural balance of looking at people as Alex says, regardless of what gender they are.

Jonathan wrote: "Yet, I also hate when people feel the need to reverse those gender roles and hence still put people in a box. It becomes a matter of not doing it for the purpose of organic equality and creating a story with equal characters but really just reversing the roles. And that annoys me too. One shouldn't really be trying to push these things it should be an issue of coming to a natural balance of looking at people as Alex says, regardless of what gender they are. "

Are you alluding to anything in particular? I've always found role reversal to be quite subversive if handled correctly. Something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer does it magnificently or a movie like Kill Bill. They're very effective in overthrowing traditional ideas of what we ought to be seeing on the screen and how we should perceive men and women and the relations between them. I forget the detail now, but there's a fantastic episode of Buffy in which Buffy and Angel subtly get hooked - via some restless ghost spirits or something - into acting out a traditional tragically romantic scenario in which the jealous husband shoots his lover, only the roles get switched and Buffy plays the male, Angel(us) the female. It's well acted and incredibly powerful in the way it recontextualises old tropes.

The James Bond girl has become such a classic societal trope that the very idea of rethinking the series and introducing a strong female lead seems to be at this point impossible. Moneypenny in Skyfall made me want to vomit. It's incredible to me that guys want to watch this stuff, less incredible that women put up with it since, as per this discussion, they're fighting to affect change and can't do so if male power keeps them out of male territory, whether that's by not allowing many women to produce or direct movies (or in the way they want to) or by the constant feeding them the idea that this is how they are supposed to view themselves as a woman. Men are supposed to want to be James Bond, women to love him. Although, actually as a franchise it wasn't so long ago that they were attempting to push things forward by casting Michelle Yeoh and giving her significant screen-time in "Tomorrow Never Dies" Ok, that was 15 years ago now....

Oh, funnily enough, since I actually really love James Bond movies, I wrote - or started writing - a piece on women in Bond which, hey I may as well gratuitously link to since the topic is feminism!

http://confusedgender.wordpress.com/2...

The Mighty Katara wrote: "Maybe I'm too much of a pessimist, but I personally think that the world will never be rid of anti-feminism. It's just the way people are. I'd like to think that feminism will continue to get bette..."

Oh, right, I'd forgotten that--thanks for bringing it up, Katara.

I question the idea of antifeminism being inevitable, though. If something was inevitable, then it should be physiological. Antifeminism arose mostly from the needs of a society, which lead to a warped context through which people viewed women. There is nothing inevitable about a worldview (which is, in my opinion, the heart of antifeminism/feminism), because it is malleable.

Plus, as JazzyJams pointed out, we only started giving women their rights 100 years ago. Some might call that pathetic (I actually kind of would, in a way), but it also shows that we have a lot of unexploited potential. I would say that it's dangerous to say that anything non-physiological is inevitable, because it quickly encloses you in a very narrow context of thinking that shuts off all possible paths to be led outside that context. A human's thought process (that is, the thought process that leads up to such a decision of something being inevitable) can't be guaranteed to be infallible.

Well luckily I can say here: I have a degree in Psychology! I've read a lot about these differences between men and women and boys and girls and honestly, there is a reason that boys go for the guns and girls go for dolls. Kids are really good and understanding unspoken expectations. And parents may not call them boy or girl but they still unconsciously give social cues to their kids, such as giving them positive encouragement when they pick the right toy. It's all part of conditioning. And there have been studies where male children, who were encouraged to act however they want by their parents, were left alone in a room with a doll and they started taking care of it and hugging it and being very loving towards it. The male children who were taught to be more "manly" either ignored the doll or possibly became violent with it.

It all comes down to how children are raised. And they've done a lot of studies about the differences between men and women and there are a lot more similarities than differences. A lot of the differences are just BS expectations. They have found that men actually talk more than women and they interrupt a whole lot more. The whole stereotype that women talk too much and are gossips is actually incorrect. People just make up differences so they can feel better about treating women as different and other.

That is so cool about you having a degree in psychology! Do you know about hypnotism and craziness and stuff? Where does the deja vous feeling come from? Do you know about animal pschology?

Alex wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Yet, I also hate when people feel the need to reverse those gender roles and hence still put people in a box. It becomes a matter of not doing it for the purpose of organic equalit..."

Well, I'm not talking about cases like Buffy where it's a strong female lead and is a natural kind of role reversal with the woman as the leader. I'm talking about where it's an awkward and unnatural token role reversal. In other words simply making a character a female leader because she should be female, rather than because it fits your story. What I'm saying is that I want people to move from forcing these things (though admittedly it's better than not thinking about it) for political or social/cultural 'correctness' and to move to doing it simply because it is right.

The reason I tend to view myself as a feminist from a literary/arts perspective rather than a sociological one is because I think that without a proper understanding of the nature of our beliefs and perceptions historically and today, there's no way of ever moving forward. We'll simply be recording difference and abuse rather than effecting change.

And is it really necessary to draw a line between the two? I would say that literature/arts and sociology often interact, rather than oppose each other.

Sadly I must end this rant for time constraints...

What a pity! Feel free to keep going. That was amazing.

Taliah wrote: "That is so cool about you having a degree in psychology! Do you know about hypnotism and craziness and stuff? Where does the deja vous feeling come from? Do you know about animal pschology?"

hahaha you crack me up. You can PM me any questions you have, I'll do my best to answer them. I don't know if this will fit very well in this thread. :)

Jonathan wrote: "Alex wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Yet, I also hate when people feel the need to reverse those gender roles and hence still put people in a box. It becomes a matter of not doing it for the purpose of or..."

I get what you're saying Jonathan. I can agree with that. I had an issue with The Avengers actually, regarding Black Widow. And my issue isn't with Joss Whedon. I'm sure he got her as much screen time as he possibly could and made her as bad ass as possible. My issue is that he couldn't have a lot of her kicking ass because of the investors or whoever it was who wouldn't let him. She could have done so many more awesome things. It became all about Iron Man and Captain America mostly. AND!!! In every single fight she was always super out of breath and looking like she had just been beaten up with cuts on her face or what have you while the rest of the super heroes were just fine. Why is it that she had to look more weak than her male counter-parts? Again, I don't blame Joss Whedon, he does the best he can. I blame society. I think it's lame that she couldn't have been more awesome. I hope she has a larger part in The Avengers 2.

Jocelyn wrote: "The reason I tend to view myself as a feminist from a literary/arts perspective rather than a sociological one is because I think that without a proper understanding of the nature of our beliefs an..."

Sociology has the tendency just to watch and do nothing. I started studying it at University for a while but I realized it wouldn't be enough for me. I want to help people and try to change things. Sociologists just study and watch. They are observers. I imagine that might have been what Alex was getting at. The literary/arts perspective includes actual action and debating as opposed to just saying, "hmmmm look at all this sexism, isn't that interesting." That's how I view it anyway. Though I have never found it to be important to make the distinction, I suppose I automatically disregarded the sociological perspective due to its lack of action.

Taliah wrote: "That is so cool about you having a degree in psychology! Do you know about hypnotism and craziness and stuff? Where does the deja vous feeling come from? Do you know about animal pschology?"

I hate deja vu...

Erin wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Alex wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Yet, I also hate when people feel the need to reverse those gender roles and hence still put people in a box. It becomes a matter of not doing it for ..."

I was more annoyed that there weren't more female characters. I mean Maria Hill became unfortunately a token female character, like Galadriel being introduced into The Hobbit. It's forcing things to fit a set up, not because you genuinely want to make a difference. Though yeah it's not Joss Whedon's fault, he did a great job with Scarlet and Black Widow as a character.

Erin wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Alex wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Yet, I also hate when people feel the need to reverse those gender roles and hence still put people in a box. It becomes a matter of not doing it for ..."

In fairness to the portrayal of Black Widow in the Avengers, she is not as powerful or important as any of the members on the team except Hawkeye who she probably had more screentime than anyway. I think it would be a little ridiculous if she and Hawkeye were on the same level as a god of thunder, an uncontrollable rage monster, a legendary World War II hero, and a man with basically a tank for clothes. If they wanted their female superhero to be on the same level as the male ones, they would have had to pick one who was more powerful. This is one of the good things abouut DC. Wonder Woman is more powerful than most of the heroes in her universe.

JazzyJams wrote: "I hate deja vu... "

I could have sworn I posted this in another thread. Something very funny's happening to me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2eUop...

Danny wrote: "Erin wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Alex wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Yet, I also hate when people feel the need to reverse those gender roles and hence still put people in a box. It becomes a matter of not ..."

That's kind of the point of my comment. Why doesn't she get to be as powerful? Because she is a woman. That's why. Because the men always have to be portrayed as better faster and stronger. I'm not saying she has to be better than them. I'm saying I don't see why she has to be portrayed as weaker. I think it's shit.

Erin wrote: "Danny wrote: "Erin wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Alex wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Yet, I also hate when people feel the need to reverse those gender roles and hence still put people in a box. It becomes a ..."

I sort of agree with you. What I'm saying is as long as you are using the character of Black Widow she can't be as powerful as the men. However, you could have used one of Marvel's more powerful female superheroes instead.

Danny wrote: "Erin wrote: "I sort of agree with you. What I'm saying is as long as you are using the character of Black Widow she can't be as powerful as the men. However, you could have used one of Marvel's more powerful female superheroes instead. "

I think that the problem here is a little broader, which is why I'm inclined to congratulate Whedon on his achievement rather than chastise him for the obvious weaknesses in the film.

The big publicity stunt here was the run up to the Avengers, with individual films for the main characters that culminate in this team-up movie. It was a really cool idea that had never been attempted in movies before and despite a shockingly weak Captain America movie it kinda worked quite well.

So, we've got an Iron Man movie. Iron Man has a penis. A Hulk movie. Hulk has a big green penis. A Captain America movie. He has a very patriotic penis. A Thor movie. God of Penis. It sure was nice seeing all of that penis in those movies ... but it kind of left The Avengers with nowhere to go but with the penis. To make an Avengers movie that didn't focus on those four characters (and Samuel L Jackson) was absolutely unthinkable given the structure of what they'd done. To suddenly introduce a new superheroine would have been extremely difficult and anyway, the movie would still have looked very male-heavy and it would have been awkward. Taking Black Widow from Iron Man 2 and revitalising her character and making her stand to-to-toe with Iron Man/Thor I think was a stroke of brilliance on Whedon's part. I'm not entirely sure just how well it works, but it worked on some level and The Avengers deserves that kudos in light of the production history of the series. But Erin's point excellently highlights the fact that Hollywood moviemaking is rotten to the core .. it shouldn't take a Joss Whedon just to push things back vaguely in the right direction

Alex wrote: "Danny wrote: "Erin wrote: "I sort of agree with you. What I'm saying is as long as you are using the character of Black Widow she can't be as powerful as the men. However, you could have used one o..."

Yeah, I'm still waiting on a stand alone female superhero (not something like Avengers or X-Men). Elektra does not count. You realise that the sad reality is that Marvel have very few stand alone female comics because they don't sell as well.

I'll just say that the biblical stance on men and women is that they are equal, but man is the head. The man is given responsibility over the woman (God held Adam responsible for Eve eating the fruit). Women and men have different roles. Man is supposed to cultivate the land, provide for the family, and be the head of the family. Woman is supposed to be a good wife and mother. Society often forgets this, which makes it very hard for the women who want to pursue these goals. Feminists who want women to have the same roles as men take the femininity out of women. If you would like to read more about this view of the equality between genders, I would recommend Twelve Extraordinary Women: How God Shaped Women of the Bible, and What He Wants to Do with You by John MacArthur. I hope this doesn't offend anyone. If it does, I'm very sorry, I didn't mean to. I respect others' opinions. (Oh, now I just sound cold and hard. Oops! :) )

^ You're putting women in one camp yourself.

Considering our species has been around long before any biblical stories, I'm not going to allow that any power over my life. However I would say that I agree with women being mothers is a natural course of life, but not every woman has to do that.

Although I'd say I take bigger issue with "men cultivating the land" they're/we're destroying it! We'd do better to leave it alone.

I think its a good basis really Ella, but I don't think that roles in a relationship should be set out by gender. Thats where it becomes more devisive than unifying which creates problems in a relationship.

Anyone expecting me to do something simply because I am the woman, is a problem in my view. I do not wash the dishes or the laundry, because I'm a woman and thats my job. That's ridiculous.
On the other hand, I don't expect my significant other to go out and work the land because thats his job as man, thats just as sexist and overall, negative.

I do however feel that each person in a relationship setting, as you reference definitely needs to take on roles in a relationship. I just, personally, don't think that those roles should be decided by gender, but by who fills those roles more effectively.
In the most optimum circumstances one person will be a breadwinner while the other is a homemaker. (rare these days but we're looking at optimum) I don't think it should matter though who fills the role of breadwinner and who fills the role as homemaker.